Seth Rich leaked DNC data proof, Recent FBI court filing in Huddleston v FBI reveals and hides involvement and backs up Seymour Hersh statement July 11, 2017
” So why would a “street robbery” investigation need to be classified?”…Attorney Ty Clevenger July 22, 2020
Seth Rich leaked DNC data proof, Recent FBI court filing in Huddleston v FBI reveals and hides involvement and backs up Seymour Hersh statement July 11, 2017
Seymour Hersh
“Hersh first gained recognition in 1969 for exposing the My Lai Massacre and its cover-up during the Vietnam War, for which he received the 1970 Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting. During the 1970s, Hersh covered the Watergate scandal for The New York Times and revealed the clandestine bombing of Cambodia. In 2004, he reported on the U.S. military's mistreatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib prison. He has also won two National Magazine Awards and five George Polk Awards. In 2004, he received the George Orwell Award.”
Seymour Hersh statement from July 11, 2017.
“What I know comes off an FBI Report … The kid [Seth Rich was] … a nice boy,
twenty-seven. He was not an IT expert, but he learned stuff. He was a data
programmer … Here’s what nobody knows … when you have a death like that,
DC cops … have to get to the kid’s apartment and see what you can find … so
they get a warrant … They go in the house and they can’t do much with his
computer … They have a cyber unit in DC, and they’re more sophisticated. They
come and look at it. The idea is that maybe he’s had a series of exchanges with
somebody who’s said ‘I’m going to kill you, you motherfucker’ … and they can’t
get in … So, they call the FBI cyber unit. The DC … Washington Field Office is
a hot shit unit … There’s a cyber unit there that’s excellent … The Feds get
through and here’s what they find. This is according to the FBI Report … What
the Report says is that sometime in late Spring … early Summer, he [Seth Rich]
makes contact with WikiLeaks. That’s in his computer … They found what he
had done. He had submitted a series of documents … juicy emails from the DNC
… He [Seth Rich] offered a sample, an extensive sample … of emails, and said I
want money. Later, WikiLeaks did get the password. He had a … protected
dropbox … He also, and this is in the FBI Report, he also let people know with
whom he was dealing … The word was passed, according to the FBI Report, ‘I
also shared this box with a couple of friends, so if anything happens to me, it’s not
going to solve your problems’ … WikiLeaks got access before he was killed.”
From Huddleston v FBI
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
filed December 15, 2021
“In total, the FBI processed a total of 1,596 pages of responsive records subject to the FOIA. 7 Of the 1,596 pages processed, the FBI released 118 pages in part, released nine (9) pages in full, and withheld 1,469 pages in full pursuant to applicable FOIA Exemptions or as duplicates to material reviewed and processed elsewhere in the productions provided to Plaintiff.8 In addition, the FBI reviewed and marked 196 pages of consulted records it received from OIP. The consulted material was returned to OIP for further handling and inclusion in its releases to be provided to Plaintiff.”
“Both the FBI and OIP carefully examined the documents and determined the information withheld from Plaintiff in this case, if disclosed, would reveal, respective to each Exemption, classified information, statutorily protected information, confidential trade secrets and commercial information, and privileged information; could reasonably be expected to interfere with pending or prospective enforcement proceedings; would cause a clearly unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy, or could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; could reasonably be expected to disclose the identities of confidential sources and the information they provided; and would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations.”
“C. SUMMARY OF EXEMPTIONS
1. Exemption 1: Classified Information Exemption
1 protects from disclosure those records that are (a) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive Order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or foreign policy; and (b) are in fact properly classified pursuant to such Executive Order. 5 U.S.C. §552 (b)(1). Executive Order 13526 (“E.O. 13526”) is the current controlling executive order applicable to the protection of national security information. The FBI determined that all of the substantive, procedural, and administrative requirements set forth in E.O. 13526 were satisfied and concluded that the information protected pursuant to Exemption 1 was properly classified, continues to warrant classification at the “Secret” level, and is exempt from disclosure pursuant to E.O. 13526 § 1.4(c) - “intelligence activities (including covert action), intelligence sources or methods, or cryptology;” E.O. 13526 § 1.4 (d) - “foreign relations or foreign activities;” E.O. 13526 § 3.3(b)(1) - “intelligence sources and methods;” and E.O. 13526 § 3.3(b)(6) - “foreign government information.” [4th Seidel Declaration, ¶¶76-93].”
“CONCLUSION
The FBI and OIP carefully examined the documents and determined the information withheld from Plaintiff in this case, if disclosed would reveal classified information; would reveal statutorily protected information; would reveal confidential trade secrets and commercial information; would reveal privileged information; could reasonably be expected to interfere with pending or prospective enforcement proceedings; would cause a clearly unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy, or could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; could reasonably be expected to disclose the identities of confidential sources and the information they provided; and would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations.”
” So why would a “street robbery” investigation need to be classified?”…Attorney Ty Clevenger July 22, 2020
U.S. Supreme Court has stated that"circumstantial evidence is intrinsically no different from testimonial [direct] evidence"(Holland v. United States, 348 U.S. 121,75 S. Ct. 127, 99 L. Ed. 150 [1954])
