Herochat

General Forums => Debate => Topic started by: Detective AP on May 17, 2017, 06:13:24 PM

Title: What do you think about Seth Rich?
Post by: Detective AP on May 17, 2017, 06:13:24 PM
Was he the DNC insider for wikileaks?  Was there foul play?
Title: Re: What do you think about Seth Rich?
Post by: LiquidSailor on May 17, 2017, 06:33:21 PM
I dont know who that is, but anyone who exposes the corruption of the DNC is a hero.
Title: Re: What do you think about Seth Rich?
Post by: g-train on May 17, 2017, 06:42:28 PM
Maybe and maybe?
Title: Re: What do you think about Seth Rich?
Post by: Detective AP on May 17, 2017, 07:09:12 PM
He was possibly the DNC insider who leaked the Podesta emails.  He was later found murdered in his own home in a "botched robbery" despite nothing being stolen.
Title: Re: What do you think about Seth Rich?
Post by: LiquidSailor on May 17, 2017, 07:10:29 PM
Haha Hillary sent one of her brainwashed child sex slaves from that pizza joint to kill him.
Title: Re: What do you think about Seth Rich?
Post by: therock on May 17, 2017, 10:59:55 PM
yea the whole murder plot seem like bullshit..to add to the suspose hit list she did

Now if it was just that he was a DNC insider..i could maybe buy
Title: Re: What do you think about Seth Rich?
Post by: Detective AP on May 17, 2017, 11:53:43 PM
He wouldn't have just pissed off Clinton.  He would have pissed off a large number of very powerful people in government.  They could have legally killed him using the NDAA 2012, really, considering this could roughly count as treason.
Title: Re: What do you think about Seth Rich?
Post by: therock on May 18, 2017, 01:55:07 AM
He wouldn't have just pissed off Clinton.  He would have pissed off a large number of very powerful people in government.  They could have legally killed him using the NDAA 2012, really, considering this could roughly count as treason.

it not treason to fuck over one party as long as he didnt do anything illegal. But here the thing WHY. Think about it why? Damage basicly done.  apparently if he an informent for Assange..he would of all ready have told him anything he knew.  Email already happen.  It no good reason to kill him other then she EVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIL. But let go with she did it out of spite.  Because she a derange mad woman.

Why not steal something. If as the theory was they wanted to make it look like a robbery gone bad why not take something.  I mean they have the cops inovolve, manage to hire some hitmen that can keep a secret this big. They plan all of this..but forgot to actully steal something to cement the robbery. It seem the next step to a murder that looks like a robbery. First step murder...second robbery to cement said narrative.

Its to me..much more like the robbery didnt plan to kill them. And freak the fuck out and ran. Thus the term BOTCH robbery.

They could just fire him. if he then come up and says that why..well it will make it clear Wikleaks had it in for the clinton campaign to the point they place an informent..but not in RNC..which pants them as maybe not the 100 percent unbias play it down the middle angels they claim to be

The reason this is popular the same reason. The Pizza gate thing in popular. Same way the so called HIT list popular. For some reason.  He being a shitty politicna..or hell a crooked one not enough. She has to be seen as a straight up SUPER VILLAN. Reason why they throw this shit is..if you throw enough shit people going to say "Well even SOME of true..then there a monster"

did it with obama...with the Satanist muslim, mudering atheitst, Kenyan. Just keep hammer at these stories till they slip through the cracks

Not there zero evidence to this being connected to it. Hell Zero evidence he even an informent. instead of Assange hinting it. He said he wont say for sure because he wont reveal his informent

1) The informent is dead. so dont know what he protecting
2)  Even if he wasnt deader, hinting at him being an inside is still shitty protection if that the case. I mean I never had an informent. Not in a police.  But I think saying "Hey I am not saying this guy wokring uncover informent..but .not saying he not ...(Wink Wink)"  is probally what you consider shitty protection

even Rocket Racoon better at subterfuge then that.

This started to play down the Russia thing. To say it wasnt a hack..it was a DNC insider. Then ok it was a fat guy in his basment.  And saying the whole Russia hacking the DNC was bullshit that several private and goverment agencies decided to go along with.

Dont know how many people still on that particual train..but it getting pretty empty. But now that Hillary less in a spotlight to atracct people hate boners..now people like "Oh maybe there something to this Russia thing". Now it just was there any collusion now. Now reather you care about russia doesnt matter.  If the argument..all Russia did was reveal Hillary lies. One can say they screwed Bernie so turn about fair play

but it important to bring up here regardless, because he the theory is she killed him leaks was gotten from him. But if it was Russia..then it may of not come from..him Thus no good reason to kill him. So Russia being the one to hack takes away motive.
Title: Re: What do you think about Seth Rich?
Post by: Detective AP on May 18, 2017, 02:39:52 AM
it not treason to fuck over one party as long as he didnt do anything illegal
There's a reason why leakers try to remain anonymous.

Quote
But here the thing WHY. Think about it why? Damage basicly done.  apparently if he an informent for Assange..he would of all ready have told him anything he knew.  Email already happen.  It no good reason to kill him other then she EVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIL. But let go with she did it out of spite.  Because she a derange mad woman.

For starters, he died a while ago.

Second, no one said Clinton had him killed.

Third, you know Deep Throat remained anonymous decades after the entire Watergate scandal was over.  Hell, he remained anonymous decades after Nixon died.  Why?  Because pissing off very powerful people can lead to repercussions.

Quote
Why not steal something. If as the theory was they wanted to make it look like a robbery gone bad why not take something.  I mean they have the cops inovolve, manage to hire some hitmen that can keep a secret this big. They plan all of this..but forgot to actully steal something to cement the robbery. It seem the next step to a murder that looks like a robbery. First step murder...second robbery to cement said narrative.

Yeah, that's why it's so odd.  The authorities declared it a "botched robbery" for no real reason.

Quote
Its to me..much more like the robbery didnt plan to kill them. And freak the fuck out and ran. Thus the term BOTCH robbery.

Without evidence of a robber ever having been in his house.  This is why his family hired a PI to investigate initially because nothing about his murder made sense.

Quote
They could just fire him. if he then come up and says that why..well it will make it clear Wikleaks had it in for the clinton campaign to the point they place an informent..but not in RNC..which pants them as maybe not the 100 percent unbias play it down the middle angels they claim to be

You talk about how unlikely it is for anyone involved in the government to want a guy dead for exposing them, then make a conspiracy theory around Wikileaks "having it in for Clinton".  Wikileaks started off taking on the Bush administration.  During the election, Assange asked for Trump's tax returns and has recently asked Comey for the Trump tapes.  Hell, shortly after he was elected, Trump talked about how evil wikileaks were, called Snowden a traitor, and said that Manning was ungrateful.  There's never been any love between Wikileaks and the Republicans.

Anyway, it wasn't until recently that there was any evidence of him having connections to wikileaks until his family got the PI involved.

Quote
The reason this is popular the same reason. The Pizza gate thing in popular. Same way the so called HIT list popular. For some reason.  He being a shitty politicna..or hell a crooked one not enough. She has to be seen as a straight up SUPER VILLAN. Reason why they throw this shit is..if you throw enough shit people going to say "Well even SOME of true..then there a monster"

did it with obama...with the Satanist muslim, mudering atheitst, Kenyan. Just keep hammer at these stories till they slip through the cracks

Not even remotely on the same level.
Title: Re: What do you think about Seth Rich?
Post by: therock on May 18, 2017, 04:07:01 AM
it not treason to fuck over one party as long as he didnt do anything illegal
There's a reason why leakers try to remain anonymous.

Quote
But here the thing WHY. Think about it why? Damage basicly done.  apparently if he an informent for Assange..he would of all ready have told him anything he knew.  Email already happen.  It no good reason to kill him other then she EVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIL. But let go with she did it out of spite.  Because she a derange mad woman.

For starters, he died a while ago.

Second, no one said Clinton had him killed.

Third, you know Deep Throat remained anonymous decades after the entire Watergate scandal was over.  Hell, he remained anonymous decades after Nixon died.  Why?  Because pissing off very powerful people can lead to repercussions.

Quote
Why not steal something. If as the theory was they wanted to make it look like a robbery gone bad why not take something.  I mean they have the cops inovolve, manage to hire some hitmen that can keep a secret this big. They plan all of this..but forgot to actully steal something to cement the robbery. It seem the next step to a murder that looks like a robbery. First step murder...second robbery to cement said narrative.

Yeah, that's why it's so odd.  The authorities declared it a "botched robbery" for no real reason.

Quote
Its to me..much more like the robbery didnt plan to kill them. And freak the fuck out and ran. Thus the term BOTCH robbery.

Without evidence of a robber ever having been in his house.  This is why his family hired a PI to investigate initially because nothing about his murder made sense.

Quote
They could just fire him. if he then come up and says that why..well it will make it clear Wikleaks had it in for the clinton campaign to the point they place an informent..but not in RNC..which pants them as maybe not the 100 percent unbias play it down the middle angels they claim to be

You talk about how unlikely it is for anyone involved in the government to want a guy dead for exposing them, then make a conspiracy theory around Wikileaks "having it in for Clinton".  Wikileaks started off taking on the Bush administration.  During the election, Assange asked for Trump's tax returns and has recently asked Comey for the Trump tapes.  Hell, shortly after he was elected, Trump talked about how evil wikileaks were, called Snowden a traitor, and said that Manning was ungrateful.  There's never been any love between Wikileaks and the Republicans.

Anyway, it wasn't until recently that there was any evidence of him having connections to wikileaks until his family got the PI involved.

Quote
The reason this is popular the same reason. The Pizza gate thing in popular. Same way the so called HIT list popular. For some reason.  He being a shitty politicna..or hell a crooked one not enough. She has to be seen as a straight up SUPER VILLAN. Reason why they throw this shit is..if you throw enough shit people going to say "Well even SOME of true..then there a monster"

did it with obama...with the Satanist muslim, mudering atheitst, Kenyan. Just keep hammer at these stories till they slip through the cracks

Not even remotely on the same level.

you didnt say he had him killed but you heavly applied it was her or the DNC. But hey maybe I  mininterpenting. So going to ask. Do you Ap. Think Hillay Clinton  might of had this man killed. If not do you AP think it was DNC or anyone people involve in her campaign might of had this man killed.  If the answer no then we arent at any diagreement. If yes...what is the likelhood.  If it the same likelhood that where living in the matrix, that one thing.  If it 50/50  or close to that where at a disagreement.


  But let say it was the DNC. Same question apply. WHY kill him after damage is done. Why not steal something ..if the goal to make it look like a robbery and maybe get the cops in on it. Instead of bribing the cops, why not just takes the dude wallet. If the dnc info was gotten by a russia hacked, which it seem it is that means he didnt leak the info..so thus no motive to kill. The basis of the conspircy dont makes sense.   So why do it.  Let Deep throat reminad a alive. No one tried to kill him, or any of the reporters. A lot of the time there affraid of political fall out after the fact. or dont want to be in the spotlight, or bothered. Not that the goverment going to send assassins after him for no reason what so ever after they already did damage.  But lets lose you deep throat anology. You know when his name was revealed..about around the time of his death when he was on his last leg. Because that the time to reveal Only reason to be coy like that I am either bullshiting and covering your ass..or HORRIBLE at protecting sources. I am not saying Hillary team did it...but "Maybe (wink Wink)


And also if someone was to know deep throat..if I were going to say "I am not saying AP deep throat...but MAYBE (wink Wink)" And Can not longer claim I am not naming stuff to protect my source.  Because At that point I minus well have named you. 
The authorites declared it a botch robbery because that seem what it was. A strugle..the robbery freaked out and ran. And even if you think it odd...goverment conspricy a huge leap to Jump to. And when I say damage done I mean at the time of death they info was already given if he did it.  Assagne already had all the emails, it just leaked it over time. He would of already told Assange anything he has. It be smarter to just fire him or keep him on and feed him fake shit to make them look like idiots.


Wikileaks clearly doesnt like Clinton. Hate her. And rarely attack Trump during the Campaign. Trump said he LOVED wikeals. Asking for his emails is the lightest critique you could do. its the bare miniums consider all the shit and abuses this man has done. Most of the leaks from the adminstration you notice not from wikileaks..show up in other news. Sure AFTER the campaign their harder on him. Because they dont have Hillary to get distracted by. But during the campaign he floated this murder plot idea with no evidence. The family of the people had to ask him to cut the shit


As for saying it not remotley close..naaa it pretty on the level since there ZERO evidence to this. None..not a morsel.  It would involve a cover up in the police, an X secretar of state..or DNC hiring a hitmen, faking a robbery  (badly since nothing was stolen) and murdering a DNC. To cover up what..the fact they didnt like Bernie. Then you add it to all the other hit list she susposed to have
Title: Re: What do you think about Seth Rich?
Post by: Detective AP on May 18, 2017, 04:19:23 AM
The guy was killed last July Rock, four months before the election.  It's not like this happened yesterday.  Despite speaking with authority about this, you don't seem to have any actual idea about the topic.

And your Deep Throat argument makes no sense.

Also, also, I never implied Hillary Clinton killed the guy, so stop being so defensive.
Title: Re: What do you think about Seth Rich?
Post by: g-train on May 18, 2017, 09:31:30 AM
Why would they make it look like a "botched" robbery that makes no sense?

To have just enough reason for the authorities to call it so while making it clear to anybody in the future who might think about doing this what the consequences might be?

Not saying that's what happened.

Just saying; I can see that as why.
Title: Re: What do you think about Seth Rich?
Post by: therock on May 18, 2017, 11:28:35 AM
The guy was killed last July Rock, four months before the election.  It's not like this happened yesterday.  Despite speaking with authority about this, you don't seem to have any actual idea about the topic.

And your Deep Throat argument makes no sense.

Also, also, I never implied Hillary Clinton killed the guy, so stop being so defensive.

But it did happen after the info would probably be leaked or given. so no real point to kill him
Why would they make it look like a "botched" robbery that makes no sense?

To have just enough reason for the authorities to call it so while making it clear to anybody in the future who might think about doing this what the consequences might be?

Not saying that's what happened.

Just saying; I can see that as why.

they can put enough political pressure to scare people without resorting to sending assassin's teams
Title: Re: What do you think about Seth Rich?
Post by: g-train on May 18, 2017, 02:10:02 PM
The guy was killed last July Rock, four months before the election.  It's not like this happened yesterday.  Despite speaking with authority about this, you don't seem to have any actual idea about the topic.

And your Deep Throat argument makes no sense.

Also, also, I never implied Hillary Clinton killed the guy, so stop being so defensive.

But it did happen after the info would probably be leaked or given. so no real point to kill him
Why would they make it look like a "botched" robbery that makes no sense?

To have just enough reason for the authorities to call it so while making it clear to anybody in the future who might think about doing this what the consequences might be?

Not saying that's what happened.

Just saying; I can see that as why.

they can put enough political pressure to scare people without resorting to sending assassin's teams

They can but sometimes you got to send a message; make a point of it ya' know?
Title: Re: What do you think about Seth Rich?
Post by: Detective AP on May 18, 2017, 05:59:47 PM
But it did happen after the info would probably be leaked or given. so no real point to kill him

Again, why do you think Woodward and Bernstein kept Mark Felt's identity a secret until his death?
Title: Re: What do you think about Seth Rich?
Post by: Panthergod on May 18, 2017, 06:41:18 PM
Rock still defending Killarys murderous antics eh? Smh.
Title: Re: What do you think about Seth Rich?
Post by: MTL76 on May 18, 2017, 06:48:44 PM
Seems suspicious as fuck. Rock saying that the DNC had nothing to do with it confirms my suspicions.
Title: Re: What do you think about Seth Rich?
Post by: Snake-eyes on May 18, 2017, 06:58:58 PM
But it did happen after the info would probably be leaked or given. so no real point to kill him

Again, why do you think Woodward and Bernstein kept Mark Felt's identity a secret until his death?

It's rock, Hillary or the DNC could kill people right in front of him and he'd say it never happened and claim it was just a vast right-wing conspiracy.
Title: Re: What do you think about Seth Rich?
Post by: therock on May 18, 2017, 07:12:00 PM
But it did happen after the info would probably be leaked or given. so no real point to kill him

Again, why do you think Woodward and Bernstein kept Mark Felt's identity a secret until his death?
Rock still defending Killarys murderous antics eh? Smh.

policy

But assange claiming to keep it secret AFTET death. while lighting hinting he was an informent without saying it. which to me sounds like bullshit

either say he the guy or don't mention him because that not protecting anyone

the reporters didn't go "not saying mark deepthroat but not saying he not (wink)  (blushes)"

this got stuff give it the air of bullshit
Rock still defending Killarys murderous antics eh? Smh.

But apparently no one here accuse  her if murder. so nothing to defend
Seems suspicious as fuck. Rock saying that the DNC had nothing to do with it confirms my suspicions.

well here thing

1) no evidence. other then tick the dnc
2) same people who buy this are the same people who claim the Russia stuff have nothing to it. even though it much more evidence
3)  if Russia did hack that mean the info wasnt from thus no motive
4) the arrange weird coyness
5) the fact that this mean they fake a robbery but didnt bother to rob anything
6) that at this point it nothing to gain from his murder
7) that the family called it bullshit
8  it in a long line of fake conspirices. so it a bit of crying wolf here

all that put doubt in this conspiracy
But it did happen after the info would probably be leaked or given. so no real point to kill him

Again, why do you think Woodward and Bernstein kept Mark Felt's identity a secret until his death?

It's rock, Hillary or the DNC could kill people right in front of him and he'd say it never happened and claim it was just a vast right-wing conspiracy.

do you think they killed him snake

not everything is right wing conspiracy but there are a lot of accusation that are bullshit


Title: Re: What do you think about Seth Rich?
Post by: Detective AP on May 18, 2017, 09:17:22 PM
Again, why do you think Woodward and Bernstein kept Mark Felt's identity a secret until his death?

policy

What are you talking about?  There was no policy involved aside from Woodard & Bernstein agreeing to Felt's wishes to reveal his identity after his death or allow him to do it himself.  Felt could have said at any time that he was Deep Throat.  He could have done it right after Nixon resigned and all his cronies went to prison.  He could have done it after Nixon's death or after those guys got out of prison and everything was over with.  Instead, he went to his deathbed without telling anyone.  Why?  Because there was a chance G Gordon Liddy or someone might want to get even in some way.

You don't have to believe anyone had Rich killed but to say that highly powerful people wouldn't potentially retaliate in some way if their corruption was exposed is just naive thinking.  Believing in a pedo-ring under a pizza parlor run by Satanists is a silly notion because none of that makes sense.  A corrupt person trying to kill someone out of revenge is plausible because that shit happens.
Title: Re: What do you think about Seth Rich?
Post by: therock on May 18, 2017, 11:22:25 PM
Again, why do you think Woodward and Bernstein kept Mark Felt's identity a secret until his death?

policy

What are you talking about?  There was no policy involved aside from Woodard & Bernstein agreeing to Felt's wishes to reveal his identity after his death or allow him to do it himself.  Felt could have said at any time that he was Deep Throat.  He could have done it right after Nixon resigned and all his cronies went to prison.  He could have done it after Nixon's death or after those guys got out of prison and everything was over with.  Instead, he went to his deathbed without telling anyone.  Why?  Because there was a chance G Gordon Liddy or someone might want to get even in some way.

You don't have to believe anyone had Rich killed but to say that highly powerful people wouldn't potentially retaliate in some way if their corruption was exposed is just naive thinking.  Believing in a pedo-ring under a pizza parlor run by Satanists is a silly notion because none of that makes sense.  A corrupt person trying to kill someone out of revenge is plausible because that shit happens.


its policy not for a reporter to reveal it sources. It is not policy to hint at it in a cute way, the name of your source and dance around it. Doing so smells like bullshit

oh again I didnt say they would retaliate. But I saying they wouldnt KILL him..frame it as a robbery, and get the  cops involve. That conspircy laden nonsnese

The fact that you admited the OTHER ways to get him beside sending a hitman to kill him..make the conspircy theory that they killed him silly. It just those other ways wont make for a good tom Clancy novel..that actully murdeirng him would
Title: Re: What do you think about Seth Rich?
Post by: Detective AP on May 18, 2017, 11:51:47 PM
Reporters don't reveal sources for safety reasons, usually.  Woodward and Bernstein actually said they wanted to keep the identity a secret for that reason.

And who said anyone got the cops involved?

And I never admitted the thing you said.
Title: Re: What do you think about Seth Rich?
Post by: therock on May 19, 2017, 12:59:28 AM
Reporters don't reveal sources for safety reasons, usually.  Woodward and Bernstein actually said they wanted to keep the identity a secret for that reason.

And who said anyone got the cops involved?

And I never admitted the thing you said.

Yea and woodward and bernsiten didnt float the name out there before hand with "Not saying this guy is, not saying he isnt" sort of way. The fact that Assange did and floated out the idea it was murder makes me think he full of shit. Otherwise he would say. You either name your source or you dont. Doing this coy in between doenst make a lot of sense. That the one part your missing that makes this conspircy theory suspect. It rely on how much you trust Assange..half ass accusation that he worked for him. If he did why not say it. If he protecting him or people related to him..then your not really doing so by mention his name now are you.  The the lynch pin of this conspiricy theory. And again the source was revealed after the death.

you did say
"Yeah, that's why it's so odd.  The authorities declared it a "botched robbery" for no real reason"
Which applies there in on it. But hey maybe I misinterpeting you


. And you did hint it may be murder because people in power mad at him. Which kind of contradict your later statment when you said there other ways to get at him beside murder.  Then why wouldn't they do that here..instead of a convuluted murder plot for no good reason other then spite.


Again let me ask just to make it clear

Do you think it foul play
Do you think DNC might of had it happen
Do you think it was Hillary or anyone on her team who might of plan it


if so how likely you think it is


if it again in "hell anything possible. It possible where living in a matrix" level..then ok find


but if it a high possibilty...I am going to have to disagree


Because it a coupl of possible

Either 1 is was a botch robbery..which is the most likely

2- Hillary plan it to happen..which doesnt make a lot of sense for the reason I said
3) DNC did it doesnt make a lot sense for similar reason
Title: Re: What do you think about Seth Rich?
Post by: Detective AP on May 19, 2017, 01:24:32 AM
Yea and woodward and bernsiten didnt float the name out there before hand with "Not saying this guy is, not saying he isnt" sort of way. The fact that Assange did and floated out the idea it was murder makes me think he full of shit. Otherwise he would say. You either name your source or you dont. Doing this coy in between doenst make a lot of sense. That the one part your missing that makes this conspircy theory suspect. It rely on how much you trust Assange..half ass accusation that he worked for him. If he did why not say it. If he protecting him or people related to him..then your not really doing so by mention his name now are you.  The the lynch pin of this conspiricy theory. And again the source was revealed after the death.

None of this has anything to do with the point I made.

Quote
you did say
"Yeah, that's why it's so odd.  The authorities declared it a "botched robbery" for no real reason"
Which applies there in on it. But hey maybe I misinterpeting you

It means, one way or another, a random murder was declared a robbery despite no evidence of a robbery.  It was weird enough that the family decided to investigate the murder.  That's it.


Quote
And you did hint it may be murder because people in power mad at him

I said there's a possibility.  This is due to the fact that when you have very powerful, corrupt people, sometimes they do that sort of thing.  It's a simple idea.  This sort of thing happens.  Whether or not this is an example of it is irrelevant.  You seem to think no government official in any country at any point in history has ever assassinated someone.

Quote
Which kind of contradict your later statment when you said there other ways to get at him beside murder.

No, I didn't.

Quote
Then why wouldn't they do that here..instead of a convuluted murder plot for no good reason other then spite.

Do you not understand the concept of revenge?
Title: Re: What do you think about Seth Rich?
Post by: therock on May 19, 2017, 02:00:13 AM
Yea and woodward and bernsiten didnt float the name out there before hand with "Not saying this guy is, not saying he isnt" sort of way. The fact that Assange did and floated out the idea it was murder makes me think he full of shit. Otherwise he would say. You either name your source or you dont. Doing this coy in between doenst make a lot of sense. That the one part your missing that makes this conspircy theory suspect. It rely on how much you trust Assange..half ass accusation that he worked for him. If he did why not say it. If he protecting him or people related to him..then your not really doing so by mention his name now are you.  The the lynch pin of this conspiricy theory. And again the source was revealed after the death.

None of this has anything to do with the point I made.

Quote
you did say
"Yeah, that's why it's so odd.  The authorities declared it a "botched robbery" for no real reason"
Which applies there in on it. But hey maybe I misinterpeting you

It means, one way or another, a random murder was declared a robbery despite no evidence of a robbery.  It was weird enough that the family decided to investigate the murder.  That's it.


Quote
And you did hint it may be murder because people in power mad at him

I said there's a possibility.  This is due to the fact that when you have very powerful, corrupt people, sometimes they do that sort of thing.  It's a simple idea.  This sort of thing happens.  Whether or not this is an example of it is irrelevant.  You seem to think no government official in any country at any point in history has ever assassinated someone.

Quote
Which kind of contradict your later statment when you said there other ways to get at him beside murder.

No, I didn't.

Quote
Then why wouldn't they do that here..instead of a convuluted murder plot for no good reason other then spite.

Do you not understand the concept of revenge?


in the goverment people pissed each other off every day, ruin each other plans. They dont plan elaborate murder plot on all of them. As for the family who hired a PI. Same Family ask Assange to cut the shit when he made accusation to settle a politicla beef and brining their family into it

As for what the assange stuff I mention have to do with your point your saying everything. You brought up Bernstien to say well Deep throat was kept secret. But this is not really keeping it secret. He name the guys name. But did it coyly where if someone calls him out on it he could say something like this

"I didnt suggest he worked for me..and therefor got killed for it.  I am I had insider work for me before. And rich got killed. If one to Jump to conclusion..that he was my insider and he got killed because...golly Gee Willikers..nothing I can do about that"

Reporter- so you saying he not your insider

"Not saying either way..would tell you if he was...TEE HEH."

Thats cutsey bullshit. And important because is the pillar of this whole conspircy theory

Again where Did I say no goverment in history ever Assassnate anyone.  I am saying the idea of them assaisnating is flimsy..since its no evidence..and the plot would be silly for reasons I mention.  With that logic minus well say Obama had Judge Alito killed with a pillow.  Make since..he might of got a judge out of it and push the supreme court left. Hell of a lot more motive to do that.  Hella of a lot more to gain..with rich nothing to gain.

Actully you kind of die contradict yourself
Again, why do you think Woodward and Bernstein kept Mark Felt's identity a secret until his death?

policy



You don't have to believe anyone had Rich killed but to say that highly powerful people wouldn't potentially retaliate in some way if their corruption was exposed is just naive thinking.



Which I simply asked if that the case, why not pick the non murdery option that your yourself says they sometime do. Why this convulted plan



Title: Re: What do you think about Seth Rich?
Post by: Detective AP on May 19, 2017, 02:11:25 AM
Which I simply asked if that the case, why not pick the non murdery option that your yourself says they sometime do. Why this convulted plan

Once again... I never said anything even remotely like that.  It's as if you're reading some else's posts.
Title: Re: What do you think about Seth Rich?
Post by: g-train on May 23, 2017, 08:27:38 PM
well supposedly "kim dotcom" claims he (Seth Rich) was responsible for the DNC-leak attributed to Russia and is willing to testify to it if needed.
Title: Re: What do you think about Seth Rich?
Post by: g-train on May 23, 2017, 08:28:30 PM
http://kim.com/