Here’s my question about Seth Rich.....
....but first let’s establish that I think there is something big going on with Rich. I think he was murdered. This is not rocket science.
But why?
Come on people, tell me why?
Did someone think he was about to deliver some information to someone else at 4 in the AM?
Was he killed for punishment for having already delivered some revealing information? If so, why kill somebody AFTER the deed, risk capture and the truth getting out?
IF I could understand just why Rich was murdered (and again, I truly believe he was killed outright) I would feel more comfortable with all this speculation.
He was killed because he was (a) delivering secrets to Wikileaks, and (b) refused to stop doing so when he was told to, and (c) demonstrated that he had principles and could not be bought off.
I believe Rich “may” have given info to wilileaks that looked bad but wasn’t enough to get someone sent to prison.
So he was delivering proof of some REAL crimes to someone who could prosecute. Namely the FBI or someone he believed to be FBI. He contacted them and told them what he had. They said “Sure, we’ll help you. Meet us at 4 AM and have the evidence with you. And make sure you don’t leave anything anyone else can get.”. Then he was killed.
“If so, why kill somebody AFTER the deed, risk capture and the truth getting out?”
I think there were a lot of young people at the DNC who were Sanders supporters who weren’t familiar with the Clinton’s past methods. The killing was both a lesson and a reminder to stay quiet.
The more evidence that comes out about the Clintons the even more disappointed I am about the Bushes. They have to know,
“...why kill somebody AFTER the deed...”
As a warning to anyone else who wishes to do what he did...
I read somewhere that he was alive at the hospital and talking.
“If I could understand just why Rich was murdered (and again, I truly believe he was killed outright) I would feel more comfortable with all this speculation”
I think DNC feared that he might go public with the fact that he was the Wikileaks source, and not the Russians.
Remember, the Wikileaks releases would have been a thousand times more credible and a thousand times more damaging to the Hillary Clinton campaign if it had been known that they came from Seth Rich, a whistleblower within the DNC, because then they could not be dismissed as Russian anti-Clinton propaganda.
The DNC wished to discredit the Wikileaks information by claiming it was a smear campaign by the Russians against Clinton. This ploy would not only discredit the Wikileaks information, but it would also serve to taint Trump by suggesting that he was colluding with the Russians, that he was overly friendly with our enemy, Putin, and imply that he had business dealings with Russia that would represent a conflict of interest. It would also serve to make Clinton appear stronger by suggesting the Russians were afraid of the prospect of her as POTUS.
Assange made it clear that Wikileaks would never divulge the real source, which gave the DNC cover to claim Russia was the source.
If Rich were to go public as the source it would have been devastating to the Clinton campaign. But why would he have gone public?
I think the fact that he leaked in the first place indicates that he must have been very angry at the DNC for sabataging Sanders. He wanted to bring them down. It must have been infuriating to stand by and watch the DNC and MSM spin their lies about Russia being the source, and watch the Wikileaks revelations being discredited as Russian propaganda.
There was only one way he could have proven that the source was not the Russians - he would have had to go public.
Was he angry enough enough to risk going public as the source? We will never know because he’s dead. But the DNC had everything invested in their cover story that the Wikileaks revelations were Russian propaganda, and therefore had a strong motive to silence him.