DNC staffer slain last year had links to Wikileaks

[KingsGambit]

Nah, Kim Dotcom is way too high profile to go after like that. It would be way too obvious. Nobody knew who Seth Rich was when he died.

[rogue06]

My guess is he is going to get 'robbed' before that happens.

The single car fatality card hasn't been played in awhile.

[KingsGambit]

David French at National Review thinks there is nothing to see here. I do think it's odd that nothing was stolen from him, though...

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...heory-disgrace

[shunyadragon]

It would be pretty difficult to talk about Russia and emails if the DNC had a guy whacked.
That would consume the news cycle and probably destroy the Democrats in the 2018 elections.

IF, there is absolutely no evidence to support this malicious vindictive rumor. The family of the DNC worker has recently requested the reporter responsible for this malicious vindictive rumor to cease this, and he reluctantly consented.

[Meh Gerbil]

IF, there is absolutely no evidence to support this malicious vindictive rumor. The family of the DNC worker has recently requested the reporter responsible for this malicious vindictive rumor to cease this, and he reluctantly consented.

1: Kim DotCom has come forward as a witness.
2: Julian Assange has hinted heavily that Seth Rich was the WikiLeaks contact and has declared unequivocally that Russian agents were not the source.

That would be two more named sources than what you have for the whole Russian/Trump email nonsense.
So yes, there is evidence that this is actually the case.

Naturally, those of us over here in conservative town would insist on more evidence than two named sources, but weak as the evidence may be, it totally blows away anything you guys have presented over the past year.

[Sea of red]

Alex Jones would be proud of you guys.

Everybody, the CIA, the DIA, the NSA, the FBI, and even many Republicans have come out and stated the Russian government was behind the cyber-attacks (leaks). There is not one single shred of evidence to support this Seth Rich story outside of a cyber criminal that has nothing to support his claims, and sex offender that wants to dismantle the US military. I know that is not enough to satisfy you guys because you really don't want Trump to go down in flames.

[Sea of red]

Source: Patriot Post

Last summer, WikiLeaks released a huge cache of emails from key Democrats revealing the DNC’s conspiracy to sabotage Bernie Sanders' campaign on behalf of Hillary Clinton. We suppose Hillary’s “reset” with the Russians worked, because the DNC blamed Moscow for the leaks. Democrats have been screaming about Russia “hacking” the election ever since.

A few weeks later, Donald Trump hit Clinton over her illegal unsecured email server by taunting, “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 [Hillary Clinton] emails that are missing.” What began as the Democrats' Russia hacking narrative soon became the story of Trump colluding with Vladimir Putin. Trump’s tease caught Clinton in an obvious contradiction, but Democrats used it to build a narrative.

Thus the import of what we learn today. Fox News reports, “The Democratic National Committee staffer who was gunned down on July 10 on a Washington, D.C., street just steps from his home had leaked thousands of internal emails to WikiLeaks.” Julian Assange, the tool who runs WikiLeaks, suggested this last summer, but he’s not exactly a credible source. Now, a federal investigator has confirmed it.

In any case, 12 days after Rich was shot from behind, WikiLeaks published the damning internal DNC emails — damning not because WikiLeaks released them or “the Russians” hacked them, but because of what Democrats themselves were saying behind closed doors. And then you’ve got John Podesta emailing, “I’m definitely for making an example of a suspected leaker whether or not we have any real basis for it.”

Death and Hillary Clinton have a long history, but this is getting ridiculous.

© Copyright Original Source

Indeed.

source

No, he didn't.

[Sea of red]

Turns out that the conservative news outlet I got this from has something further to say:

Source: Patriot Post

Yesterday, we ran a story entitled “About That Murdered DNC Staffer…” in which we recounted the suspicious circumstances surrounding the death of Seth Rich, as well as the history of Democrats' Russia obsession that began with the DNC hack. A federal investigator told Fox News that Rich had transmitted tens of thousands of DNC emails to WikiLeaks, which certainly would have shed new light on the whole story.

Rich’s family, however, strongly denies the allegations, and even the investigator, Rod Wheeler, is now walking back his story. Fox News got its quote from him, but he got his information from … Fox News. Rich’s family says Wheeler has never actually seen Rich’s computer.

NBC News corroborated that with FBI sources: “A current FBI official and a former one completely discount the Fox News claim that an FBI analysis of a computer belonging to Rich contained thousands of e-mails to and from WikiLeaks,” the report read. “Local police in Washington, D.C., never even gave the FBI Rich’s laptop to analyze after his murder.”

Furthermore, Wheeler was contractually barred from speaking about the investigation publicly.

So perhaps the conspiracy theory is just that. Democrats have indeed blown the whole Russia-hacking affair completely out of proportion for political gain, as we’ve said all along. But it would seem that just because an allegation fits with a narrative doesn’t mean the allegation is true. That’s a lesson for every media outlet.

© Copyright Original Source

This sort of thing is why I appreciate the Patriot Post. They're more than willing to do further digging and provide corrections where warranted.

So basically, yeah, it was just a conspiracy theory that had no evidence or merit at all, and this conservative rag has egg on it's face.

[Meh Gerbil]

Alex Jones would be proud of you guys.

Everybody, the CIA, the DIA, the NSA, the FBI, and even many Republicans have come out and stated the Russian government was behind the cyber-attacks (leaks). There is not one single shred of evidence to support this Seth Rich story outside of a cyber criminal that has nothing to support his claims, and sex offender that wants to dismantle the US military. I know that is not enough to satisfy you guys because you really don't want Trump to go down in flames.

I don't care what the CIA, DIA, NSA, and FBI say about any of this until they back it up with evidence.
As of yet they've provided absolutely no evidence (that I've seen, at any rate).

Is it wrong to ask for evidence or should I not question authority?

Hey, do you remember what everyone was saying about Monica Lewinsky - how the whole of Washington D.C. came down on her hard - all the name calling and accusations from the very uppermost reaches of our government, in the news, being denounced... until she produced a little blue dress. You might want to shy away from jumping on the band wagon with this one because Kim DotCom has offered to come to the USA and testify and show his evidence. Maybe caution should be your approach?

[One Bad Pig]

Alex Jones would be proud of you guys.

Quit projecting, champ.

Everybody with an ax to grind against Trump has asserted that the Russian government was behind the cyber-attacks (leaks).

Fixed that for you. All you've got is anonymous sources and openly hostile people desperately blowing smoke. I've been reading all these threads here, and have yet to see anything substantive from anyone remotely approaching neutrality.

There is not one single shred of evidence to support this Seth Rich story outside of a cyber criminal that has nothing to support his claims, and sex offender that wants to dismantle the US military. I know that is not enough to satisfy you guys because you really don't want Trump to go down in flames.

Hey, nice ad hominem argument there.

And most of "us" would vastly prefer that Mike Pence be president.

Do you have anything new to add, or are you just venting?

[Sea of red]

I don't care what the CIA, DIA, NSA, and FBI say about any of this until they back it up with evidence.
As of yet they've provided absolutely no evidence (that I've seen, at any rate).

Is it wrong to ask for evidence or should I not question authority?

Hey, do you remember what everyone was saying about Monica Lewinsky - how the whole of Washington D.C. came down on her hard - all the name calling and accusations from the very uppermost reaches of our government, in the news, being denounced... until she produced a little blue dress. You might want to shy away from jumping on the band wagon with this one because Kim DotCom has offered to come to the USA and testify and show his evidence. Maybe caution should be your approach?

Remember how old Nixon pulled the same stuff that Trump is pulling right now once the connections to Watergate got closer and closer to him? Same defenses:"it's a witchhunt", "I'm being set-up", and the classic "the liberal press is out to get me". Conservatives back then tried like hell to blame the press and accuse Democrats of a witchhunt, trusting that Nixon was telling the truth, and would never be a part of what he was accused of.

Then the tapes came out...

[Sea of red]

Fixed that for you. All you've got is anonymous sources and openly hostile people desperately blowing smoke. I've been reading all these threads here, and have yet to see anything substantive from anyone remotely approaching neutrality.

The CIA, FBI, DIA, and NSA are anonymous?

Brother, get your head out of the clouds of Trump fantasy land, and take a look at reality please. The Russian government DID commit cyber-attacks against our country to influence our elections, and they desperately wanted Trump as president. These are facts, deal with them already. You keep complaining about people having an axe to grind in the press, then you cite these backwater conservative rags that have to retract conspiracies as quickly as they promote them.

And most of "us" would vastly prefer that Mike Pence be president.

Won't do much good if the Dems get the House in 2018 - which they probably will. Plus the GOP will be destroyed for a long time if the connection between Trump and Russia can be proven.

Do you have anything new to add, or are you just venting?

Do you have anything besides some cyber criminal that promotes internet piracy and has zero credibility, or is that it?

[Meh Gerbil]

Remember how old Nixon pulled the same stuff that Trump is pulling right now once the connections to Watergate got closer and closer to him? Same defenses:"it's a witchhunt", "I'm being set-up", and the classic "the liberal press is out to get me". Conservatives back then tried like hell to blame the press and accuse Democrats of a witchhunt, trusting that Nixon was telling the truth, and would never be a part of what he was accused of.

Then the tapes came out...

I'm not sure how restating my point is a rebuttal.
I guess you think because you used a Republican in the example that I'd disagree?

Yes, Nixon would be an excellent example of a bunch of nonsense being undone by evidence.
Let me know when you have some in the whole Trump/Russian thing.

*pulls out a book and begins to read*

[Mountain Man]

All you've got is anonymous sources and openly hostile people desperately blowing smoke. I've been reading all these threads here, and have yet to see anything substantive from anyone remotely approaching neutrality.

And beyond that, there are a number of high-profile figures who are ON RECORD confirming there is no evidence linking Trump to Russia. Several of them have even testified to that fact UNDER OATH.

But tell that to any of the low-info crowd, and they cry, "That doesn't mean Trump is innocent, it just means we have to keep looking for the evidence that will prove him guilty!" Meanwhile, they dismiss the number of KNOWN connections between Hillary, her campaign staff, and Russia, including bribes and political favors.

[rogue06]

And beyond that, there are a number of high-profile figures who are ON RECORD confirming there is no evidence linking Trump to Russia. Several of them have even testified to that fact UNDER OATH.

But tell that to any of the low-info crowd, and they cry, "That doesn't mean Trump is innocent, it just means we have to keep looking for the evidence that will prove him guilty!" Meanwhile, they dismiss the number of KNOWN connections between Hillary, her campaign staff, and Russia, including bribes and political favors.

0000000000000investig.jpg