Trent- I like some of your other writing and I think you have good intentions, which is why I’m…
Matt Chessen
22

We live in a post-truth world. The problem is you cannot trust any source of information, especially corrupt corporate media.

So what can we do in a post-truth world? Well, what I do is consider ALL possibilities, especially the possibilities that make me uncomfortable or seem out there because in my experience reality is usually stranger than fiction. Having been involved in a public murder investigation I am speaking from experience here.

I question anyone who tries to condition others into believing anything because thats how the elite, murderers, and sociopaths function. The more they repeat something without evidence the more evidence I will search for and if I can’t find any then I know they’re not being honest or have a hidden agenda.

I presented a lot of information in this article, some of it is conflicting, some of it has been redacted even, but ultimately my personal core opinion was shaped by analyzing the technical data myself, and the statements made by Julian Assange. Even Obama agrees with me the Russian hacking evidence is inconclusive, and that the DNC was a leak and not a hack. I believe they are both credible sources of information in regards to this case. I also believe my technical understanding, and knowledge of computer systems and cyber security is a strong gauge as to the probability of a hacker vs. an insider.

Perhaps I am naive for believing a former President, a current sitting President, and the head of an international intelligence gathering agency.

Ultimately, I have every right to question the official narrative, especially when two Presidents agree with me on the Russian narrative, and the founder of Wikileaks has alluded to Seth Rich’s involvement.

Then there is the opportunity issue. Sure, Russia might have had the means, and the motive to hack the DNC but did they have the opportunity? That has yet to be proven.

Seth Rich had the means, suspected logical motive, and opportunity to leak the data based on the evidence available so far.

So what is more plausible to believe? The narrative with no opportunity and inconclusive evidence or the narrative although speculative that offers means, motive, and opportunity?

I do not know who killed Seth Rich, but I do believe it is reasonable to question the DNC and rule them out before declaring the investigation “fake news.” As of right now, the DNC’s actions have been downright suspicious, and their attempts to muzzle the media are disturbing and should be ringing alarm bells for anyone awake and paying attention.

The fact of the matter is the US government kills people around the world on a near daily basis, what makes you think the rules are any different on home turf? Dozens if not hundreds of insiders, hackers, operatives, agents, activists, and whistleblowers have been murdered, tortured, and imprisoned unjustly by the US government and Deep State since WW2.

What makes this case so special that it can’t possibly be anything other than what the corrupt Washington Post says it is?

I have considered the possibility for Russian interference and I do believe there is a likely possibility they planted some news stories during the election, but so what? The CIA has interfered in over 80+ confirmed coups. I’ve seen more evidence that Ukraine was trying to influence the election to get Hillary elected. It is also possible Ukrainian officials helped plant this entire Russia narrative in the first place in revenge for Russia taking Crimea. There are many factors at play here, and if you believe only what the mainstream media tells you, then you will not find the whole truth.

P.S. I am not absolving Russia of anything, I see no reason why we should trust Putin, however I do question their competency. The Cold War is over, and they lost. Have they rebuilt? Yeah, but a generation has passed. We do not know if they had the opportunity to even take the DNC e-mails, and the evidence the US government has released so far was not conclusive of anything.