Seth Rich had contact with wiki leaks before murder

[Yelmurc]

Both sides are coming out swinging.

For those that don't want to click on link, the local D.C. Fox channel says The private investigator hired by Seth Rich's family has found evidence that Seth Rich (the DNC staffer) was emailing Wikileaks shortly before he was murdered.

Many have implied he was the source of the DNC emails to Wikileaks

New link to the fox report.

Fox 5 says more information will be released tomorrow morning.

Quote from article

Wheeler also told us, "I have a source inside the police department that has looked at me straight in the eye and said, ‘Rod, we were told to stand down on this case and I can’t share any information with you.’ Now, that is highly unusual for a murder investigation, especially from a police department. Again, I don’t think it comes from the chief’s office, but I do believe there is a correlation between the mayor's office and the DNC and that is the information that will come out [Tuesday].

[Yelmurc]

Says he has sources that have confirmed the link so I think there is more to it than just conspiracy theory.

When we asked Wheeler if his sources have told him there is information that links Rich to Wikileaks, he said, “Absolutely. Yeah. That's confirmed."

I find it odd though that this comes out on a bad day for Trump in the press

[ringpriest]

The Trumpers must be desperate about this whole Russia thing, which in turn makes me think that there's more than smoke (regarding the "leaking secrets to Russia" thing).

[Zomis]

Pretty sure conspiracy theories aren't allowed here. Your source even calls this a literal conspiracy theory. Should probably wait for the actual evidence that they say will be released. I have a feeling no such evidence exists and it's just click bait.

The source is a legit news source, you just want to cover the truth!

[Garnier Fructis]

The source is a legit news source, you just want to cover the truth!

There's no proof! read it again!

hahahaha! Glad I am not on the fake news side!

[Wyrt]

The source is a legit news source, you just want to cover the truth!

When did Fox news become a legit news source?

[Zomis]

When did Fox news become a legit news source?

It's more than the washing joke

[Garnier Fructis]

It's more than the washing joke

Nope, nice try though!

[Yelmurc]

There's no proof! read it again!

hahahaha! Glad I am not on the fake news side!

I hate to be the one that points this out but this story has more proof than the current Trump spills classified secrets story.

They both claim sources with knowledge in the matter. but the Trump story has been called false by several people that were in those meetings. I haven't seen the Seth Rich story being called false by the FBI or the local DC police yet. We will see what happens in the morning. But at the current time the Seth Rich story has more credibility.

When did Fox news become a legit news source?

Well this in not Fox News the cable channel this is the local Washington D.C. channel. While still owned by 21st Century Fox the locale channels usually don't get political.

[Jimusmc]

yeah clinton had him killed like many others that undermined her and bills illegal deeds

[Garnier Fructis]

I hate to be the one that points this out but this story has more proof than the current Trump spills classified secrets story.

They both claim sources with knowledge in the matter. but the Trump story has been called false by several people that where in those meetings. I haven't seen the Seth Rich story being called false by the FBI or the local DC police yet. We will see what happens in the morning. But at the current time the Seth Rich story has more credibility.

That was a joke post. Everything I wrote was something that the person I was responding to has typed out at some point or another.

[Yelmurc]

I mean, if people don't take it seriously in the first place, they aren't going to waste their breath calling it fake. Your personal interpretation of the facts being more favorable to one than the other doesn't mean there's more proof for one than the other.

I guarantee you that if the story is fake we will hear from the FBI and DC police tomorrow. Its a national story thats been hanging around for nearly a year. They will talk about it. The story broke to late this evening for them to react this evening. My whole argument could be void tomorrow and I will admit that.

But I'd argue, one story has a laptop that should contain the truth. while the other is hearsay since unless there is a recording of the meeting its the Trump administrations word against anonymous sources. If those sources come out and prove they where in the meeting they'd have more credibility. But I doubt they'd do that because they would be fired.

Honestly I hope they are both fake. I dislike the idea of a political party killing someone. And I dislike the idea of our president leaking classified information to other countries. But to dismiss either out of hand is silly and the main reason I started the thread was to see how many people would dismiss this story out of hand simple because it didn't conform to the narrative they want. Because if it is true. It's a way bigger deal than Trump talking to Russians.

[Yelmurc]

We'll hear about it tomorrow after people ran with it and potentially forced them to respond, but you're going off of the fact that to date nobody has said it was fake when it has been nothing more than a conspiracy theory on the internet.

Agreed, we will see what happens tomorrow. But I'd argue that the Trump thing is a conspiracy theory with the same amount of credibility as this. Just because a bunch of left leaning people with a grudge against Trump say something is true don't believe it until you have facts, unnamed sources are not facts they are have no credibility in this day and age. All this crap between both sides is more about getting page views that it is about the truth. Thats the sad state of journalism in todays business models. I love the internet, but I hate what its done to journalism.

[Kaleredar]

...Those leaks that revealed absolutely nothing?

"Nothing" seems like a lot to assassinate someone over.

[Barnabas]

Pretty sure conspiracy theories aren't allowed here. Your source even calls this a literal conspiracy theory. Should probably wait for the actual evidence that they say will be released. I have a feeling no such evidence exists and it's just click bait.

That depends on who the conspiracy theory is about. Some are ok while others are not.

[Barnabas]

This post in itself is a conspiracy theory that you want to believe is true. I've seen threads about Trump closed as conspiracy theories but sure, make shit up all you want.

I don't believe most of what any news organization writes about. If it is proven he did then I believe this more. Well they are closed because many of them are.

[Xar226]

unnamed sources are not facts they are have no credibility in this day and age.

That's literally all that was in your article. In fact it's worse; it's second-hand unnamed sources. The whole article is a PI saying his unnamed source told him something is true. By his own admission, he doesn't even know where the laptop is much less what's actually on it. Apparently that's "more than just a conspiracy theory" but multiple news agencies reporting that Trump can't keep his mouth shut, whooa, let's just wait and see if that could possibly be true.

[Pipebomb]

Just throwing this out there. From the wikileak's Podesta emails.

https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-em...6082#efmAGSAH-

"I'm definitely for making an example of a suspected leaker whether or not we have any real basis for it."

"I think we have to make examples now of people who have violated the trust of HRC and the rest of the team. People going forward need to know there are stiff consequences for leaking, self-promotion, unauthorized talking with the press."

[Deleted]

Here is the last thing the PI they hired did :

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-h...ng-young-girls

Now close this shit conspiracy thread.

[I Push Buttons]

...Those leaks that revealed absolutely nothing?

"Nothing" seems like a lot to assassinate someone over.

Especially since it happened after the fact... What would be the point of that?

And if this guy was the leak, wouldn't Wikileaks jump all over this? They don't reveal sources to protect them... A dead person doesn't need protection. You would think if any of these conspiracies were true Wikileaks would immediately be like "HOLY SHIT OUR SOURCE WAS JUST ASSASSINATED!" Not to mention they were literally out for blood against the DNC in the first place...