Assange On Seth Rich Murdered DNC Staffer

>>65892
bumping my own thread, this is something that should be discussed

WikiLeaks offering 20k reward to anyone who can gather enough evidence to lead to a conviction.

http://www.businessinsider.com/wikileaks-20000-seth-rich-dnc-2016-8

I'm surprised this thread hasn't jumped too the top of this forum.

>>65921
20k reward? Kek

>>65892
clinton dindu nuffin m9

inb4 nothing happens

Well of course nothing is going to happen with the fbi investigating. Coney too busy sucking Hillarys dick to actually do his job.

>>65921
No amount of evidence can lead to a conviction, Hillary has proved that, the FBI are in their pocket and won't press charges no matter what.

Just another body to add to the count, how many is that now?

>>65892
>was he one of your sources
>[nods yes]
>we don't comment on our sources

>>66019
There's a time delay genius. He nods before he hears the question end.

>>66016
Well no conviction for Hillary of course. She won't ever be tied to this poor guys murder. But someone did kill him. It would be nice if that guy was caught.

>>66018
One?

Maybe the committed suicide?

Definitely not a suicide. He was shot multiple times 1 block away from his house.

>>66033
i know, it was just to funny

>>66051

http://www.snopes.com/seth-conrad-rich/

>>66294
>snopes
nice propaganda site you have there.

>>66295

>anon 1 makes fantastic claim with no evidence
>anon 2 finds source that has evidence, which proves anon 1's baseless conspiracy wrong
>anon 1 responds, "I don't like that source. I don't like what they say here so it is 'propaganda.'"

Compelling argument Anon. I'm convinced that snopes argument is wrong because according to you it is "propaganda."

Despite media across the political spectrum using their info (MSNBC and FOX) and Factcheck finding that their articles are unbiased, I'll take your word for it. Thanks anon.

>>66297
I'm a drive by shit posting anon though.

>>66297
>Snopes article
>calls the source outrageous and conspiracy minded
>"Rational-wiki says it's outrageous too"
>Police investigation is ongoing but we can safely say it was definitely not this outcome,
>Assange offering cash reward for information on his death means absolute nothing and is simply a random act of kindness
>Assange makes references to possible staffers or programmers inside the DNC being sources during Democracy Now Interview, conspicuously not mentioned by Snopes

"Snopes says X. Stop asking questions. Listen to Snopes. The media agrees. Stop asking questions. Factcheck agrees. Stop asking questions."

You best get used to the idea of propaganda anon. You're exhaling it.

>>66297
Snopes is owned by two people... registered 'democrats'

Their research is nothing more than an opinion piece at times

>>66312

Ok, so lets see here anon.

You are trying to tell us that a 1) this "Kremlin report" is real or a reliable source 1.5) If the Kremlin had any real evidence they wouldn't take it to a real media outlet 2) crime doesn't happen at night in DC? 3) Russian diplomats acting as part-time detectives were spending their time focusing on some random Dem staffer that they came in contact with how again? 4) This staffer is in cahoots with Russian diplomats, but doesn't know how to properly dial the phone and call the FBI? 5) Assange is being a good guy and offering the reward not his personal issue of being stuck in an embassy? He has no axe to grind against Clinton? Even Snowden and Glenn Greenwald have criticized Assange as of late https://theintercept.com/2016/08/06/accusing-wikileaks-bias-beside-point/ 6) The real FBI lied to the US the DNC wasn't hacked instead this staffer leaked the info because...? 7) The police state that they think it is likely a robbery gone bad, but they are lying too., because...?

You believe all this? I'm assuming 9-11 was an inside job as well?

Anon, I think you just want to believe this is real. We get it already. Clinton and Trump and terribly unlikable, but this bullshit that a "hit squad" killed some staffer and Russia of all places has the scoop in this is absurd.

You can throw insults all you like, it isn't going get us to a point where your belief = anything resembling a fact.

>>65985
Didn't it come out today that the current administration has blocked the FBI from investigating the Clinton foundation before?
And the FBI guy at that press conference did NOT sound very pleased that Hilary & Bill are gonna get away with it.
Ive always feared the Intelligence Community far more than the government. Mostly because theyre like a government within a government. Probably only Obama himself has oversight over many of them.
If the various three letter agencies and the Executive branch are at odds, that does not bode well for our freedom amd our safety

>>66297
>MSNBC and FOX
Anon you need to try harder when you troll

>>66314

evidence?

Does anyone on /news/ actually back up anything they say or is this just a place where the craziest can scream shit super loud hoping if they say it loud enough it will become true?

Do you really think the word of an anonymous person on the internet has any value without evidence?

>>66327
If Snowden is criticizing Assange then Assange definitely isnt working for Russia because Snowden is
Way to shoot yourself in the foot every time you post

>>66336
>>66333

5/10
you did a good job of ignoring most of the posts and focusing on minor comment but you need to troll softer in the future it is too obvious.

>>66333
nice tripps.

>>66331
if you think obama is the most powerful person in america, then you are wrong my friend

>>66294
Can you mother fuckers stop posting snopes articles? Snopes has already been shown to be inaccurate quite a few times. It's not reliable anymore. Just like CNN and NYTimes

>>66331
>blocked the FBI from investigating the Clinton foundation

The DOJ blocked it based on the fact that the FBI had already investigated them the previous year and found nothing actionable. They said the probe could continue, but an investigation cannot yet be opened.

www.cnn.com/2016/08/11/politics/hillary-clinton-state-department-clinton-foundation/

Did Obama or Lynch specifically intervene to ensure the DOJ blocked the investigation? That can't be said for sure -- it's believed neither were present at the FBI's meeting with the DOJ on the subject, and I'm not sure how much of the DOJ staff in those meetings are career folks who stay on for multiple presidencies and how much are the staff of each new Attorney General. Would it have been reported to Lynch regardless? Probably. Would she have then told Obama, or acted politically on his behalf? Don't know -- sometimes technocratic cabinet members like the AG can be surprisingly ethical.

Regardless, it is a *fact* that the Foundation was investigated by the FBI just last year, and nothing actionable was found.

lol. assange. putins little bitch. just like drumpf.

>>65892
This is pretty sad, I hate when yuppies die, why couldn't have been a useless hippie hipster dipshit? This dude was contributing to society :(