Quote:

On May 18, 2017, Kim Dotcom proposed that if Congress includes the Seth Rich investigation in their Russia probe, he would provide written testimony with evidence that Seth Rich was WikiLeaks' source.

---

Kim Dotcom said:

Special Counsel Mueller is not interested in my evidence. My lawyers wrote to him twice. He never replied.

---

Why wouldn't the DOJ be interested in this?  Is Kim just making the whole thing up? 

koods said:

They know who hacked the servers. The identity of the courier is not that important.

---

koods said:

In addition to the forensic evidence they have from the hacks themselves, there is the fact that other  people knew about the hacking operation BEFORE it was discovered, including Donald trump who was told in March that Russians had hacked emails.  Christopher Steele also reported that his contacts had told him about the hacks in his dossier.

---

shivas.wisdom said:

Is there any reason to assume Kim Dotcom would be involved/ have insider information? Without further corroboration, Occam's razor leads me to assume Dotcom is just making shit up.

---

shivas.wisdom said:

Why not just release the proof if the authorities are ignoring him?

---

Ya, that's a fair point.  That's why I asked "Is Kim just making the whole thing up?  "

I just found it odd that the DOJ wasn't interested in what he had to say.

krypto2000 said:

Why do you keep entertaining the possibility of another hacker obtaining the emails as well? That just seems odd to me, there's no reason to believe that be the case. It is as though someone burgled your home, stole your jewely and tv, they catch a burgaler with video evidence leaving your house with the jewelry but no surveillance of the TV so you say, "well, maybe someone unrelated entity also burgled me and stole the tv." Does that seem reasonable?

---

koods said:

The DNC hacks spanned over a year. If Seth Rich was interested in exposing an unfair bias against Sanders, then why would he have waited until it was too late.  In fact, you can apply that logic to whomever leaked the emails. If they were about transparency, then they would have been released while the info still had a chance to change the outcome. Clearly the hacks and leaks were intended to damage Clinton in the general election.

---

koods said:

Wiki leaks is no longer about transparency. They used their resources to defeat Hillary Clinton. Assange has a personal vendetta, and he sold his credibility and reputation make it happen. They are intentionally muddying the waters to create confusion and feed conspiracy theories.

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

krypto2000 said:

Why do you keep entertaining the possibility of another hacker obtaining the emails as well? That just seems odd to me, there's no reason to believe that be the case. It is as though someone burgled your home, stole your jewely and tv, they catch a burgaler with video evidence leaving your house with the jewelry but no surveillance of the TV so you say, "well, maybe someone unrelated entity also burgled me and stole the tv." Does that seem reasonable?

---

No that doesn't seem reasonable, but that's a bad analogy.  We know hackers exist all over the world, including the United States, and we know hackers are always trying to hack into whatever they can.  We're not monitoring the activity of every potential hacker in the world to see what they're up to, but the Dutch DID monitor the Russian University and caught them hacking the DNC server.

So a better analogy might be "If you carefully monitored one group of people and found they committed a crime, is it therefore reasonable to assume that other people you weren't monitoring didn't commit a similar crime?

---

krypto2000 said:

The source of the hack was traced to a phishing attack which gained access into podestas email though, there was only one source found, and it was tied directly to cozybear. To expand it to the break in analogy it's as though you had a key hidden under your mat, it's missing, and later found in the jewelry guy's possession. If you had two keys missing, found a window also jimmied open, or something to that effect then it would be reasonable to start asking if there were multiple break ins and if someone else took the TV.

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

krypto2000 said:

The source of the hack was traced to a phishing attack which gained access into podestas email though, there was only one source found, and it was tied directly to cozybear. To expand it to the break in analogy it's as though you had a key hidden under your mat, it's missing, and later found in the jewelry guy's possession. If you had two keys missing, found a window also jimmied open, or something to that effect then it would be reasonable to start asking if there were multiple break ins and if someone else took the TV.

---

But that's NOT the only way the emails could have been hacked.  There might have been someone on the inside involved, for example.

Perhaps the more important point is this:  if someone provided more transparency to US voters, isn't that a good thing?

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

krypto2000 said:

The source of the hack was traced to a phishing attack which gained access into podestas email though, there was only one source found, and it was tied directly to cozybear. To expand it to the break in analogy it's as though you had a key hidden under your mat, it's missing, and later found in the jewelry guy's possession. If you had two keys missing, found a window also jimmied open, or something to that effect then it would be reasonable to start asking if there were multiple break ins and if someone else took the TV.

---

But that's NOT the only way the emails could have been hacked.  There might have been someone on the inside involved, for example.

Perhaps the more important point is this:  if someone provided more transparency to US voters, isn't that a good thing?

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

koods said:

Wiki leaks is no longer about transparency. They used their resources to defeat Hillary Clinton. Assange has a personal vendetta, and he sold his credibility and reputation make it happen. They are intentionally muddying the waters to create confusion and feed conspiracy theories.

---

"They're not supporting my theory, therefore they MUST be biased!"

That's now how WikiLeaks works, my friend.

---