Slashdot Mirror
Assange Implies Murdered DNC Staffer Was WikiLeaks' Source (washingtonpost.com)
Okian Warrior quotes a report from Fox News: WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange implied in an interview that a murdered Democratic National Committee staffer was the source of a trove of damaging emails the rogue website posted just days before the party's convention. Speaking to Dutch television program Nieuswsuur Tuesday after earlier announcing a $20,000 reward for information leading to the arrest of Seth Rich's killer, Assange said the July 10 murder of Rich in Northwest Washington was an example of the risk leakers undertake. The Washington Post provides some details of the murder in its report: "Rich was shot twice in the back as he walked to his townhouse about 4:20 a.m. Nothing was taken, but police have said attempted robbery is their leading theory for a motive, noting a spike in robberies in the neighborhood in the preceding weeks. WikiLeaks released the trove of emails later that month, on July 22. Rich, 27, had worked for the DNC for two years and helped develop a computer program to make it easier for people to find polling places on Election Day. After his death, the DNC's then-chairwoman, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Fla.), attended a vigil for Rich in front of his home, and Hillary Clinton, before she was nominated in her run for president, evoked his name during a speech in which she advocated for limiting the availability of guns."
Does anybody really doubt that this man was assassinated by the DNC/Clintons/etc.? Days after a huge scandal? Double tapped in the back and nothing taken? Does that sound like robbery to you?
lots of people involved with the Clintons seem to have a sudden case of suicide for no apparent reason.
Hillary Clinton, before she was nominated in her run for president, evoked his name during a speech in which she advocated for limiting the availability of guns
When guns are outlawed, only Clinton "persuaders" will have guns. So you better vote correctly or else...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
It's just another totally random coincidence that everybody who knows anything about the Clintons ends up dead!
TOTAL. COINCIDENCE.
Besides, the police have already declared that it was a robbery even though the man's keys and wallet weren't taken. Case closed!
Here's the list: (scroll down to "THE CLINTON BODY-COUNT")
http://www.whatreallyhappened....
Going to testify against the mob is probably a safer bet.
http://www.whatreallyhappened....
Scroll down to "body count"
Perhaps some of this is circumstantial, perhaps some is accidental. Perhaps. But perhaps some percentage of this really is what it seems (to me) to add up to.
Decent little list here.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
In the 90's people who make excuses for the Clintons [I'm looking at you Snopes] suggested that anyone who knows so many people is bound to have some with questionable suicides. However I don't recall a similar list appearing either during the Bush II or Obama years. Just the Clintons. I guess we'll add that to the long list of amazing coincidences that continually surround the Clintons. For those too young to remember what I'm talking about, there is a long list of Clinton associates dying under questionable circumstances. The most notable was probably Vince Foster but there were others.
Isn't it funny that Snopes managed to debunk this particular murder before a police report was available? In other words, Snopes says in effect that the allegations can't be true even though the facts haven't been established. Isn't that the opposite of proving something?
Works for fundamentalist Christians the same way, I think...
Loading...
Must we allow Kevin Bacon to murder again?
Two directories and a file name in all caps.
Domain name already borderline conspiracy theory invoking.
I'm ... going to need a slightly more reputable source to believe it.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Wow, so many Russian troll farm posters around these parts with silly conspiracy theories. Putin must really really hate Hillary Clinton.
1. Julian Assange will out a source if it will get him press attention, or
2. The dead guy was not the actual source and the DNC would have no motive to take retribution, so Julian Assange will lie about a source if it will get him press attention.
There's a list, it's over 50 people.
Being a Conservative Republican myself since Regan.. This list is hog wash born in the darkest corner of Arkansas. The Clinton's are many nasty things, but they are NOT stupid enough to be out ordering hits on their detractors. I don't put it past some of their supporters, but Bill and Hill wouldn't do something as stupid as you suggest.
So can we PLEASE STOP with this tripe? Dredging up Vince Foster and Fort Marcy Park is pointless and detracts from *real* issues, like Hillary's role in the "bimbo eruption" team and what she allowed to be said about the long parade of women claiming Bill sexually abused them, then turning around claiming to be the "champion of women's issues" because she happens to have that kind of plumbing, not because she's done anything.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
I'm not willing to believe that the Clintons are killers. Not because they have moral scruples. Because murders are just too high profile and easy to understand.
The Snopes story confirms that he was shot for essentially no reason. We might know more if we had info from his girlfriend or the ambulance team, but nobody has made any public statements. I understand that it's way too early to go around pinning it on somebody, but it's hard to say it's "debunked" when basically no investigation has actually been done yet.
This isn't whistle blowing anymore. For one thing a whistle blower _never_ reveals a source. Even if they're dead the sources family might be targeted. He's after Hilary. I can't say he doesn't have good reason ( she's part of the administration that arranged the false rape allegations ). I'm just not sure what he'll get out of this. Trump (and more importantly Mike Pence who's going to be the real president) aren't exactly favorable to Assange.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Snopes would have "debunked" all the stories about the NSA spying on us a few years ago.
The news about another nation having the skills to get into a computer network, stay undetected, able to remove bulk plain text data but then have details about methods used got discovered was strange. ..." .... directly out of Gamma reporting. "
Why would such a method be caught now with a such weak tool set when every other part of the data extraction was undiscoverable?
The early hint to that was it was not another nation:
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07...
""Perhaps one day the source or sources will step forward and that might be an interesting moment some people may have egg on their faces."
This seems more like a classic Watergate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... insider walk out than any nation with amazing skills to get into a network that then lacked any ability cover its way out of a US network.
Nsa Whistleblower: Agency Has All Of Clinton’s Deleted Emails (31 Jul 2016)
http://www.breitbart.com/jerus...
".... surmised that the hack of the DNC could have been coordinated by someone inside the U.S. intelligence community angry over
"
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
1. Julian Assange will out a source if it will get him press attention, or
2. The dead guy was not the actual source and the DNC would have no motive to take retribution, so Julian Assange will lie about a source if it will get him press attention.
3. If you murder a Wikileaks source, Julian Assange will go after you with everything he's got, releasing the information at the worst possible moment, in the most damaging possible way, and offer rewards for the capture of the murderer.
In other words, it's a message to those who would murder wikileaks informants.
And in other news, Assange has stated that there are more Hillary Clinton revelations to come. The biggest stash yet, he says.
He has stated that he has proof that Clinton had a hand in arming ISIS.
I'm running out of popcorn - need to go out and buy some more!
> I'm ... going to need a slightly more reputable source to believe it.
Of course, attack the messenger.
Which Allinsky rule is that, again?
There's a list
Please add me to the list!
Me too!
Tons of people? I guess I must have missed that "Soylent Clintons" sales day in my supermarket.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Until now, I have always found Snopes a reliable source of information. After having read what they had to say about Seth Rich, I do not understand how they can patently claim a "FALSE" status to this rumor. They offer no evidence at all to the contrary. Their claim that just because he was young, was part of the DNC since just 2014, and "only" developed a system to help voters find voting locations, means that he could not have been the source of the leak or killed to cover it up. If he had access to their systems to some degree, and was a developer capable of implementing a site of this scale for national consumption, then he most certainly could have obtained the emails if that particular server was interconnected in some way to the systems he had access to. That part actually fits to me, because that is where most leaks come from - not from a head honcho (as if the only person capable in Snope's eyes of causing such a leak was the main guy over the DNC email servers themselves). Usually it is someone ancillary on the fringes that has just enough access (or the ability to get the more privileged access relatively easily due to security vulnerabilities) that is responsible for these kinds of leaks. Look at Snowden.
Their arguments are really illogical. For example:
According to Joel Rich, Seth was on the phone with his girlfriend when the shooting started, and Rich indicated to his girlfriend that he was nearly home and not headed out for an FBI meeting implausibly scheduled in the middle of the night on a Saturday:
Rich said Seth was talking to his girlfriend on the phone outside when the incident happened.
“Asked him if he was home yet and he said just about, and then she heard some noise, he said he had to call her back — I don't know when that conversation ended but at 4:18 two shots were fired,” said Rich.
What about that proves he wasn't set up with a fake FBI meeting? Maybe he went to the meeting location, no one was there, and he was going home and was ambushed? And this... "Asked him if he was home yet and he said just about" that doesn't mean he was headed home. He could have simply been reassuring her that he would be home soon, and didn't literally mean he was going home that instant and was just about there.
And then there's the bit where the debunker said "an FBI meeting implausibly scheduled in the middle of the night on a Saturday". What?? If it wasn't a *real* FBI meeting, as the conspiracy theory states, then why not in the middle of the night? Maybe the FBI doesn't really do business in the middle of the night on the weekend (although they probably do), but most people would certainly think cloak and dagger affairs like that do happen at those times. So if he was tricked into meeting, what does that have to do with the plausibility of whether or not the FBI really does meet people at 4 AM on a Saturday? The goal would have been to get him alone so he could be killed without witnesses.
I don't believe this theory is true, and I don't believe it was disproved. However to see Snopes claiming in black and white that it was debunked, with no actual evidence to back it up, has really knocked my respect for them down several notches.
If there's something I missed that they presented as actual evidence that the theory is false, then please tell, because I didn't see it.
Better known as 318230.
I see several comments where people ask something like "What's Assange's game plan?" His game plan should be obvious to anyone. His plan is to say anything it takes to get his name in the news so he can somehow dream that he is still relevant and play the martyr.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
How about not using the tired 20+ year old excuse that has been used by the media to smear people on all matters Clinton?
Besides, there's plenty of motive for the Clintons to signal their usual suspects to take the guy (never mind the rest) out.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
How can anyone verify "nothing was taken"? The guy whose stuff it was is dead.
Suppose hypothetically Mr. Rich owned a hula-dancer lamp that was his favorite, and the robber took it?
Mr. Rich is no longer around to say, "Hey, where's my favorite hula dancer lamp?"
Table-ized A.I.
What's wrong with attacking the messenger? Are we supposed to believe every moron that comes along just because the moron is a "messenger"? If a conspiracy theorist comes along and claims the moon landing was a hoax then you attack both the message and messenger.
I'm ... going to need a slightly more reputable source to believe it.
Then believe whatever lies that the conventional media feed you on the Clinton matter.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Police reported that Rich was conscious and breathing at the time of the shooting.
Well duh, I imagine most shooting victims are alive and breathing when they are shot!
In all seriousness though, he was shot in the back. He likely didn't know anything about the person who shot him, no matter what their motive was, if they didn't approach him after the shooting to rob him.
I browse on +1 so AC's need not respond, I won't see it.
Here it is:
"Whistle-blowers go to significant efforts to get us material and often very significant risks," Assange said. "As a 27-year-old, works for the DNC, was shot in the back, murdered just a few weeks ago for unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in Washington."
He's strongly implying that the deceased man gave him information and that he was killed in retaliation. It's impossible for any reasonable person to conclude anything else when the quote is taken in context. Saying anything else is just being dishonest.
The same is true for Donald's comment about Second Amendment Solutions. He was suggesting (in jest?) someone should assassinate Hilary if she wins. If you're not American and lack the proper context then you might have missed that. But there isn't a man or woman alive in the United States who didn't get his message loud and clear.
The press is reporting exactly what both Assange and Donald said and meant. I'm sorry if that makes you uncomfortable but it doesn't change facts. Hell, it makes me _very_ uncomfortable. There is no way in hell either man should be saying things like this for a variety of reasons. Donald's just a blow hard and an a-hole. I still don't what Assange is up to. Maybe he's given up on making the world a better place and wants it to burn...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
It's possible that dealing with the Clintons might just drive some people to suicide.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
Nothing "decent" about that list. Vince Foster suicide was investigated to death by Republican prosecutor Kenneth Starr. Starr's report stated that he found no reason to believe the death was other than suicide.
A list that contains such a person after being cleared by such an impeccable source with ample investigative resources is now proven to be impervious to facts.
Heck for all I know Clinton killed every one of the other names listed, but this is the equivalent of the list opening with "the earth is flat and the moon landing was faked". No one in their sane mind would give any value to such a list.
Snopes has declared all of this False. http://www.snopes.com/politics...
"Clinton was acquainted with some people who died — that's about all one can make of this list."
What's wrong with attacking the messenger? Are we supposed to believe every moron that comes along just because the moron is a "messenger"? If a conspiracy theorist comes along and claims the moon landing was a hoax then you attack both the message and messenger.
So they're a moron for linking a website and mentioning a very popular theory? Not sure how this gets voted insightful. The idea that powerful people, especially this particular pair, might be wrapped up in murders is certainly not moronic. You sir are a cunt.
======== In the future, everything will be artificial. ========
Hillary Clinton, before she was nominated in her run for president, evoked his name during a speech in which she advocated for limiting the availability of guns.
Wow, not only was she able to kill the source of the leak to set an example of what happens when you cross the Clintons, she was ALSO able to use it to promote stronger gun-control! That's really getting two for the price of one.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Assange IS this story, and his name comes up here surprisingly seldom. Here's a game plan for you: Trump is an extreme case of conspiracy theorist; it wasn't just birtherism, he believes in a lot of them. A Clinton-murder conspiracy has got to be catnip to him right now, desperate as he is. So Assange is floating one: and if Trump bits, Assange plays him a bit, leads him on, his statements get more extreme...and Assange pulls out the rug.
Yeah, it is nutty tinfoil hat stuff.
However, it is interesting that they came up with someone who committed suicide by shooting himself in the chest. Twice. With two separate guns.
That's nutty enough to inspire a boatload of conspiracy theories all by itself - forget any connection to political powers.
And there was a guy who committed suicide by cutting his arms 11 times, his neck twice and shooting himself in the head in such a way that no gun was found.
Or the suicide by gunshot to the back of the head.
Or the chick who packed her luggage and arranged it in the living room before committing suicide by gunshot.
Another guy who committed suicide with two guns? Wait... What?
Somebody spent a lot of time trolling the papers for weird suicide stories. How the heck do you even find a single "suicide by two guns" story? That can't be true... can it? Not the Clinton part.... just the "suicide by two guns" part. Most of these stories have to be covered in goofy sauce that doesn't hold up to scrutiny, right?
So a quick trip to Wikipedia.... and multiple gunshot suicide is actually a thing. And not just "guy rigged up two guns", but actual "dude took 3 shots in the chest to kill himself" multiple gunshot suicide. from the wiki:
Now that's determination.
This has already been declared false by snopes. http://www.snopes.com/meta/cou...
If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
And that's why Ken Starr is alive today.
Not a moron for linking to the website and mentioning it, but for pointing to that website as evidence.
Here is a nice fact for you: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... "Responding to homicide allegations, an official of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology acknowledged that doctors initially were puzzled by a circular wound on the top of Brown's head when his remains were recovered at the crash scene. The forensic pathologist then consulted with others and took extensive X-rays. As a result of these consultations and full-body X-rays, we absolutely ruled out anything beyond a blunt-force injury to the head."
The fact that the Clintons have abused their political office to enrich themselves massively is self-evident from their net worth and their control of the Clinton foundation. The fact that two smart lawyers controlling billions of dollars, with tons of connections and power, and with access to FBI and CIA files have been able to weasel out of being held legally responsible is hardly responsible.
You mean the Kenneth Starr that recently had to resign from Baylor due to a sex assault scandal? You mean the guy whose chief prosecutor in the case, Miquel Rodriguez, quit the Starr investigation, claiming that Starr’s staff was engaging in a cover-up of Foster’s death? That Kenneth Starr?
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
His chief prosecutor in the case, Miquel Rodriguez, quit the Starr investigation, claiming that Starr’s staff was engaging in a cover-up of Foster’s death
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Hint, hint, kind of stupid to professional suicide someone if you don't get away with. Sure plenty of amateurs get caught and most certainly the Clinton Clowns would have got caught if they attempted to do is personally, hence insider professionals were likely involved and using the government trained skills, quite simply got away with it as you would expect professionals to do (the reason why it was investigated 'to death' is it made no sense, except as the individual being suicided). Now a crushed throat training accident and two bullets in the back suicide 'er' robbery, in short order, added to the rest of the list, real organised crime stuff.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Snopes is as trustworthy as Politico after their chief investigative reporter sends their clinton articles to the DNC for revision. They can't even get basic things correct, and when it's something to the contrary to their viewpoint they still label it as fake. Even when their own links prove otherwise.
Om, nomnomnom...
But 20,000 suicides a year is only 7 per 100,000 people. So if the Clintons are closely tied to, say, 10,000 people, then over 30 years one would expect 21 of those to commit suicide assuming their "close ties" represent a random sample of the US population and not, say, a circle of successful, well positioned political players. It appears that being a successful, well positioned political player associated with the Clinton's skews the distribution somewhat in favor of offing oneself. Can't say I blame them.
Whatreallyhappened is a crank site. That guy is a fucking mentalist. Ever see how angry he gets about the big bang theory? Not the show. The fucking cosmic event. So essentially yeah - fuck your messenger.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
You don't prove a negative, bud. You make a claim, you back it the fuck up. The evidence is... lacking.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
The fact that the Clintons have abused their political office to enrich themselves massively is self-evident from their net worth and their control of the Clinton foundation.
Essentially every member of congress makes an absolute shit ton of money during their first term. Speaking fees, legal stock market trading on confidential information, there's all kinds of things congress has decided to allow themselves because they "don't amount to corruption," in a quid-pro-quo sense. Not saying it's good; just saying it's normal.
But such claims of graft or unethical behavior are usually brought up by one party because they think their candidate is less tainted. In this case, the Clintons have been in public office for 30 years; they and their foundation have been subject to public disclosure of their financial records for much of that time. The Trumps have made their money by selling their name and managing mob-controlled construction projects and has kept his finances strictly private. DJT, in particular, has made a special point of emphasizing that he doesn't do anything unless he gets paid. How is he going to get paid as President?
Oh Mashiki, how many times are you going to fall for this?
Let's take your Reddit link, because it's the most hilarious. It cites the Daily Beast article as the source of its "proof", when that is in fact the very thing that Snopes is debunking. And if you do the most basic research into the claims made in that article, they are obviously false. For example, they talk about a member of "LatinAction", which if you search for it doesn't seem to exist. No-one else has been able to confirm the claims made by the Daily Beast, and in fact some of the students have said directly that they were inaccurate.
"LET US BE CLEAR: We are not scared of the chalk. We are not mad about being politically challenged. We are rightfully angry because we also exercise our first amendment right to freedom of speech and there are people on this campus, and in this country, who as a result choose to threaten us and twist the truth to protect their own bigotry."
Okay, one more, because you might learn something from this one.
The Ethics Alarms article is very obviously misleading you. For example, it claims that "Notice that the TRUE and FALSE sections donâ(TM)t match the claim. Thatâ(TM)s because Snopes is playing the logical fallacy games of moving the goalposts and using straw men." That's only because of the way they edited the quote from Snopes.com, if you follow the link they provide it is extremely clear that they are addressing the exact claims made and what Ethics Alarms is claiming is a "straw man" is just a short summary of those claims.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I'd prefer the format to be a "binders full of victims". Thanks.
Oh please. Snopes does this all the time to mislead people. They create a strawman of the actual story so they can label it "mostly false" and then in the print acknowledge the actual argument so they can pretend to be credible. Case in point, the Philando Castile shooting.
Castile was shot by a police officer in July. His girlfriend then made a video of the aftermath and put it up on facebook in which she claims they were stopped for a busted taillight and the officer flipped out and shot Castile for no reason other than the racist cop was scared of black people. The media ran with the girlfriend's story without question. This drew national attention and was one of the incidents cited by the man who shot and killed 5 Dallas police officers later in the week as one of the motivations for his actions.
Her story sounded fishy, and conservative media, which doesn't believe that racist cops are gunning people down for no reason investigated and found that, in fact, Castile was pulled over because he matched the description of an armed robber from a convenience store heist a few days before. And this is the claim made in the article snopes declared false:
Castile and Ms. Diamond Reynolds (Facebook video uploader) were pulled over by police because Castile matched a BOLO Alert for an armed robbery suspect from four days prior.
What does snopes pick as the claim?
Claim: Philando Castile was wanted for armed robbery when he was killed by police officers.
Which they then labeled "MOSTLY FALSE."
No. No one ever said the cops were out looking specifically for Castile. Just that he was pulled over because he matched the description (and he did). So, reality is the cop did not freak out and murder a random black man. He had a reasonable suspicion he was dealing with an armed robber. It would have been great if the situation had ended a different way, but if the officer was wary of the man and shot it was "because possible armed robber" and not "because black." To this day we do not know if Castile was the robber or not. I looked and couldn't find any new information about that aspect of the investigation.
Why didn't snopes choose this as the claim:
Claim: Philando Castile was stopped on suspicion of armed robbery when he was killed by police officers.
That's the actual claim from conservative media, and could have been labeled "TRUE."
But, snopes has their bias to push, so of course they can't do that. Would have been nice, though. Maybe if the media had run with "Man pulled over on suspicion of armed robbery shot" instead of "Racist cop murders black man for no reason" the Dallas shooter might not have been so mad, and not murdered all those cops?
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
They said it was mostly false, and then (2nd and 3rd paragraphs) explained why:
WHAT'S TRUE: Police who pulled over and killed Philando Castile reported they thought he might have resembled a suspect in an armed robbery case.
WHAT'S FALSE: Philando Castile was not "wanted" on an armed robbery charge or a "suspect" in such a case at the time he was killed.
It's right at the top, in bold, extremely prominent, in green and red text. The claim they are debunking is from Conservative Treehouse, and is headlined: "Confirmed â" Philando Castile Was an Armed Robbery Suspect â" False Media Narrative Now Driving Cop Killingsâ¦"
Their claim is correct, he was not a suspect, he resembled a description given of a suspect. However, this headline seems to have little to do with the outrage. If anything heightened it, it was probably the Medical Examiner's office declaring the killing to be a homicide.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
So now we have a conspiracy to kill Vince Foster that not only includes Bill and Hillary, but also a Republican prosecutor. This is just like the moon landing, where for it to be true requires our sworn enemies at the time (i.e. the Russians) to go along with it. I mean it anything is possible, but you just lowered the probabilities of either of these events being true by orders of magnitude.
A conspiracy of confederates I can see, a conspiracy that includes your enemies is out there in la-la land.
What makes you think that establishment Republicans and establishment Democrats are "enemies"?
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Here is a nice fact for you:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...
"Responding to homicide allegations, an official of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology acknowledged that doctors initially were puzzled by a circular wound on the top of Brown's head when his remains were recovered at the crash scene. The forensic pathologist then consulted with others and took extensive X-rays. As a result of these consultations and full-body X-rays, we absolutely ruled out anything beyond a blunt-force injury to the head."
Not sure what you are saying here. Wouldn't you expect the cause of death for people who crashed a plane into a mountain to be blunt force trauma?
Enigma
"... without evidence ..."
... hang on.
... but we're talking about a group of people in the DNC who were all killed around the time the DNC leaks happened. This isn't enough to throw someone in jail, but that doesn't mean OJ is innocent of murder. What it does mean is this all needs to be closely investigated.
Whoa, whoa
In Riches case he was reportedly killed by a robber, who left him with all of his materially valuable possessions (including his wallet). Several people close to the killings of the DNC officials have expressed that there deaths were very strange. I thought I heard on the radio yesterday Rich's parents have expressed as much.
People get shot and killed everyday
I know there are a lot of MoveOn folks that are going to ask, 'Do we have to have the tax payers PAY to investigate every suspicious death linked to the Clintons?' Absolutely. No reservations about that.
Also, in this case voters are also the jurors. There might not be enough evidence to indite a suspect, but that doesn't mean they should be elected president. And there are well over 40+ suspicious deaths of people who were at least acquaintences or working partners of the Clintons.
The woman just had the director of the FBI aquite her of wrongdoing following an investigation in which enough evidence came to light publically to prove her wrongdoing and with a speech in which he outlined wrongdoing before stating the opposite conclusion. She was just proven to be involving in a conspiracy with the DNC both to funnel funds to her campaign and to rig the nomination. At the convention the delegates whose job it was to represent the interests of voters they represent who were proven to have been duped and cast their vote for the other candidate were openly told by every speaker to stfu and fall in line, the message was even being repeated over and over again by the mainstream media to the public. She is even busting out the typical 80's R side f33r the evil Russians argument.
The evil and corrupt dictator we are supposed to fear Trump will be if elected Hillary is already proven to be and she isn't even in office yet, she just already has that much power without the Presidency added to it. I think it is fair to say the vast majority of the intelligent people in this nation don't want either one of them. The usual lesser of two evils argument wears pretty thin when both options are so blatantly evil.