The man arrived home after a hard day at work and found his wife fatally wounded, lying on the floor. Suddenly, the apparent murder appears out of nowhere and in a bid to escape, struggles with the man. Unable to stop the murderer, who escapes, the innocent man is then lead on a series of unfortunate events, eventually seeing him being convicted of murder in order to collect on a lucrative insurance policy. As he is being transported to jail for life, an accident occurs, and the man is freed. The man then spends the next weeks of his life in attempt to discover who the one armed man was, and why his wife was killed. That’s right, this is the plot for the 1993 movie “The Fugative”. In that movie, Dr. Kimble, played by Harrison Ford, follows a trail of clues that eventually lead him to discover that a big pharmaceutical company had been behind everything and had attempted to silence the him, simply because his research had shown that the new pill being released by the big pharma company would be unsafe, thus leading to the company losing money. And this all takes place as a Federal Marshall is pursuing Dr. Kimble, since he is not only a convicted criminal, but now is an escapee as well. At the end of the day, the Dr. proves his innocence and the Federal authorities are able to arrest the bad guys and all the wrongs are righted. But does it work that way in real life?
This week was packed tight with news. It all started off when the House Intelligence committee held a widely anticipated hearing featuring none other than FBI Director James Comey and the head of the NSA, Mike Rogers. The two men were grilled for hours, with both the Republican and Democrat sides taking turns trying to spin the narrative. Who knew what when and how things all went down were part and parcel to the debacle, with each side hoping to score either political points or get a great soundbite. And score they did, as CNBC reported that — “Comey confirmed for the first time that the agency is investigating Russia's influence on the 2016 U.S. election, including any "links" between Moscow and Trump campaign officials.” Game on!
A little later, upping the ante, as CNN reported — “Comey also said he had no information to support claims by Trump that he was wiretapped by Obama — made in a series of explosive tweets two weeks ago.” Specifically, Comey noted — "I have no information that supports those tweets." He continued by telling the committee, adding that the Justice Department, along with the FBI, had no information to support the allegations. Comey also said that no president could order a wiretapping operation against a specific American citizen.”
Of course, a few days later, as Politico reported — “House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes declared that members of Donald Trump’s transition team, possibly including Trump himself, were under inadvertent surveillance following November’s presidential election.” Although the keyword here is inadvertent, the reality is still the same, they were surveilled by intelligence agencies. Of course, the next question is why, but that is a question for another time. The Chairman did note however that — “…(it) was not related to the FBI’s Russia investigation.” Which of course, is even more interesting, right? How many people were monitoring Trump and how many different reasons do they need? Is he really that nefarious?
Making a long story short, the Tree House Conservative wrote — “Hillary Clinton political operatives manufactured the illusion of a computer connection between Russian entities (financial banks) and the Trump campaign/organization. Those manufactured points of evidence were then passed along to White House entities who used the political intel community (Clapper to Comey) to open an investigation of nothingness – to nowhere. The mere existence of that investigation was then used as the originating point for a series of media intel leaks (the narrative) intended to cloud and damage the Trump campaign/organization. FBI Director James Comey, as head of one of the investigative agencies, became part of that political apparatus. Now, usefulness exhausted and with the media engaged, it’s CYA time all around for the originating entities.” Get that? Essentially, it’s true because someone said something, and because someone took the time to say something, it is true!
However, lost in all of this Russia hacking the election talk is one thing- that of the mysterious death of Seth Rich. A local news website, WJLA, recently wrote that — “Twenty-seven-year-old Seth Rich was shot and killed July 10 in the Bloomingdale neighborhood of Washington, DC. Eight months later still no arrest and now GOP Lobbyist Jack Burkman and a team of private investigators want to take a crack at solving it. Jack Burkman said "I don't know how you can call this a robbery. Shot twice in the back. Gold chain around his neck. Watch, wallet no money taken. No credit cards taken." So, who was Seth Rich?
The Daily mail wrote that — “At the time of his death, Seth Rich was working as a data analyst for the DNC.” In fact, he was in charge of all the tech guys and a whole technical aspect of voting at the DNC. He was the avant-garde of tech.” That’s right. Apparently, this guy was smart and he would be in the know, if something shady were to be happening behind the scenes. But what could that be?
The Huffington Post wrote that — On July 22, 2016 WikiLeaks released around 20,000 emails apparently from top DNC officials, illustrating that Democratic officials favored Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders. The email release, only days away from the Democratic Primary, shed light into potential election fraud and questions regarding how Clinton won the presumptive Democratic nomination.” That’s right. Seth was killed on July 10, and nearly two weeks later, emails that showed that top Democrats were actively working against their base appeared.
A few weeks later, on August 9, as the Daily Mail wrote — “WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange floated the idea that Rich was an informant for his organization, telling a Dutch TV show: ‘Whistle blowers often take very significant efforts to bring us material and often at very significant risks. There’s a 27-year-old who works for the DNC and who was shot in the back, murdered, just a few weeks ago, for unknown reasons as he was walking down the streets in Washington.’ WikiLeaks offered a $20,000 reward for information leading to a conviction in Rich's murder but later clarifies in a Twitter post that they always protect the anonymity of their sources.” Curious, right?
And what about the other guy, Craig Murray? The Daily Mail wrote — “Ex-British ambassador who is now a WikiLeaks operative claims Russia did NOT provide Clinton emails — they were handed over to him at a DC park by an intermediary for 'disgusted' Democratic whistleblowers.” The article goes on to note-“Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and a close associate of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, said that he flew to Washington, DC for a clandestine hand-off with one of the email sources.” Specifically, he noted that — 'Neither of the leaks came from the Russians. The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks.' He continued by noting —'…the leakers were motivated by 'disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders.'
While the Democrats continue to push the narrative that Russia somehow hacked the US Presidential election, which may or not be true to some extent, others are beginning to ask where this is going and what it really means. Immediately after the House Intelligence committee hearing earlier this week, Tucker Carlson, the hottest new show on Fox, asked his guest — “So we were attacked by Russia, so the real question is: ‘How do we respond?’ So let’s get specific. Do you think we should we use long-range or short-range ICBMS?” Of course, his guest, Democratic Rep. Eric Swalwell, didn’t really have an answer, and he quickly mumbled long range sanctions and political mumbo jumbo. Because that is where the state of America is unable to talk about the real issues at hand. That Barack Obama destroyed the Democrat Party and that Hillary Clinton was an uninspiring candidate that spoke at people, not to them.
So, what do you think dear listeners — “Who was Seth Rich?”
We'd love to get your feedback at radio@sputniknews.com
Have you heard the news? Sign up to our Telegram channel and we'll keep you up to speed!
