Newt Gingrich states on Fox that Seth Rich was assassinated.

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: JoshuaCox

The parents don't like the "conspiracy"?? Too bad. This is not a teenage boy.... this was a grown man that worked for the DNC and got murdered/assassinated during a period of scandalous revelations about the underhanded things that were going on in the DNC.

The family shouldn't have a say about what is investigated, who is investigated, or why something is being investigated.

But the parents care about 1000% more than you do about him..

They are actually emotionally invested and have far more information than you...

So hypothetically, they should be down to grasp at straws for any chance at closure..

Yet the fox PI pushing exactly this conspiracy, was so unconvincing , he couldn't even convince the grieving family desperate for closure.. which is normally shooting fish in a barrel...

So how obviously must he have been pushing an agenda for the family to revolt???

a reply to: underwerks

Please point out where I said that Clinton's are involved?

I am pointing to facts, which you said you don't need to see presented again, which are pertinent to the death of this individual.

Or are you trying to imply that this is not a valid avenue for inquiry? If someone is murdered and, if is a suspicious murder, friends, relatives, and acquaintances are all valid avenues for investigation.

Especially something of this level of import.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: underwerks

Please point out where I said that Clinton's are involved?

I am pointing to facts, which you said you don't need to see presented again, which are pertinent to the death of this individual.

Or are you trying to imply that this is not a valid avenue for inquiry? If someone is murdered and, if is a suspicious murder, friends, relatives, and acquaintances are all valid avenues for investigation.

Especially something of this level of import.

All avenues of inquiry are valid until proven otherwise.

It just seems like people have a case-closed sort of mentality simply because some of the right wing theories involve the DNC or Clinton's as the murderers.

When it's far from case closed.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: JoshuaCox

The parents don't like the "conspiracy"?? Too bad. This is not a teenage boy.... this was a grown man that worked for the DNC and got murdered/assassinated during a period of scandalous revelations about the underhanded things that were going on in the DNC.

The family shouldn't have a say about what is investigated, who is investigated, or why something is being investigated.

But the parents care about 1000% more than you do about him..

They are actually emotionally invested and have far more information than you...

So hypothetically, they should be down to grasp at straws for any chance at closure..

Yet the fox PI pushing exactly this conspiracy, was so unconvincing , he couldn't even convince the grieving family desperate for closure.. which is normally shooting fish in a barrel...

So how obviously must he have been pushing an agenda for the family to revolt???

Because if you are the family you think your son was doing good by representing the DNC and if you support this conspiracy theory your son is now going to be permanently demonized that he was the leaker and the MSM is going to make him look like some Russian traitor.

The other side is that the family could have been threatened and told to call him crazy and call off the hounds.

When former Speaker of the House also former POTUS candidate gives voice to a cover up, it is real, very very real. These people just don't go around tossing about conspiracies, they guard their reputations before they promote a view.

The Dems will destroy their Party to protect their elite while crying "but but the Russians".

originally posted by: underwerks

All avenues of inquiry are valid until proven otherwise.

It just seems like people have a case-closed sort of mentality simply because some of the right wing theories involve the DNC or Clinton's as the murderers.

When it's far from case closed.

Here is the problem. Wiki Leaks has been rather credible over the last 10 years, and they have said since day one the Russians did do it. They also said they would not release the name of the person who did it. Are they now lying after 10 years?

Releasing the emails didn't doom Clinton it was what was inside the emails that did. Only an insider would know that, not the Russians and not Trump's camp. 40% of the liberal base was going towards The Bern and it was growing, so it is safe to say that a large number of liberals would be salty once they saw what the DNC did. It is also safe to say that a good number of those on the inside of the DNC were also The Bern supporters as well.

The one area no one draws a conclusion to is why hack in the first place, what motive would anyone have to risk this while not knowing the emails had anything at all. The only logical conclusion was an insider did it because they knew what was in the emails before they did it.

Now we add key people would might put some light on all this are killed...

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: underwerks

All avenues of inquiry are valid until proven otherwise.

It just seems like people have a case-closed sort of mentality simply because some of the right wing theories involve the DNC or Clinton's as the murderers.

When it's far from case closed.

Here is the problem. Wiki Leaks has been rather credible over the last 10 years, and they have said since day one the Russians did do it. They also said they would not release the name of the person who did it. Are they now lying after 10 years?

Releasing the emails didn't doom Clinton it was what was inside the emails that did. Only an insider would know that, not the Russians and not Trump's camp. 40% of the liberal base was going towards The Bern and it was growing, so it is safe to say that a large number of liberals would be salty once they saw what the DNC did. It is also safe to say that a good number of those on the inside of the DNC were also The Bern supporters as well.

The one area no one draws a conclusion to is why hack in the first place, what motive would anyone have to risk this while not knowing the emails had anything at all. The only logical conclusion was an insider did it because they knew what was in the emails before they did it.

Now we add key people would might put some light on all this are killed...

Huh? Wikileaks is offering a ton of cash for info on Seths murder. Think about that for one second.....

originally posted by: JoshuaCoxBut the parents care about 1000% more than you do about him..

Which is exactly why they might not want him to be remembered as a traitorous leaker. Next thing you know he'd be a Russian Spy working for Trump.

I don't think the cameras needed to be tampered with.

Just the right person has to say, "nope, nothing on there". With that they will never be looked at again.

Too often I see people associate some technical reason when often it's social.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: underwerks

All avenues of inquiry are valid until proven otherwise.

It just seems like people have a case-closed sort of mentality simply because some of the right wing theories involve the DNC or Clinton's as the murderers.

When it's far from case closed.

Here is the problem. Wiki Leaks has been rather credible over the last 10 years, and they have said since day one the Russians did do it. They also said they would not release the name of the person who did it. Are they now lying after 10 years?

Releasing the emails didn't doom Clinton it was what was inside the emails that did. Only an insider would know that, not the Russians and not Trump's camp. 40% of the liberal base was going towards The Bern and it was growing, so it is safe to say that a large number of liberals would be salty once they saw what the DNC did. It is also safe to say that a good number of those on the inside of the DNC were also The Bern supporters as well.

The one area no one draws a conclusion to is why hack in the first place, what motive would anyone have to risk this while not knowing the emails had anything at all. The only logical conclusion was an insider did it because they knew what was in the emails before they did it.

Now we add key people would might put some light on all this are killed...

If my theory is correct, Seth Rich was the source of the leaks, and they were stolen from him when he was killed and then passed off to wikileaks, instead of the FBI like Rich intended. I think Seth Rich was angry about what he found and was going to take it to the FBI. But they got to him first.

Maybe it was him releasing stuff to wikileaks earlier that made him pop up on the Russian's radar, and they decided to take whatever was next. Maybe they knew what was in it, maybe they just got lucky.

I'm sure Russia would use an intermediary to pass the emails off to wikileaks so there isn't any direct evidence of connection, as well.

a reply to: underwerks

That theory does not fit the facts at all.

The Democrats blame of the Russians lies in Russian IP's hitting their system to directly access the emails.
Getting them from Seth Rich would not fit that scenario at all.

I don't doubt that Russian IPs were accessing their system. Russia IPs hack everyone, everywhere, every day. There were certainly other countries also attempting to access their systems.

a reply to: BlueAjah

You are being derailed.


www.washingtonpost.com... 477372e89d78_story.html

Wikileaks offering reward for killing of DNC staffer.

I wonder why? Connect the dots..

a reply to: Throes

huh?

My opinion has clearly been in favor of Seth Rich being the source of the Wikileaks email, as well as that Seth was killed for doing that.
I have held this opinion since Seth was killed.

I NEVER agreed that the Russians had anything to do with the leaks or with interfering in the election.

I was saying that underwerks's claim that Seth was killed by Russians is absurd.

a reply to: BlueAjah

What role if any did guccifer play?

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: Throes

huh?

My opinion has clearly been in favor of Seth Rich being the source of the Wikileaks email, as well as that Seth was killed for doing that.
I have held this opinion since Seth was killed.

I NEVER agreed that the Russians had anything to do with the leaks or with interfering in the election.

I was saying that underwerks's claim that Seth was killed by Russians is absurd.

Reply was to wrong user. My bad! We agree on this.

a reply to: Mousygretchen

The original Guccifer was a Romanian hacker who claimed to access the Clinton email server and did access the emails of some high level political figures. He also claimed to see evidence that others were accessing the Clinton server.
Even if he did access her server, that would not mean that he is the source of DNC emails ending up with WikiLeaks.
The original Guccifer was arrested.

Guccifer 2.0 was a different person or persons, whose identity is not known.
2.0 claimed to be the source of the emails sent to WikiLeaks.
Guccifer 2.0 also said he was not Russian.
I have not personally concluded that it is proven that he was involved, but I think it is possible that he may have been working with Seth Rich.

There is also an alternate theory that Guccifer 2.0 was a creation of those that were trying to cover up the truth that the leaks came from inside the DNC.

So if Seth was to meet FBI then someone in FBI tipped off someone at DNC or connected to his killers.

Wonder about McCabe and his Clinton connection.

All would have to happen is word to right folks to burn Rich.

IDK but the thing sure is suspicious.

Trying to tie Russians to this is desperate lunacy because that meme dies if SR was political murder and anyone promoting that idea is just attempting to save the meme.

Newt chiming in is significant.

originally posted by: Throes

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: underwerks

All avenues of inquiry are valid until proven otherwise.

It just seems like people have a case-closed sort of mentality simply because some of the right wing theories involve the DNC or Clinton's as the murderers.

When it's far from case closed.

Here is the problem. Wiki Leaks has been rather credible over the last 10 years, and they have said since day one the Russians did do it. They also said they would not release the name of the person who did it. Are they now lying after 10 years?

Releasing the emails didn't doom Clinton it was what was inside the emails that did. Only an insider would know that, not the Russians and not Trump's camp. 40% of the liberal base was going towards The Bern and it was growing, so it is safe to say that a large number of liberals would be salty once they saw what the DNC did. It is also safe to say that a good number of those on the inside of the DNC were also The Bern supporters as well.

The one area no one draws a conclusion to is why hack in the first place, what motive would anyone have to risk this while not knowing the emails had anything at all. The only logical conclusion was an insider did it because they knew what was in the emails before they did it.

Now we add key people would might put some light on all this are killed...

Huh? Wikileaks is offering a ton of cash for info on Seths murder. Think about that for one second.....

So that starts another topic of why would Wikileaks care one way or the other if Seths was not their whistle-blower.

originally posted by: underwerks

If my theory is correct, Seth Rich was the source of the leaks, and they were stolen from him when he was killed and then passed off to wikileaks, instead of the FBI like Rich intended. I think Seth Rich was angry about what he found and was going to take it to the FBI. But they got to him first.

Who were "they"? Once again only the DNC would know...ya he was angry, but it wasn't so much of what he "found out" it was what he saw happening, and that made him act. All in all, the Russians and Trump's camp had no clue at this point to know anything at all was afoot. I think he passed it to Wikileaks to stay anonymous and was killed so that he could not testify too.

Or maybe thinking about it...he was killed at 4 AM..who is walking the streets at 4 AM alone...Was he also trying to make some cash too by selling it to the Russians along with providing it to Wikileaks? Family seems all hush hush...

I'm sure Russia would use an intermediary to pass the emails off to wikileaks so there isn't any direct evidence of connection, as well.

If he was passing it to Wikileaks or even the FBI, or the Russians passing it Wikileaks would this not be is all the same, so why would Russia even get involved if the end result was what they wanted anyways, that is if they cared.

I'm not so sure Russia wanted Trump (an unknown) over Obama 2.0, which under Obama they did whatever they wanted to do...