Julian Assange suggests 'The Assassinated Seth Rich Was Wikileaks source

[Oktoberfest]

Killary Killinton at it again



Wikileaks Assange Suggests Seth Rich – Who Was MURDERED in DC – Was Wikileaks DNC Source!

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016...-shot-dead-dc/


On July 8, 2016, 27 year-old Democratic staffer Seth Conrad Rich was beaten and shot in the back, murdered in Washington DC. The killer or killers took nothing from their victim, leaving behind his wallet, watch and phone.

Shortly after the killing, Redditors and social media users were pursuing a “lead” saying that Rich was en route to the FBI the morning of his murder, apparently intending to speak to special agents about an “ongoing court case” possibly involving the Clinton family.

Seth Rich’s father Joel told reporters, “If it was a robbery — it failed because he still has his watch, he still has his money — he still has his credit cards, still had his phone so it was a wasted effort except we lost a life.”

[Felya]

The sad part, this thread being closed because this was posted before, will only aid in conspiracy theorist.

http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...-for-DNC-Leaks

[Oktoberfest]

The sad part, this thread being closed because this was posted before, will only aid in conspiracy theorist.

http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...-for-DNC-Leaks

Sorry didnt see that

[TrumpIsPresident]

He's probably right but good luck proving it.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

So, what Assange is saying is that this guy might have been the source and that he might have been murdered because of it on the day he might have been going to the FBI about a court case that might have had something to do with Hillary Clinton.

This thread has more might than the entire Norse Pantheon.

[Deleted]

Sorry didnt see that

Considering your Sig, i have my sincere doubts about this.

[Oktoberfest]

Considering your Sig, i have my sincere doubts about this.

Doubt what you want but I didnt see it

[Deleted]

Doubt what you want but I didnt see it

Fair enuff, i'll give you the favor of the doubt

[Kaleredar]

Of course Hillary didn't do it.


Everyone knows Hillary would have used her Alpha Draconis phason energy gun to disintegrate the target, save for his entrails, which she would have eaten to keep up her humanoid appearance.

[Celista]

So, what Assange is saying is that this guy might have been the source and that he might have been murdered because of it on the day he might have been going to the FBI about a court case that might have had something to do with Hillary Clinton.

This thread has more might than the entire Norse Pantheon.

In the interview he brought up the murder completely out of the blue, and followed it up with statements regarding how critical it is for Wikileaks to keep their sources safe.

He was clearly heavily implying that Rich was the DNC whistleblower, if he was being deceitful or provocative for some unknown reason then that is another matter.

[Skroe]

In the interview he brought up the murder completely out of the blue, and followed it up with statements regarding how critical it is for Wikileaks to keep their sources safe.

He was clearly heavily implying that Rich was the DNC whistleblower, if he was being deceitful or provocative for some unknown reason then that is another matter.

It's Julian Fucking Assange

'Deceit' and 'provocative' are subordinate only to 'delusion', 'Anti-Americanism' and 'egomania' to that man.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

In the interview he brought up the murder completely out of the blue, and followed it up with statements regarding how critical it is for Wikileaks to keep their sources safe.

He was clearly heavily implying that Rich was the DNC whistleblower, if he was being deceitful or provocative for some unknown reason then that is another matter.

Yes, he implied this guy was the source. You know that's different than actually proving that he was the source, right?

So, again...this guy might be the source...but he might not.

If he was the source...Wikileaks didn't do a great job of keeping him safe.

[Oktoberfest]

Julian Assange: Whistleblowers go to significant efforts to get us material and often very significant risks. As a 27 year-old, works for the DNC, was shot in the back, murdered just a few weeks ago for unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in Washington.

Reporter: That was just a robbery, I believe. Wasn’t it?

Julian Assange: No. There’s no finding. So… I’m suggesting that our sources take risks.

[Celista]

Yes, he implied this guy was the source. You know that's different than actually proving that he was the source, right?

So, again...this guy might be the source...but he might not.

If he was the source...Wikileaks didn't do a great job of keeping him safe.

Right, but the point is that he wasn't asked about the murder, he brought it up himself in the interview. It wasn't related to anything the interviewer was asking at all. Assange followed up his out-of-nowhere statement about Rich's death with a statement about the need to keep his sources safe.

Nothing regarding Assange's statements during the interview could be interpreted as statements taken out of context. So, Assange either was deliberately heavily implying that Rich was the source because he *was* the source (which as you note, doesn't look good for Wikileaks, as the guy is dead) or Assange is deliberately meddling in US political affairs for some unknown reason.

[Crissi]

As Felya linked, we already have a thread on this.

Closing