Newt Gingrich states on Fox that Seth Rich was assassinated.

originally posted by: TruMcCarthy

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: underwerks

I think you may have been ignoring the overwhelming evidence supporting that Seth Rich was assassinated, and that he is likely the source of the Wikileaks DNC emails.
I could link you again, as has been done many times, to the many threads on these forums with the evidence, but I have a feeling you are going to continue to ignore it.

Maybe you're right and he was assassinated, that's what I said in the post above. The problem I see, is that everyone gives the Clinton's way too much credit. They've been built up into this worldwide murdering monstrosity by people on the right, when it just isn't the case. They aren't supervillains.

Which is why I believe it may have been Russian agents that shot him and stole the DNC emails from him, even the timeline of when they were released matches up. It would explain why the police seem to be holding back information right now as well.

This follows how Russian intelligence services are known to operate, Clinton and he DNC, not so much. I think accusing Clinton here is misdirection away from what really happened.

You can't honestly believe this. So Seth Rich had the e-mails on a drive - why? And the Russians knew he had them - how? And the FBI are covering up for Russian assassins - what? Now that is a wacky conspiracy theory. Don't you think it is far more likely Rich had the e-mails because he was the leaker? And that he was killed to shut him up/send a message to others? If we're going the conspiracy route, that seems to be the far more likely scenario.

Who knows why he had the emails on the drive? If I remember correctly, (correct me if I'm wrong) Rich was on the way to meet someone from the FBI around the time of his murder.

Maybe Rich was going to hand the DNC leaks over to the FBI, but the Russians got to him first. And then they gave them to wikileaks to be released, instead of the FBI getting them like Rich intended.

I don't see the FBI covering up for any Russian assassins, but it makes sense they'd want to keep the local PD quiet while they are still investigating it.

a reply to: annoyedpharmacist

The camera footage has been confiscated and locked up tight as a drum filled with nuclear waste.

a reply to: BlueAjah

I'm not demanding anything be presented in this thread, just that people look at the evidence without a conclusion already in mind.

a reply to: underwerks

That's the point I'm trying to make. It's only the deniers that need to see proof. This to me is a no brainier when you consider everything.

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: underwerks

That's the point I'm trying to make. It's only the deniers that need to see proof. This to me is a no brainier when you consider everything.

I get that you don't need any proof to believe the Seth Rich DNC murder conspiracy.

That's kind of the point.

Lmfao guys come on.

10 cameras on Set's location. NONE of them show anything.

One and ONE force alone has the power to do that to Cameras.

sometimes all you need to solve a problem in which X = 2 is add 1 + 1.

Peace.

a reply to: underwerks

The evidence I see is that we have a DNC staffer who was killed in what is being called a robbery gone wrong in which the one being robbed has had nothing taken, he exhibits signs of a struggle. Since the story of his death had been announced several facts are found:

- The deceased has several connections to the Clintons through former employers.
- The deceased was scheduled to begin working for the Clinton Campaign
- The deceased was a potential witness in a voter fraud lawsuit
- There is a period of about 1 1/2 to 2 hours of time that are unaccounted for from the last time he is reported as being seen and when he was shot
- The decedent was alive when found by police and transported to a local hospital only to die not quite an hour after being shot
- Wikileaks offers a substantial amount of money to assist in the finding of the perpetrators
- A GOP strategist (and reported 'family spokesperson') offers a substantial amount of money to assist in the finding of the perpetrators
- The family of the deceased is represented by an individual who's profession is managing democratic political campaigns and crises AND who has a business partner who worked to have Clinton elected
- A third party offers the assistance of a private investigator
- Said PI makes and then seemingly retracts inflammatory statements
- The family also hired a lawyer who traditionally works for investment banks and on the scale of national SEC cases to issue a cease and desist order to said PI
- The family has a gofundme page set up to assist them in finding of the perpetrators

I'm sure there are more, but taken together all of this is what makes some of us think that there is more to this shooting than a mere robbery gone wrong.

originally posted by: SR1TX
Lmfao guys come on.

10 cameras on Set's location. NONE of them show anything.

One and ONE force alone has the power to do that to Cameras.

sometimes all you need to solve a problem in which X = 2 is add 1 + 1.

Peace.

Actually any half way competent operative from anywhere could cut the cameras. That's not a stretch at all.

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: underwerks

I'm just saying that I don't need vindication for what I already believe is true. Am I biased? Sure, because I have no reason to believe otherwise.

If I'm wrong in the end I'll gladly admit I was.

Well it appears the facts indeed show he was murdered for working for the DNC. It can't be proved just circumstantial and not proven. But if this was a professional hit there will never be proof.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Now, remove the assumption that Clinton is some kind of organized crime figure that has people murdered from your "evidence" right there.

And see where that takes you. I believe Rich was murdered, but not by who everyone is saying.

As I said before, people give the Clinton's too much credit.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox

originally posted by: elementalgrove
a reply to: gladtobehere

Never thought I would agree with something Newt Gingrich had to say!

Damn CERN and this new dimension!

I'm pretty sure tested parents think this is fake, enough to file a cease and desist letter on their Fox News provided private eye.

Or scared enough.

a reply to: underwerks

Are you talking cutting physical lines or electronically cutting them out?

Either way would leave tracks that could be found and so far nothing reported matches this as having happened.



a reply to: underwerks

Now, remove the assumption that Clinton is some kind of organized crime figure that has people murdered from your "evidence" right there.

Now, remove your refusal to acknowledge pertinent facts and you inference it was the Russians and you might find a potential avenue of investigation.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: underwerks

Are you talking cutting physical lines or electronically cutting them out?

Either way would leave tracks that could be found and so far nothing reported matches this as having happened.

Either way.

Maybe they left evidence, maybe not.

How do any of us even know if any evidence of camera tampering was found? If they were found to be tampered with, it for sure wouldn't be released to the public while an investigation is still ongoing. Especially an investigation with the implications of this one.

a reply to: [post=22257922]jadedANDcynical[/post

The pertinent facts you are referring to, are assumptions, based on partisan politics.

Those aren't facts, or any type of evidence.

a reply to: underwerks

No, I doubt we'd hear about it, but I also doubt that the police would still be insisting on calling this a botched robbery don't you?

And I'm wondering how you'd hide evidence of a cut wire when the camera would need to be serviced in order to get it operational once more?

As far as if they hacked the cameras, that intrusion, also, would leave evidence a forensic investigator would easily be able to find.

Again, if any of this were to have happened, then it would be not still be being referred to as a robbery, which is still the 'official story.'

a reply to: underwerks

What facts are you calling assumptions?

Please, be specific.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: underwerks

No, I doubt we'd hear about it, but I also doubt that the police would still be insisting on calling this a botched robbery don't you?

And I'm wondering how you'd hide evidence of a cut wire when the camera would need to be serviced in order to get it operational once more?

As far as if they hacked the cameras, that intrusion, also, would leave evidence a forensic investigator would easily be able to find.

Again, if any of this were to have happened, then it would be not still be being referred to as a robbery, which is still the 'official story.'

The police will call it whatever the Feds tell them to.

Technically it was still a robbery, so they aren't exactly lying.

Once again, maybe there is evidence the cameras were tampered with. That's something no one outside of the investigation would know at this point, and given the implications, I doubt they would want to release that.

a reply to: underwerks

The police will call it whatever the Feds tell them to.

citation needed

This is pure assumption and conjecture.

If the feds are involved, then it is not a simple robbery. If it is nothing but a robbery, then the feds have no business being involved in the case. I do believe that the antediluvian has debunked federal involvement, but I may be wrong.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: underwerks

What facts are you calling assumptions?

Please, be specific.

Anything that assumes the Clinton's, or the DNC are behind the murder here.

If you can't look at it without taking those assumptions as evidence, you aren't really concerned about the actual truth here, just partisanship.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: underwerks

The police will call it whatever the Feds tell them to.

citation needed

This is pure assumption and conjecture.

If the feds are involved, then it is not a simple robbery. If it is nothing but a robbery, then the feds have no business being involved in the case. I do believe that the antediluvian has debunked federal involvement, but I may be wrong.

Not at all, I've been under federal investigation before, and I know the dynamic between Federal agents and local police departments.

I wouldn't be here if I didn't. You can find countless examples if you look. But that's getting off topic, so if you're interested, don't believe me, investigate it yourself.