Newt Gingrich states on Fox that Seth Rich was assassinated.

a reply to: underwerks

How do you prove it? You start with a few facts and go from there. You don't just call it a botched robbery and forget about the other possible links.

He was shot in the back. Almost immediately the OS was a botched robbery with no evidence for that. Nothing appeared to be taken. He still had his money, wallet, phone, watch, necklace.

If it was a robbery, the assassins took a thumb drive or something similar. I guess you could call that a robbery.

Other facts:
He worked for the DNC
He knew powerful people in the party and he may have been a Bernie supporter.
Area cameras conveniently have zilch info. Did all area cameras fail at the same time?

a reply to: gladtobehere

I guess it's okay for a Republican to make accusations without any reliable sources.

I wonder how much of the fact that Seth was scheduled to be a witness in a voter fraud case plays into his death?

That together with the possibility that he is a wikileaker provides more than sufficient motive for death.

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: underwerks


Area cameras conveniently have zilch info. Did all area cameras fail at the same time?

This is what I want to know. An area like that is likely to have MULTIPLE security camera that could have caught this. Yet there is no footage of the murder, at least that we have been told about.

originally posted by: deckdel
a reply to: gladtobehere

"discraceful conspiracy" ... For some reason FBI dropped the investigation. Local police dropped - because the Mayor wanted so !!!

This is incredible. A political murder takes place in Washington DC - and INVESTIGATIONS ARE SHUNNED DOWN !!!

The reason "Left Side Story" is not screaming for justice and blood on the streets for this one is pretty clear. They KNOW the Democrats killed Seth Rich. They KNOW he was the leaker.

And they KNOW who ordered the killing.

The PARENTS don't like the conspiracy and fired the PI Fox News provided them for pushing crazy conspiracy theories rather than investigating their sons death.

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: underwerks

How do you prove it? You start with a few facts and go from there. You don't just call it a botched robbery and forget about the other possible links.

He was shot in the back. Almost immediately the OS was a botched robbery with no evidence for that. Nothing appeared to be taken. He still had his money, wallet, phone, watch, necklace.

If it was a robbery, the assassins took a thumb drive or something similar. I guess you could call that a robbery.

Other facts:
He worked for the DNC
He knew powerful people in the party may have been a Bernie supporter.
Area cameras conveniently have blank info. Did all area cameras fail at the same time?

When proving something such as this, you don't start with a conclusion, and then look for facts to support it. That's not how investigations work, and if you follow that route of thinking you're going to be wrong, repeatedly.

Maybe he was robbed? But of something the police didn't know to look for?

Has it occurred to anyone that maybe Russian agents murdered him and robbed him of the DNC emails, that were then released afterwards? And that's why there seems to be a semi cover-up of the murder investigation?

It follows the Russian's modus operandi in cases like this, yet everyone is so wrapped up in partisanship they write it off.

Once you let go of partisanship, things start to fall into place.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

How do you know for sure that it was the family that did any of that?
They are being handled.

Rob Bauman, their spokesman, is a professional Democrat crisis PR consultant.
His job is to make everything fit the Democrat agenda.
He does not care about finding the killer, from what I have seen.

Remember, there are other deaths in this timeframe. From another DNC tech who was a "Bernie fan" too, as well as some principals of Wikileaks. Maybe someone who knows the details offhand can enumerate them.

Newt has been going off script quite a lot lately, I'm actually starting to find him tolerable as far as establishment politicians go.

Last year before one of the debates he talked about how Trump wasn't a part of the "secret society" and the establishment doesn't know how to control him.

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.

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: gladtobehere

Pretty sure the burden of proof is on the deniers and vindication is only needed for the non-believers.

Everyone else that isn't partisan-bound can't deny what's blatantly in front of their face.

Actually, that's the exact opposite of how burden of proof works.

When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

If you make the claim Seth Rich was murdered in some conspiracy, the burden of proof is on you to prove it, not on other people to disprove you.

I know how it works, I was using it as a figure of speech.

Because at this point it's only the deniers and non believers that are searching for vindication.

originally posted by: deckdel
a reply to: gladtobehere

"discraceful conspiracy" ... For some reason FBI dropped the investigation. Local police dropped - because the Mayor wanted so !!!

This is incredible. A political murder takes place in Washington DC - and INVESTIGATIONS ARE SHUNNED DOWN !!!

The reason "Left Side Story" is not screaming for justice and blood on the streets for this one is pretty clear. They KNOW the Democrats killed Seth Rich. They KNOW he was the leaker.

And they KNOW who ordered the killing.

No surprise there ... did you forget the "suicide" of Vincent Walker "Vince" Foster Jr?

He was the next highest politician after JFK who go died under suspcious circumstances.

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.

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: gladtobehere

Pretty sure the burden of proof is on the deniers and vindication is only needed for the non-believers.

Everyone else that isn't partisan-bound can't deny what's blatantly in front of their face.

Actually, that's the exact opposite of how burden of proof works.

When two parties are in a discussion and one makes a claim that the other disputes, the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim especially when it challenges a perceived status quo.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

If you make the claim Seth Rich was murdered in some conspiracy, the burden of proof is on you to prove it, not on other people to disprove you.

I know how it works, I was using it as a figure of speech.

Because at this point it's only the deniers and non believers that are searching for vindication.

Obviously not if you used it wrong.

And to the last part, think about that statement for a second..

"Because at this point it's only the deniers and non believers that are searching for vindication."

So you admit you aren't looking for any evidence beyond what you already believe?

That's not how searching for the truth works..

a reply to: JoshuaCox

The parents don't like the "conspiracy"?? Too bad. This is not a teenage boy.... this was a grown man that worked for the DNC and got murdered/assassinated during a period of scandalous revelations about the underhanded things that were going on in the DNC.

The family shouldn't have a say about what is investigated, who is investigated, or why something is being investigated.

a reply to: underwerks

Once again, you are ignoring the overwhelming evidence that has already been provided in other threads, by demanding that it be presented all over again in this thread. You seem to think that because it is not being laid out again for you here that people are making claims with no proof.

There was that email in the Podesta Wikileaks that talked about making an example of someone that wasn't loyal shortly before Rich was murdered..... and the leaks stopped.

All coincidence?

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.

I don't even call this one a conspiracy. To me, this is just looking at highly suspicious facts and asking the proper questions.

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.