https://our.wikileaks.org/Seth_Rich_Murder
https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/6cox1j/seth_ric...
https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/6cct6z/his_name...
https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/6coush/the_dnc_...
http://www.wnd.com/2017/05/bombshell-donna-brazile-probing-s...
I find this whole story very confusing. Why won't wikileaks confirm or deny whether he worked for them? That would either put these conspiracy theories to rest, or provide significant evidence for them. Instead they seem to strongly hint that he might have been a leak, but won't outright confirm it. It's like they want to fuel conspiracy theories without feeling responsible for them.
1. They have a general policy of not confirming or denying such matters.
2. He worked for them, and they do not want to further conspiracy theories (or aid in bringing possible murders to justice).
3. He didn't work for them, and they do want to further conspiracy theories rather than eradicate them.
Given the way that they've operated recently, the third option does tend to seem more plausible than option #2.
Because they have a lot to gain politically by hinting at it and adding fuel to the conspiracy theories while being able to say "we didn't actually say he was our source" if the actual data comes out proving he wasn't.
>It's like they want to fuel conspiracy theories without feeling responsible for them.
They do and your vouching this above comment is just helping these people smear a dead mans life.
As for this guy's claims:
1) Assange all but confirms it: https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/866536275972689920
2) Seth Rich's parents want the truth and justice as well, instead of the coverup that was done so far: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcKiYTq5Gho
https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/866536275972689920
As for the 'smearing a dead man's life', I don't see how it's smearing - if it gets proven to be true, that man is a national hero. And as for 'causing hardship to his family', which is probably the next angle you're gonna try to use, the dead man's parents want the truth too, and not a coverup of their son's death:
>I don't see how it's smearing
You're saying he isn't trustworthy and that he is a criminal.
>he dead man's parents want the truth too, and not a coverup of their son's death:
That video was thanking people for supporting the gofundme campaign and has nothing to do with the conspiracy theories. This fact has been posted everywhere the video has for days now so given your obvious interest I can only assume that you're posting it knowing this.
His family have threatened to sue fox and his brother wrote quite the letter to Hannity asking him to stop.
As for the threats to sue, they were issued by a DNC spokeperson, and not by the family: https://i.redd.it/2p4wvr9k9wxy.png
It's nice to see the DNC supporting his family. Search for his brothers letter.
What do you think should happen to trump leaker?
Foxnews corespondent: The family is begging me for help.
The family: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/were-seth-richs-pare...
You're ignoring the inverse of that statement: if it's false, then you're actively trying to use a regular murder for pure political ends and abusing the justice system to do so.
edit: and I forgot the main point, they need to keep the status/image they have, that they will NEVER give up leaker's identity, so they don't scare off future leakers.
And like I said, I believe their main motive is to keep the trust of possible future leakers, in the sense of insisting that they will never officially confirm identity of their sources for any reason.
The fact that they have but aren't actually confirming it says it all really.