FBI Deborah Sines Michael Isikoff: Who is lying?, Sines stated “no connection between Seth and WikiLeaks” after conferring with FBI?, Attorney Ty Clevenger challenge
“The FBI clearly has records pertaining to Seth Rich, and it has withheld those
records in bad faith.”…Attorney Ty Clevenger October 11, 2019
Mueller, as a matter of determined policy, omitted key steps which any honest investigator would undertake. He did not commission any forensic examination of the DNC servers. He did not interview Bill Binney. He did not interview Julian Assange. His failure to do any of those obvious things renders his report worthless.”…Craig Murray
“We are being lied to on a scale unimaginable by George Orwell.”…Citizen Wells
US Attorney Deborah Sines
Somebody(s) is lying.
“anything that gives or is meant to give a false impression.”
From a Michael Isikoff report July 9, 2019.
“To me, having a foreign intelligence agency set up one of my decedents with lies and planting false stories, to me that’s pretty outrageous,” said Deborah Sines, the former assistant U.S. attorney in charge of the Rich case until her retirement last year.”
“The conspiracy claims reached their zenith in May 2017 — the same week as Mueller’s appointment as special counsel in the Russia probe — when Fox News’ website posted a sensational story claiming that an FBI forensic report had discovered evidence on Rich’s laptop that he had been in communication with WikiLeaks prior to his death.”
“In fact, the Fox story was a “complete fabrication,” said Sines, who consulted with the FBI about the Fox News claims. There was “no connection between Seth and WikiLeaks.”
The following questions demand an answer:
- Did Sines state “no connection between Seth and WikiLeaks”?
- Did Sines arrive at that conclusion after consulting with the FBI?
- Was there a FBI forensic report with evidence on Rich’s laptop that he had been in communication with WikiLeaks prior to his death.?
- Was there other evidence or other FBI investigations into Seth Rich’s contact with WikiLeaks?
We deserve answers and Attorney Ty Clevenger is seeking them.
MOTION TO COMPEL FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION TO
COMPLY WITH SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM
Filed by Attorney Ty Clevenger on October 11, 2019.
“1. The FBI clearly has records pertaining to Seth Rich, and it has withheld those records in bad faith.”
“In August of 2019, Michael Isikoff of Yahoo!News published the fifth episode of
“Conspiracyland,” a podcast series about the murder of Seth Rich, and in that episode he interviewed former Asst. U.S. Attorney Deborah Sines. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia had assigned Ms. Hines to investigate the murder of Mr. Rich, and a full copy of the interview can be found at https://tunein.com/podcasts/News–
Politics-Podcasts/Conspiracyland-p1231856/?topicId=132591823. In Episode 5, Mr. Isikoff discussed a Fox News report that the FBI had copies of communications between Seth Rich and Wikileaks:
Isikoff: “As soon as she heard the [Fox News] story, Sines reached out to the FBI.”
Sines: “Of course I did. Of course I did.”
Isikoff: “And what did they tell you?”
Sines: “No. No connection between Seth and Wikileaks. And there was no
evidence on his work computer of him downloading and disseminating things
from the DNC.”
Isikoff: “As it turned out, there was one sliver of truth in the Fox story. The FBI
had been examining Seth’s computer, not for any ties to the DNC emails or
Wikileaks, but because they saw unusual activity by a foreign hacker after his
Sines: “There were allegations that someone, maybe more than one person, was
trying to invade Seth’s Gmail account and set up a separate account after Seth was murdered, and the FBI was looking into that. I presumed they were trying to
create a fake Gmail account or get into Seth’s Gmail account so they could dump
false information in there.”
Isikoff: “So just to be clear, the FBI had only investigated an attempt to hack into
Seth Rich’s email when they saw activity after he died. When we contacted the
Bureau’s Washington Field Office, a spokesperson said it had never opened an
investigation into the DNC staffer’s death, pointing out that the FBI had no
jurisdiction over local crimes. Andrew McCabe, the Bureau’s acting director at
the time, told us something else. He had personally reached out to his agents
when he heard the Seth Rich conspiracy stories and was informed there was
nothing to them. There was no ‘there’ there, McCabe said he was told.” (emphasis added).
Transcript of Excerpt, Conspiracyland, Episode 5 (emphasis added).2
In other words, Mr. Hardy’s claim that the FBI had no records about Seth Rich was false. And the fact that the FBI refused to search in CART, the place where responsive records most likely would be found, is strong evidence of bad faith.”
From the US Justice Department response to Attorney Ty Clevenger’s motion:
“Defendants’ fully briefed motion for summary judgment and opposition to Plaintiff’s motion to enjoin compliance or permit discovery were filed on October 1, 2019. Dkt. ##33-42; see Dkt. #32. On October 8, 2019, Plaintiff filed the instant motion concerning one of the two responses by the FBI to his FOIA requests that still remain at issue.1 Despite the FBI having amply demonstrated that it conducted searches reasonably designed to locate responsive records if any existed, Plaintiff persists in maintaining that the FBI must have
records concerning a deceased individual, Seth Conrad Rich (“Rich”), and that he should be permitted to conduct discovery related to his FOIA request. Dkt. #44 at 3-4. In addition, Plaintiff asks this Court to conduct an evidentiary hearing and compel the attendance of David Hardy (the FBI declarant and Section Chief of the FBI Record/Information Management Division) and “the CART chief” as witnesses. Dkt. #44 at 4.”
“In conclusion, Plaintiff has not shown bad faith on the part of the FBI that would warrant discovery or provide tangible evidence that summary judgment in favor of Defendants is otherwise appropriate. Accordingly, the Court should deny Plaintiff’s motion to supplement and his request that the Court permit him to conduct discovery.”