This afternoon the FBI finally released records about murdered DNC employee Seth Rich and the 2016 theft of Democratic National Committee emails that were later published by Wikileaks. Those documents provide new information, but generally raise more questions than answers. Of 576 relevant pages identified by the FBI, only 68 were produced, and most of those 68 pages are heavily redacted. They reference Roger Stone, Paul Manafort, Richard Gates, Donald Trump, Jr., Jay Sekulow, and Jerome Corsi, among others. I haven’t had time to thoroughly review the documents, but here are a few things that stand out: On page 64, a November 11, 2017 memo from FBI’s Boston Field Office is almost completely redacted, but the last sentence reads as follows: “Given _________, it is conceivable that an individual or group would want to pay for his death.” A witness interview form begins on page 65, and it appears to be the interview of former Asst. U.S. Attorney Deborah Sines, the prosecutor assigned to the Seth Rich murder case. Page 66 of that interview reads as follows: ““After the homicide, ____ took Rich’s personal laptop to his house in ____. ____ was not aware of if _____ deleted or changed anything on Rich’s laptop.” I suspect this is referring to Aaron Rich, brother of Seth, and it begs a question: why would a private citizen be allowed to carry away evidence relevant to a murder investigation? Why was this not immediately given to the police rather than taken to somebody’s house? And the government is not aware of whether this private citizen deleted anything from the laptop? That seems like an important thing to figure out. Lower on page 66, we find the following: “___ AUSA ___ are aware that the FBI is in possession of RICH’s work laptop. ___ AUSA ____ requested a forensic image of the laptop for the homicide investigation.” So now we know that the FBI had two of Seth Rich’s laptops: his work laptop and his personal laptop. And remember that the FBI long insisted that it was not investigating anything related to Seth Rich. Obviously the FBI was investigating something about Rich, so what was it? If not his murder, then the leak of DNC emails to Wikileaks? On page 50, a May 30, 2018 letter from Democratic law firm Perkins Coie notes that the Democratic National Committee and Hillary for America were “voluntarily” providing certain electronic evidence to the office of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Why wasn’t that information subpoenaed, i.e., to insure that all relevant information was produced? I should also mention an April 8, 2021 letter that I received from the Department of Justice regarding records from the Special Counsel. Consider this excerpt: At this time, I have determined that 32 pages containing records responsive to your request should be withheld in full pursuant to Exemption 5 of the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5). Exemption 5 pertains to certain inter- and intra-agency communications protected by civil discovery privileges. My eagle-eyed crimefighting colleague Larry Beech (@Larry_Beech) reminded me that the National Security Agency, in a previous response to one of my FOIA requests about Seth Rich, stated that it was withholding 32 pages. We suspect these are the same 32 pages. I reported last December that the NSA was withholding records about Seth Rich, and my inside source tells me it’s more than 32 pages. Regardless of the number of pages, I think we can piece together what happened. Thanks to Edward Snowden, we know that the NSA intercepts and stores virtually every electronic communication in or out of the United States. The agency is supposed to store all of that information without looking at it, and the data is supposed to be mined only upon request from an authorized entity. I suspect Robert Mueller’s staff asked the NSA to mine the data for communications between Seth Rich (possibly Aaron Rich) and Wikileaks, and I suspect the NSA provided 32 pages of responsive records to Mueller. Now both agencies want to hide the contents of those 32 pages. Why? If you’re discouraged by all of the redactions and withheld pages, don’t be. I plan to ask U.S. District Judge Amos Mazzant to review unredacted copies of all of these documents to determine whether information is improperly being withheld. Judge Mazzant is a straight shooter, and I suspect he will grant my request. As you may have read on other sites, e.g., The Gateway Pundit, the FBI asked Judge Mazzant to give it additional time to produce all of that documents that were due today. More than 1000 documents are still outstanding. As of today, Judge Mazzant has not ruled on that motion, ergo the FBI will be in violation of his order as of midnight. I suspect he is not happy with the delays, ergo he has left the FBI squirming in limbo. If you see something interesting in today’s document dump, please write a comment below. This is a team effort, after all.