Why Does the NSA Have 32 Pages of Top Secret Documents on Seth Rich
Why Does the NSA Have 32 Pages of Top Secret Documents on Seth Rich?
Most people probably missed this intriguing blogpost by Publius Tacitus which appeared yesterday.:
Although this provides a good summary of what is currently known about the Seth Rich case, the intriguing new info in it is this:
“But now there is new information that may corroborate what the human sources quoted in the Fox article claimed about Seth’s role in getting the DNC documents to Wikileaks. Borne from a FOIA request filed in November 2017 by attorney Ty Clevenger, who requested any information regarding Seth Rich and Julian Assange. The NSA informed Clevenger in a letter dated 4 October 2018 that:
Your request has been processed under the provisions of the FOIA. Fifteen documents (32 pages) responsive to your request have been reviewed by this Agency as required by the FOIA and have found to be currently and properly classified in accordance with Executive Order 13526. These documents meet the criteria for classification as set forth in Subparagraph © of Section 1.4 and remains classified TOP SECRET and SECRET.
If NSA had come back and said, “No, we do not have anything pertaining to Seth Rich,” that would have been news. It would have been especially unwelcome news for those who believe that Seth was the source on the DNC emails. But now the opposite is true. The NSA says that it has documents that are classified TS and S. What do those documents say or prove? That remains to be seen.”
Although the letter cited here was dated October 4th, I had not seen any previous news about this, nor could I find this cited elsewhere on the web. When I and others queried the author (in the Comments section) about his source for this info, he responded:
“The source is the letter that the lawyer, Ty Clevenger, received from the NSA. I have seen the letter.”
Presumably Publius Tacitus knows Clevenger.
So the key question is this: why does the NSA have 32 pages of secret or top secret documents (which of course they refuse to release) pertinent to Seth Rich and Julian Assange?
The Deep State expects us to believe that Russian agents (presumably “Guccifer 2.0”) hacked the DNC and provided Wikileaks with the DNC emails they subsequently published. Hence, there would be no reason to think that Seth Rich was ever in touch with Wikileaks, and the NSA couldn’t have captured any correspondence between Seth and Wikileaks officials. Moreover, the FBI was at pains to deny rumors that they had examined Seth’s laptop soon after the murder. Though they didn’t say that specifically — rather, they said that they were not investigating the Seth Rich murder , as the FBI does not investigate murders. (After which the MSM had a good laugh at the absurd Seth Rich “conspiracy theorists”.)
However,.what if the FBI was investigating Rich for espionage — rather than probing his murder? The FBI did not flatly state that they had not looked at his laptop.
The Fox News report — withdrawn at the insistence of the Murdochs — which prompted public concern about Seth’s laptop, was evidently based on info which Sy Hersh supplied to Ed Butowsky in a phone call that Butowsky secretly recorded:
Although Hersh has refused to go public with this story (he likely has only one source for it), he had an opportunity to state that he had been BSing Butowsky — but refused to do so. Which likely means he was being honest when he told Butowsky about a source inside the FBI, considered highly reliable by Hersh, who described to Hersh seeing an FBI memo regarding an FBI analysis of Seth’s laptop. That analysis indicated that Seth had arranged with Gavin Macfayden of Wikileaks to provide DNC emails to Wikileaks via drop box in exchange for a payment.
Another pertinent issue has recently caught my attention. There is strong reason to suspect that Guccifer 2.0, far from being a Russian intelligence agent, is a Deep State creation meant to establish the hoax that Russian hackers were the source of the Wikileaks DNC releases.
Yet it is clear that, as of June 15th, 2016, when G2.0 made his first appearance, he was aware that Wikileaks was planning to release DNC emails. On June 12th, Assange announced that Wikileaks would soon release “upcoming leaks in relation to Hillary Clinton”; he never mentioned the DNC. But, soon thereafter, Crowdstrike indicated that the DNC had been hacked, and Guccifer 2.0 claimed that he was the hacker, and had provided Wikileaks with DNC emails which he had purloined. This suggests strongly to me that both Crowdstrike and G2.0 (possibly one and the same?) had been tipped off by elements of the Deep State that DNC emails had been transferred to Wikileaks.
Since the NSA has ominiscient ability to intercept electronic communications, what is the chance that they weren’t carefully monitoring communications to and from the principals of Wikileaks — including Gavin Macfayden? If they were doing such monitoring, then they would have intercepted Seth’s offer to provide the DNC emails in a drop box to Macfayden. And this finding could then have been conveyed to the DNC. Almost as soon as Assange had confirmed that new material related to Hillary Clinton was soon to be released, the DNC and Crowdstrike quickly deduced that leaked DNC emails would soon be made public. And to distract attention from the incriminating content of the emails, they hit on the clever stratagem of “proving” that Russian intelligence hackers, bent on Hillary’s destruction, were the actual source of the emails. Almost as soon as Crowdstrike’s claim that Russian intelligence had hacked the DNC was made public, G2.0 popped up to claim that he was the hacker, and had provided his trove to Wikileaks. To prove his hacking credentials, he released a Trump Opposition Research document — cited by Crowdstrike the day before as having been taken by the hackers from the DNC — on which he had intentionally placed “Russian fingerprints” in the meta-data that he knew would lead cybersleuths to conclude that he was Russian. (The only small problem with this charade is that we now know that the opposition research document had been a file attachment to the Podesta emails; apparently we are dealing here with another “gang that can’t shoot straight”.)
If the NSA had unmasked Seth as the source of the DNC leak, and had provided this info to the DNC, this might be quite pertinent to Seth subsequent murder. (And possibly also the mysterious death of Seth’s confederate Shawn Lucas.) Although the Deep State could be confident that Assange wouldn’t reveal his source for the DNC emails, Seth Rich would have been in a position to destroy the Guccifer 2.0 hoax — as long as he was alive.
You’ll note that the alleged FBI analysis of Seth’s laptop claims that Seth had indicated he had friends who were aware of his drop box. One of these friends might have been Shawn Lucas, the process server for the lawsuit against the DNC. About a month after Seth’s murder, Lucas died mysteriously of a drug overdose involving multiple potent drugs. Quite a mysterious death for someone not known to abuse drugs. It has also been pointed out that the DNC made large payments to Crowdstrike the day after the murders of both Seth and Shawn. Sheer coincidence? Maybe.
Okay, so maybe Sy Hersh’s trusted source is actually just a lunatic, and there was no FBI investigation of Seth’s laptop. And maybe Seth never made any effort to contact Wikileaks, and the NSA therefore had no need to intercept his non-existent communications with that organization.
Which however then leaves us with the question: Why does the NSA have 32 pages of documents, marked Secret and Top Secret, pertinent to Seth Rich and Wikileaks?
Perhaps those who will be quick to deride this essay as “conspiracy theory” will have a clever answer for this. And will they also be eager for those NSA documents to be declassified and released, so that my crackpot suspicions can be put to rest? Perhaps I shouldn’t hold my breath.
Emerson Collective Founder and President Laurene Powell Jobs speaks onstage during TechCrunch Disrupt SF 2017 at Pier 48 on Sept. 20, 2017 in San Francisco, California.Steve Jennings
Jamal Khashoggi’s disappearance has become a litmus test for business leaders.
The allegation that Khashoggi, a Saudi journalist who wrote for The Washington Post, was brutally murdered at the hands of Saudi officials has forced executives to reckon with their ties to the Arab kingdom. Some, like Virgin Group founder Richard Branson, have suspended business dealings there. Several, including JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon, have backed out of the high-profile Future Investment Initiative conference in Riyadh.
For others, like Laurene Powell Jobs, the founder of the powerful philanthropic investment group Emerson Collective, which owns a majority stake in The Atlantic, the ties are more nuanced — and perhaps more complicated.
Powell Jobs does not have business dealings with Saudi Arabia. She was never scheduled to attend the Future Investment Initiative. But one of her closest aides at Emerson, Michael Klein, is a highly influential power broker for the Saudi kingdom and its U.S. investments.
Klein, a Wall Street rainmaker and former Citigroup executive, is a managing partner at Emerson and helps manage the company's business, which includes investments in a variety of media properties such as Axios and OZY Media in addition to its majority stake in The Atlantic. Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, declined to comment.
Klein, who runs his own boutique investing firm, M. Klein & Company, is also a top adviser to the Saudi kingdom's Public Investment Fund and a key conduit between Saudi Arabia and the U.S. business community, according to multiple people who know him and are familiar with his business. They asked not to be identified so as not to jeopardize their relationships to Klein or Emerson.
Powell Jobs has known Klein since college, even before she met her husband Steve Jobs, the late Apple co-founder and CEO. In addition to handling business affairs for Emerson, those familiar with Klein describe him as an informal adviser to Powell Jobs.
"He’s kind of the final voice in Laurene’s ear," said one source with knowledge of their relationship.
A spokesperson for Emerson declined to comment on the ties.
OCT. 14, 201801:54
Klein is hardly the only Wall Street powerbroker to work with Saudi Arabia. But he may be the only one to serve at an organization like Emerson. While other media organizations, including The New York Times, CNBC, Bloomberg and Financial Times, have backed out of the Future Investment Initiative due to Khashoggi's disappearance, Klein has played a key role in bringing the annual summit together. Some sources described him as the event's unofficial "organizer."
Ahead of last year's inaugural summit, Klein advised Saudi Arabia on its $20 billion investment in a U.S. infrastructure fund managed by Blackstone, which was one of the main draws of the first FII conference. Sources familiar with that event say Klein also helped bring business leaders and Wall Street power brokers to Riyadh that year, and was at the center of all the action.
A spokesperson for Klein declined to say whether he is still planning to attend this year's conference and said he was not an organizer of this year's event or last year's event, nor does he sit on any of this year’s event advisory boards.
Klein also has a relationship with Saudi oil giant Aramco through his advisory work for Dow Chemical, and sources said he advised Aramco on restructuring for a planned IPO that was expected to be the biggest IPO in world history. The plan was called off earlier this year when the wealth fund decided to sell a stake of the petrochemicals maker Saudi Basic Industries Corp. to Aramco — a deal Klein was also brought in to advise on.
For Klein, as for many bankers and business leaders, Khashoggi’s disappearance forces an uncomfortable question: Whether it is acceptable to keep doing business with the Saudi kingdom if — as Turkish officials allege — the kingdom sent 15 officials into the country to kill Khashoggi and dispose of his body.
For Powell Jobs, it may force a different sort of question: Whether it is acceptable to do business with a man — a friend — even if he is working with the perpetrators of that alleged murder.