Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Twitter Social Networks

Judge Orders Twitter To Unmask FBI Impersonator Who Set Off Seth Rich Conspiracy (npr.org) 132

Posted by BeauHD from the conspiracy-theories dept.
AmiMoJo shares a report from NPR: A federal judge in California has ordered that Twitter reveal the identity of an anonymous user who allegedly fabricated an FBI document to spread a conspiracy theory about the killing of Seth Rich, the Democratic National Committee staffer who died in 2016. The ruling could lead to the identification of the person behind the Twitter name @whyspertech. Through that account, the user allegedly provided forged FBI materials to Fox News. The documents falsely linked Rich's killing to the WikiLeaks hack of Democratic Party emails in the lead-up to the 2016 election.

While Twitter fought to keep the user's identity secret, U.S. Magistrate Judge Donna Ryu in Oakland, Calif., ordered on Tuesday that the tech company must turn over the information to attorneys representing Rich's family in a defamation suit by Oct. 20. It is the latest twist in a years-long saga over a conspiracy theory that rocked Washington, caused a grieving family a great deal of pain and set off multiple legal battles. "In a now-retracted story, Fox News falsely claimed that Rich's computer was connected to the leak of Democratic Party emails provided to WikiLeaks, and that Rich's slaying was related to the purported leak," the report adds. "The theory was even debunked in special counsel Robert Mueller's report."

"The Washington Times later reported in 2018 that Rich's brother, Aaron Rich, helped steal the emails in exchange for money from WikiLeaks and that he knew his brother would be killed and did nothing to stop it. None of those allegations are true. That story has also been retracted."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Judge Orders Twitter To Unmask FBI Impersonator Who Set Off Seth Rich Conspiracy More

Judge Orders Twitter To Unmask FBI Impersonator Who Set Off Seth Rich Conspiracy

Comments Filter:

    • Mueller (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Well if Mueller said it was nothingburger, then it must be true. /s

      I don't suppose anyone can post actual information proving it to be "debunked".

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Rhipf ( 525263 )

        INSKEEP: And when you say it's completely debunked, is it correct that even Fox News now acknowledges it's got no evidence of that story?

        ISIKOFF: Yes, Fox News retracted the story within eight days. The Washington police department denied it. The FBI denied it. Deborah Sines, the prosecutor in charge of this case, says it was a complete fabrication. But Joel and Mary Rich, the parents of Seth Rich, told us that, you know, the story did not go away. The pain and anguish for them did not go away. The story continued to circulate. People continued to pump it out in "alt-right" websites. And as Mary Rich told us, this was like losing my son all over again. https://www.npr.org/2019/07/11... [npr.org]

        Not sure if you will consider this "actual information proving it to be "debunked"" but it is what it is.

  • good (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    your right to remain anonymous should end when you are using that as a protection to damage others with false information.
    • Unless, of course, he/she used a VPN. I guess we'll find out when Twitter coughs up the IP address.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Like the anonymous people who claimed Trump bad-mouthed US soldiers? And when people who were actually at the event come out and say that didn't happen, lending their name to the statements instead of skulking in the shadows taking cheap pot shots at people, I'm sure those anonymous sources should be outed and charged, right?

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • And when the email address is fake, the address was routed through a VPN in Hungary, and the actual access point was in a McDonalds in Seattle, I'm sure that they'll realize that all their efforts were justified.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by rednip ( 186217 )

      And when the email address is fake, the address was routed through a VPN in Hungary, and the actual access point was in a McDonalds in Seattle, I'm sure that they'll realize that all their efforts were justified.

      Don't know until you look. Besides how do you know that McDonalds in Seattle isn't a honey pot? It's the only thing which makes sense, why else would they give away access?

      Chances are that the IP address are consistently russian.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Cederic ( 9623 )

        Chances are that the IP address are consistently russian.

        Well, basic anonymity protocols these days suggest routing via Russia purely because you know many investigations will stop there, happy that they've proven Russian collusion.

        More complex anonymity protocols recommend routing to Russia via Northern Cyprus and a vulnerable server in Japan.

  • It's a federal crime. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Gravis Zero ( 934156 ) on Thursday October 08, 2020 @08:17PM (#60586980)

    For those who are unaware, it is a federal crime to impersonate a federal agent. This seems like something that should have already been investigated.

    • Re:It's a federal crime. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by sound+vision ( 884283 ) on Thursday October 08, 2020 @09:41PM (#60587126) Journal

      Who's going to start an investigation - the Justice Department? Those wheels turn slowly in the best of times, but have you seen who's been running it lately? Though they'd love to start opening investigations into journalists' sources, this particular case would be the very last one on the list.
       
      I imagine Rich's family would be told they have no standing to open a case against "John Doe that submitted documents to Fox News." So who did they end up suing? Well, according to TFA... not Doe, not Fox News, and not Twitter either. It looks like three who finally ended up getting sued consist of: (1) a guest on Fox News, (2) a "right-wing activist", and (3) some associated media company. Three different suits. And by throwing all that against the wall, they were finally able to get a subpoena issued to Twitter.
       
      If "the police" (in this case the Justice Department), isn't interesting in pursuing the issue, then yes it does take years and years for this kind of legal wrangling. There are normal people, accused of normal crimes, that sit in jail in excess of a year just floating in limbo waiting for some kind of progress to be made toward a trial.

      • The guy running the justice department doesn't personally run everything, there is plenty of activity behind the scenes that he never hears about.

        • Re:It's a federal crime. (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Mostly a lurker ( 634878 ) on Friday October 09, 2020 @01:48AM (#60587394)

          The guy running the justice department doesn't personally run everything, there is plenty of activity behind the scenes that he never hears about.

          Those doing investigations that the administration does not like are risking their careers. Some are willing to do so, hoping that the current nightmare will end after the November election. However, if Trump wins, you can expect a wholesale purge of those in the Justice Department who are suspected of putting their oaths of office ahead of loyalty to the great leader. I am pretty sure there will be some in every district willing to curry favour by outing disloyal officials.

          • The call's gone out loud and clear, if you want to be favored, you've gotta purge the disloyal. I guess the name Deep State is already taken, but I think Shallow State fits better anyway.

    • Re:It's a federal crime. (Score:5, Funny)

      by h33t l4x0r ( 4107715 ) on Thursday October 08, 2020 @09:42PM (#60587130)
      Note to self: return James Comey halloween costume.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by currently_awake ( 1248758 )
      I'm pretty sure the NSA records all internet traffic and maps who does what, meaning they can see through a VPN and know where the culprit is (right down to the building in Russia etc). I'm not sure a MAGA criminal would use a VPN, as they think they are invulnerable to harm.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gtall ( 79522 )

        I see, so NSA has been sending you memos to make you pretty sure of this. You must be special.

      • I'm pretty sure the NSA records all internet traffic and maps who does what

        While they do have powerful tools, they are not all seeing and all knowing.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      When I saw this story the first thing I remembered about it was how many people on Slashdot had fallen for it. That's where I heard about it originally, some idiot ranting about all the people that the Clintons had murdered on Slashdot.

      That was before the last election. The fact that it took so long to debunk and so long for anyone to be prosecuted for a federal crime seems to be a vulnerability in the system.

  • And yet (Score:5, Interesting)

    by quonset ( 4839537 ) on Thursday October 08, 2020 @08:18PM (#60586982)

    The comedian Hannity continued to run with the story even after it was found to be completely and utterly false. So much so, that he and Lou Dobbs were deposed [thehill.com] last month in a lawsuit over their deliberate repeating of the lie. Oddly, the Fox tabloid has said the blond bimbo Laura Ingraham will not be deposed even though she too repeated the lie. The tabloid itself is also being sued by Rich's family [thehill.com].

    "The Riches’ complaint plausibly alleges enough facts to state a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress — for extreme and outrageous conduct," the court order said.

    • Re:And yet (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Required Snark ( 1702878 ) on Thursday October 08, 2020 @10:25PM (#60587172)
      This has Trump's dirty fingerprints all over it. It's similar to how Trump used the National Enquirer to "trap and kill" a story about Trump's affair with a former Playboy model. [theguardian.com] It's also like Trump using Michael Cohen to pay hush money to Stormy Daniels to silence her before the 2016 election.

      In the Fox and Inquirer cases, Trump allies in the media did his political dirty work as cats-paws so he would not appear to be involved. Trump in fact reimbursed the Inquirer for the payments that he made. He also used Cohen as a conduit for his hush money payments to Daniels. The obvious question is how much Trump, or others in his circle, where involved in creating the baseless conspiracy theory about the unfortunate death of Seth Rich.

      When the identity of the fabricator of is revealed, don't be surprised if there is a direct link to Trump.

    • I'm somewhat concerned that you are so familiar with FoxNews TV personalities.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Cederic ( 9623 )

      How the hell does defamation apply to dead people anyway?

      It feels Rich's family are all lawyered up for a payday, not because they have an actual case.

  • Assange dropped hints about Rich (Score:5, Informative)

    by Beeftopia ( 1846720 ) on Thursday October 08, 2020 @09:02PM (#60587062)

    From Rolling Stone, Assange was either trolling (quite possible), trying to create a red herring, or he had some connection to Rich: [rollingstone.com]

    "In the Dutch TV interview, Assange demurred on how he obtained the DNC emails, then dropped a tantalizing hint. “There’s a 27-year-old who works for the DNC who was shot in the back, murdered, just a few weeks ago, for unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in Washington.”

    “That was just a robbery, I believe, wasn’t it?” the host interjected.

    “No,” Assange said. “There’s no finding.”

    “What are you suggesting?”

    “I’m suggesting that our sources take risks,” Assange said, “and they become concerned to see things occurring like that.”

    Assange never said Rich’s name, but the implication was obvious: Rich was his source. WikiLeaks then announced a $20,000 reward on Twitter for information about Rich’s murder."

    • Re:Assange dropped hints about Rich (Score:4, Informative)

      by jeff4747 ( 256583 ) on Thursday October 08, 2020 @10:02PM (#60587142)

      And Assange has never lied about anything.

      Oh wait....

      Assange's claim was that Rich downloaded the emails from the DNC mail server. Rich didn't have access. He wasn't a sysadmin or even part of the IT department.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by rtb61 ( 674572 )

        Do you even know that emails as stored as text files. To download them in improperly secured servers just access the directory and copy all to USB. It's not that hard, you do not have to be a computer scientist to download that files and windows will always store in in the same location with the same directory name, really easy to do. Keep in mind the Klinton Krime Klan just wanted to keep them secure from the public, the corrupt government already knew exactly what was going on and no one would ever prosec

        • Do you even know that emails as stored as text files.

          Actually, the Clinton email server ran Exchange 2010 so the emails would have been stored in an Exchange Database File (.edb), not a flat text file. Either way, you would still need to be able to log into the server as an administrator to access the files.

        • To download them in improperly secured servers just access the directory and copy all to USB

          Except Assange's claim is that Rich had access as part of his job, not that the server was improperly secured. And Rich did not have access.

      • Assange is in fact very honest and so are his close supporters. It's possible to recognize people like that. It is also clear that the world is chock-full of people who prefer to believe the biggest serial liars instead.
        Also Assange never claimed Seth Rich was the leaker though it is certain he was in contact with Wikileaks and it's likely he was the leaker. Seymour Hersh has seen FBI documents with the communication proving that Seth Rich was in contact with Wikileaks.
        The part which is speculative is wheth

        • Assange is in fact very honest

          When your claim to fame is you "started Wikileaks", when you did not actually start Wikileaks and were brought in later to be the PR face of the project, it is difficult to claim you are "very honest".

          Also Assange never claimed Seth Rich was the leaker

          Are you unaware of the post 2 levels above yours where he does claim Rich was the leaker?

          though it is certain he was in contact with Wikileaks

          Actually, it isn't certain. Again, this claim comes from Wikileaks as they attempted to set up Rich as the leaker.

          Seymour Hersh has seen FBI documents with the communication proving that Seth Rich was in contact with Wikileaks.

          Seymour Hersh has seen a lot of documents that turned out to not be nearly as exculpatory as he claimed, on

      • I could have easily downloaded all the emails at one of my employers from that time. I was just a secretary, but I had access to all the emails for each of my attorneys and knew the system well enough to access mail from anyone in the office. Based on your stupid logic, they should have just arrested the sysadmin and called it a day, since clearly nobody else could have accessed the emails (obvious reality notwithstanding).

        • I could have easily downloaded all the emails at one of my employers from that time. I was just a secretary, but I had access to all the emails for each of my attorneys

          And Rich wasn't a secretary, and no one has said they delegated access to him as you describe.

          Based on your stupid logic, they should have just arrested the sysadmin and called it a day

          Assange's claim was that Rich used his access to download and hand over the emails. He didn't have access. Which means we know Assange is lying whether or not Rich was the actual source of the emails. And since he's lying about Rich's access, why assume he's being truthful about anything else about how he got the emails?

          Especially when we know he got Panetta's emails from Russia. And before you try to point to

          • You lack logic. SOMEONE stole the emails. If it was someone with ACCESS, they would have arrested them already based on ACCESS LOGS.
    • Let's say Rich was a whistle-blower who leaked the emails, what would he have been blowing the whistle on? How boring DNC emails are?

    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Of course he did, the Russian propaganda machine wasn't just doing things on a whim and Assange literally gets paid by Russia openly for his RT propaganda, and likely for a whole lot more covertly. We already know he worked with well known Russian intermediary Nigel Farage on the leaks who handed him a USB stick at the Ecuadorian embassy on the morning of them.

      Assange wasn't trolling, he was following orders to help the Russian state bolster this conspiracy that has contributed to having significant impact

  • If I walk over to my neighbor's door with a forged FBI badge and try to impersonate the FBI, I'm fairly sure I'm guilty of a whole encyclopedia of federal and state crimes. I'm probably going to be in prison for a long, LONG time.

    This guy needs to rot in a small cube until he's old and gray.

    However, they shouldn't deal with him until after the election. If his name is revealed now, it will take Trump about 3 seconds to pardon him.

    And the judge should levy a daily fine on Twitter until they co

  • please remember (Score:4, Informative)

    by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Thursday October 08, 2020 @09:23PM (#60587110) Journal

    Libel is not protected speech. Not in the Constitution and not in the world.

    When you play stupid games, you're gonna win stupid prizes.

  • Do people rely on Fox Entertainment for news or for reliable information?
    I mean the "News" in the name is just public relations, really. Like "to serve and protect" or "liberty and justice for all" or "make America great again".
    *Sigh*

  • I have no idea what this summary says (Score:5, Interesting)

    by superwiz ( 655733 ) on Thursday October 08, 2020 @11:45PM (#60587258) Journal
    This summary is a story about a story which includes editorial statements and quotes. I have no idea who is being quoted here. Like here:

    "In a now-retracted story, Fox News falsely claimed that Rich's computer was connected to the leak of Democratic Party emails provided to WikiLeaks, and that Rich's slaying was related to the purported leak," the report adds. "The theory was even debunked in special counsel Robert Mueller's report."

    Why the quotes? Who is being quoted? If it's NPR (the source that is being summarized), then they are quoted in

    this type of quotes above.

    What about the next paragraph?

    "The Washington Times later reported in 2018 that Rich's brother, Aaron Rich, helped steal the emails in exchange for money from WikiLeaks and that he knew his brother would be killed and did nothing to stop it. None of those allegations are true. That story has also been retracted."

    Why the quotes? NPR again? Who is saying that "None of those allegations are true?" NPR? The slashdot poster (who maybe forgot to close and reopen quotes)?

    People get sloppy when they assume that they have the benefit of the doubt when they talk. This is how they mess up quotations. They just assume that everything they say will be taken at faith value. But this is so bad, I don't even under *what* the summary says. Who says what? It doesn't matter because it's all true? I am not clear what is the *it* that is true.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by jeff4747 ( 256583 )

      What about the next paragraph?

      The post literally starts with "AmiMoJo shares a report from NPR:" and you're unable to understand what "report" is being referenced later?

      Time for a remedial English class.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by aitikin ( 909209 )
        The scary thing is that OP has been upmodded as informative and interesting (and underrated, which I never understood why that was a thing) by other users...

  • Well, use Tor (Score:3)

    by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Friday October 09, 2020 @01:36AM (#60587374)

    Not that I have any compassion for this person, but the moron is creating a precedent. Hence I advise to use the Tor browser or Tails when doing anything that may later go to law enforcement (and in a police state that is basically _anything_). If a service does not allow you to sign on anonymously, stay away completely. Dark times.

  • Obviously nobody in his right mind would use a real name.
    He used an anonymous SIM-card, a VPN and additionally posted from a Starbucks.

  • Ok (Score:4, Insightful)

    by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Friday October 09, 2020 @07:34AM (#60587910) Journal

    I kind of feel the concern that nuances of this story have become a strawman to distract everyone. A good magician doesn't worry about the sleight being perfect because he's directed your attention completely elsewhere.

    Seth Rich was shot 2x in the back at 0420 in the proverbial "dark alley".

    He wasn't robbed. They even left a multi-$thousand watch in his wrist.

    The Washington DC police immediately closed the book on the case as a failed robbery. It was rough neighborhood, but none of the previous robberies in the area involved cold-blooded murder, either.

    Seth's family immediately said it was a robbery - I'm not sure why they would be so intent? Usually it's the family pressing for more investigating...but not this one. A few days later, they insisted "nothing to see here".

    Of course, one might cold-bloodedly observe that someone working directly on a the highest-level political campaign usually come from a family deeply wedded to their politics and politically connected.

    The "proof" it wasn't an assassination is that he wasn't shot in the back of the head. That is...something less than convincing, surely?

    • Re:Ok (Score:4, Insightful)

      by jeff4747 ( 256583 ) on Friday October 09, 2020 @09:50AM (#60588232)

      Your argument is that there is a massively sophisticated and skilled cabal in the shadows that is so utterly incompetent they couldn't make it look like a robbery.

      In the real world, you have to pick one: Either they are massively sophisticated and skilled, or they're utterly incompetent. They can't be both at the same time.

      In the propaganda world, you claim both and the believers throw their critical thinking out the window because they want to believe so badly. But that doesn't mean your claims are actually true.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        All right I'll bite.

        The shadowy cabal doesn't care because it doesn't matter if it doesn't look like a robbery, the case was immediately closed as a robbery. The conspiracy forming was actually wanted because they want people to know not to cross them because they'll kill you and get away with it.

        • The conspiracy forming was actually wanted because they want people to know not to cross them because they'll kill you and get away with it.

          And doing so publicly would be really fucking stupid because it draws a lot of external attention to your cabal.

          Instead, you let it be known within the cabal that you killed him while making it look like a robbery. Post his wallet in the breakroom at the secret volcano lair or something. Because that's the people you're trying to keep in line.

          • Unless you fully expect as did everyone probably including Trump, that you would be President shortly.

            Because Jeff Epstein committed suicide, right?

      • No, your points are strawmen themselves.
        There is no implication that there is a 'massive' cabal, much less a sophisticated and skilled one.

        Hiring a couple of street thugs to gun some poor sap down in an alley, and telling them to not loot the body (to make it clear this was a message, not a robbery) isn't rocket science.

        The DCPD covering it up, and maybe a quiet word to the family that "you don't want his name dragged through the mud, let's keep it quiet for your and his sake" neither require a huge crimina

  • sjw? (Score:3, Informative)

    by groobly ( 6155920 ) on Friday October 09, 2020 @12:23PM (#60588736)

    "During law school, she founded the Berkeley Journal of Gender, Law and Justice (then known as the Berkeley Women's Law Journal)"

    Decision was foreordained.

Slashdot Top Deals

Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not understand.

Close