re: Seth Rich.... for non conspiracy theorists

quote:

---

Lots of thing are possible, but it requires evidence to prove them. The Seth Rich conspiracy case is built on a house of cards of speculation, unsubstantiated assertions, and one anonymous source that seems less and less credible. That's vessel seems to be distancing himself from and has enormous credibility issues.

---

Same is true of all the alleged Clinton murders. Some people just lack objectivity, and will latch on to anything that denigrates people who think differently than they do.

The Clinton's are scum of the earth, but they aren't responsible for any murders. The fact that the two people who without a doubt had dirt to ruin them, Monica Lewinsky and Linda Tripp, are still alive should end all this absurdity. If the Clintons truly had hitmen on the payroll wouldn't Tripp and Lewinsky have been the most low key and beneficial ones to off?

And every name that gets added to this list makes it even more absurd. Clinton couldn't keep the fact that he got a blow job under wraps, but I'm to believe he is responsible for dozens of murders and not one credible piece of evidence has ever surfaced to link him to one? Think about the logistics, hundreds of cops, dozens of hit men... it just collapses under the weight of how ridiculous it all is.

Lofty meme, mate

Justice for Seth Rich!

What's more likely:

He fought back against robbers, they shot him and panicked

Or

A professional hit man hired by ? left him alive and failed to properly frame a robbery

This is an easy one folks

Meta-conspiracy is one of the laziest arguments out there.

Why can't I prove this conspiracy theory? Well there's a bigger conspiracy covering it up?

Why can't I prove that conspiracy? There is an even bigger one behind the big conspiracy?

That's why so many roads of conspiracy lead to the giant end-all-be-all conspiracy theory. Because ultimately it traps you in a cycle of being unable to prove each step, so you just keep ascribing bigger (also unproven) theories until everything is explain by one grand (unproven) theory.

quote:

---

The best reason to think Rich was the source comes from Wikileaks imo. In an interview Asange described their informant and it basically exactly described Rich. And their twitter account has obviously put his name out there. Wikileaks/Asange have a damn good record of facts, so not sure why we shouldn't believe this?

And the argument that we shouldn't look into this for the family's sake, is bullshite considering this is a national security issue

---

1) Assange is a professional troll. I don't question the veracity of documents he releases. But his record as to insinuation and opinions should not be conflated with the legitimacy of actual materials disseminated.
2) You make all these arguments about how Hannity is full of shite, but then conclusively tell us this is a national security issue?

My problem with "well why don't we investigate it" is that it would be a victory for the trolls. I like how half this board thinks the FBI should be chasing down Hillary, needs to focus on real problems, etc., but wants to see LEO resources poured into pizzagate, Seth Rich and other 4chan shite.

Assange has so many vested interests in not revealing who his source(s) are/were that I have no clue why anyone would take his word on this.

quote:

---

Why wouldn't the DNC offer a reward or express it's sincere condolences

---

They did offer condolences right after it happened.