Skip to main content

Seth Conrad Rich: Is the trail to his murderers really dead?

Is the trail officially dead, or will Seth Conrad Rich,  a former employee of the DNC, rise from the dead to finger his murderers?

By now, many have probably forgotten who Seth Conrad Rich was: Those who have followed my posts and Facebook comments  may recall my angst that the Conrad’s murderers were not being investigated. That neither the FBI nor anyone else seemed to take the case seriously. They blew off the case as a robbery gone awry, although from the evidence it appeared he had not been robbed: He was shot in the back and left to die, and the single most important, potential source of information about the motive — his computer — was hardly mentioned, if mentioned at all, by the press. Why did it seem that nobody was interested in retrieving and examining that computer for evidence?

Here is some of what we know about Rich:

  • Seth was “a source” for Wikileaks, the outfit that leaked Hillary Clinton’s emails and the so-called “Pedestal emails”
  • Many of us believe Rich was a Wikileaks source because Julian Assange said so.
  • Said leaks may have cost Clinton the 1016 Presidential election. 
  • Rich likely had access to confidential DNC information.
  • Julian Assange of Wikileaks noted that “our sources” face grave risks, with apparent reference to Seth Conrad Rich.
  • So far as I know, law enforcement did not go after Rich’s computer looking for evidence or motives for his murder. 
  • Nobody to date seems to be able to say definitively where Rich’s computer is now, though some of us believe the computer likely holds the missing keys to resolve the murder case. Beyond this, the Podesta emails suggest how desperate the DNC may have been to shut up the leakers, as evidenced below. 
The following email conversation went back and forth among higher ups in the Democratic Party back in February, 2015, and is now raising eyebrows: Could this lingering wisp trace back to the murderers?

Joel Beneson
On Feb 21, 2015, at 10:12 PM, Joel Benenson wrote:

But this is by far the most damaging story and most damaging type of
story we can have.

The press will love writing these. I did when I was a reporter.

I think we need a paradigm shift in how this world operates we have to convince  HRC and probably WJC that her meeting with 200 people doesn’t help her. Hiring corporate wizards has never been a successful strategy in campaigns.  And anyone whose name is in the paper 48 hours after they meet with her needs to be cut off completely from her campaign. .

Almost everyone on this team that has been assembled has been busting their tail to make this work and to work against this kind of stuff and it’s going to get demoralizing in a hurry.

I’m open to all and any alternatives on how to truly solve this but I really feel that when she is back from CA we have to solve this.



John Podesta to Joel Beneson

Podesta apparently responded on Sunday, February 22, 2015  as follows (with a cc to Robby Look): 


I generally agree with the point, but we need a strategy on this that goes beyond internal discipline. This story could have been written without any of these big mouths blabbing. The mere involvement of Wendy gave them license to write this. The only thing in the story that indicated that someone on the inside was talking was the reference to the H, although one of Peter Sealey's big clients is Coke so we probably know where that came from. We can and should try to shut this down, but it is going to be tough until we get to a point where someone can actually talk on behalf of the campaign. One particular challenge is Spence. He's worked with them for 40 years. He's like Harold Ickes-Reporters will think he's inside even if he's not. We need a strategy to enable people who are real and disable those  that aren't.


Joel Benneson to John Podesta

On Feb 22, 2015, at 5:56 PM, Joel Benenson wrote back to Podesta.


We are in massive agreement that we need a strategy and process now to enable and disable as you say and I think this is worth spending some time making it practicable.  I would strongly recommend either one of you or both talking with Plouffe about he and Axe created that culture from the start in 07.

Here are some thoughts but I realize this topic will take a dedicated conversation to figure out what will work.

I do believe that this starts with alignment on our campaign culture and a paradigm shift in the old Clinton M.O.   I know HRC believes the more people you talk to the better but it simply isn’t.  Especially for her. We really need to tighten who she talks to and make sure that Huma/schedulers route most people through high level folks on the campaign so that they are being listened to.

I think Robby rightly says that a lot of our leaks are coming through job searches we’re doing.  I think every conversation has to either begin or end by telling people if you’re name appears in print as a result of the conversations the job is off the table.

I think we have to make examples now of people who have violated the trust of HRC and the rest of the team.  People going forward need to know there are stiff consequences for leaking, self-promotion, unauthorized talking with the press.  No one – literally no one talked to the press in either Obama campaign without clearing it with campaign brass.


John Podesta replies via iPad

On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 6:12 PM, John Podesta < wrote:

Agree. Happy to talk to the David's. Call me crazy, but I think if we can survive the next month, it will be possible, maybe even straightforward to get our arms around this once there is an actual campaign.  I'm definitely for making an example of a suspected leaker whether or not we have any real basis for it.

Robby Look 

Mook finishes conversation with this on Sunday, February 22, 2015 at 21:20 (9:20 PM)

Subject: Wash Post story — Sorry to write this on a Saturday night.

I agree--when we have press staff, this will be MUCH easier.
And I would love an example being made.

From the above, it seems clear they are talking about making an example of someone, but would they go so far as to murder one of their own for leaking information to Wikileaks? Some people on Facebook seem convinced that they would, and that the above email strand is with reference to the murder of Seth Conrad Rich. I certainly would like to know the fuller context of this: Who some of these players are, how they explain what they were discussing here, what was happening on these particular dates etc. 

Wish I could have more to say but that’s about it for now. Please keep your eyes and ears open and let me know if you find something out, some major breakthrough on the case of Seth Conrad Rich. Thanks. 

Note: I just saw this comment on Facebook by Sarah Metcalf who wrote: "This email exchange is a normal, innocuous one about an unintended leak -- one that seemed major to these people at the time but which we now can't remember at all -- & how to control information & message better. It has nothing to do with Seth Rich.” 

If Metcalf’s argument is true, that would answer one of the questions I posted above. However, it would be a better argument if someone actually remembered what they were talking about, since it seemed so major at the time. 

In yet another post, I read that Rich’s computer reportedly has been examined by police. I have yet to confirm that. If anybody has a ling to that information with evidence, please let me know. Thanks. 

#podesta #emails #sethconradrich #murder #politics #FEL


Popular posts from this blog

8 Facts About the Circle of Fifths that you May Not Already Know

I love all child refugees but … where will the money come from? Part III

Quote from a Facebook friend: “Much as my heart breaks for the children who want to come here because circumstances are better … circumstances will not be better here if we allow more people to live here than we can afford to support.” So says one of my Facebook friends.

Green Party is not red, is not blue, is not the oligarchy.

Green  (Is not  Red   is not   Blue ) Kennewick, Washington  Political Opinion By Frank Ellsworth Lockwood Some people have been pushing the notion that if you are a member of the Green Party you should vote for a Democratic, but there is another side to this argument. If you are a Green, then you are no more a Democrat than a Republican is. Green is for things that the Red and Blue oppose: While Green Party is for peaceful coexistence, Republicans and Democrats have supported wars-for-profit for all of my life. (I am 75; they will not be changing any time soon.) Green is for live and let live, while Red and Blue are about greed and conniving, and this is no exaggeration when both of the above have always supported the overthrow of democratically elected socialist governments, replacing them with puppet governments, dictators and tyrants who practiced suppression-for-profit. Green is for racial and economic equality as well as for recognition of tribal rights. Our 2016 Pre