If it was a botched robbery, why does the police have Seth's computer?

693  2017-05-17 by sidebycide

I find that to be quite odd!

294 comments

If it was a robbery how come Seth wasn't DNC poster boy for gun control to stop senseless gun crimes?

He was. It was posted last time /r/t_d tried to make that argument:

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Man-Shot-Killed-in-Northwest-DC-386316391.html

Hillary Clinton spoke about Rich on Tuesday morning, amid remarks in New Hamphire on gun violence.

"Just this past Sunday, a young man, Seth Rich -- who worked for the Democratic National Committee, to expand voting rights -- was shot and killed in his neighborhood in Washington. He was just 27 years old," she said. "Surely we can agree that weapons of war have no place on the streets of America.

This is the only instance anyone can find.

If I was the DNC trying to cover up the death, 100% silence would've been suspicious, so they had their evil queen mention it one single time so that folks like you can point to that instance in the future and say see!!!

I would love to be corrected if more instances are found, but the notion that this was the only time his death was mentioned is actually far more suspicious to me than any other scenario.

If I was the DNC trying to cover up the death, 100% silence would've been suspicious

So if she didn't say anything, she did it. If she did say something, she did it. Got it.

to be fair, mentioning it once and the idea of a "poster boy" are two different things

maybe because politicizing the hell out of his death would have been easily attacked?

maybe, either way it would be bad. say he was murdered by agents of corruption, why bring more and more attention to it? say he wasn't; it would look gross and exploitative.

either way its handling dynamite

She was already commonly viewed as manipulative and opportunistic. Politicizing his death would have been an easy move, but it would have continued to feed every negative stereotype she had.

So if she didn't say anything, she did it.

Didn't say that.

If she did say something, she did it.

...didn't say that either.

This is called "high octane speculation". Please don't put words in my mouth.

I'm just wondering what she could have done that wouldn't look suspicious to the people who are trying to push this narrative.

Seems like no matter what she does, she can't win.

Seems like no matter what she does, she can't win.

Well that goes without saying ;)

Seems like no matter what she does, she can't win.

You're quite correct. Literally a loser.

Here's my problem with the "She had him off'd" narrative:

Why leave evidence that would point back to them and aid investigators, unless some other party had Rich Shot and have no interest other than muddying the waters and introducing doubt? Maybe someone in the DNC did it, but not for the reasons espoused, ( like a personal vendetta ) or it was another party altogether. It's increasing hard to imagine the Clinton foundation employing amateurs when they are already under the microscope especially considering their wealth and reach, while I imagine the DNC would have the Clinton foundation's resources at their disposal and would likely leave them to choose who to employ.

Honestly, it's more likely that if either group is guilty, the decision was taken and executed by a compartmentalized group within the organization that might have the implicit support of whoever is in charge ( they would be an invisible part of that organization ) but operates outside their purview to contain the possible collateral damage and fallout.

That's how a group like that would operate within any of the letter agencies and those agencies would be the most likely sources of those groups personnel.

And if that is the case, any investigation would see these people charged with the crime, as Hillary or whoever would have plausible deniability. Whoever is in charge might not even know Themselves if it was someone within their organization as they would never be part of the decision process or even have personally met the people involved. They might not even be aware the threat assessment group (TAG) exists within their organization, it's not like they'll be at the company picnic.

The democrats did not even use his death to push any gun control... or any narrative for that matter.

Does that make them better or worse, in your opinion? Like, is politicizing someone's death is a bad thing, right? The optics of it aren't good and the family probably doesn't want their son to be the poster-boy for political arguments.

No they didn't politicize his death so that's proof.

100% Silence is suspicious.

But I suspect that they wanted to draw as little attention to his murder as possible.

A handgun is a weapon of war? lol

Its not a weapon of peace

That would be a truck

It's a weapon of protection. That's why they exist.

Yeah lmao. I'm not saying I agree with the push, but she did definitely try and poster boy him.

Didn't you know Delta Force is outfitted with .38 specials?

This the only time? How come the democrats don't offer their own reward for info leading to the arrest of the individuals involved?

I mean, when the right is using his death as a smear campaign, I can't imagine it being in her interest to continue using him to push for tighter gun laws.

That was before wikileaks published DNC leaks. Any instances of Dems talking about Seth and gun control after the convention?

Nope, but put yourself in her position. Even if she didn't do it, would you continue to use Seth Rich to push gun control when the right is swirling rumors that you're the one that offed him?

If I find some time, I'll try and dig around using search tools to verify, but I understand the burden of proof's on me whether she did or not after the leaks, so fair point until then.

I'm thinking she and team believed the leak plugged so they didn't have to shy away from it. As soon as wikileaks publishes and people start to wonder if there was a connection we stopped hearing about Seth's murder outside the circles that believed him to be the leak source.

She says, as she's protected by armed body guards

If this narrative is not coordinated how come you are all using the same talking points?

logical questions are now talking points?

Hillary Clinton mentioned him several times in anti-gun speeches.

You guys need to do some basic research before spreading a narrative.

Mentioned doesn't equal poster boy. Why won't she match the reward to find the killer? Does she not want to find the killer? She has millions of dollars.

Why should she?

because its the right thing to do? apparently she's fine with letting these brutal murderers remain on the streets of dc to kill again.

So if I let the police do their work to find a friend's killer, I'm at fault? I should put up a reward for the killer or else I'm fine with letting them remain on the streets to kill again?

Anyone who doesn't put up a reward is fine with murder? Brilliant logic. He was one of tens of thousands who worked in the same party as her. Maybe if it was someone who worked directly with her you might expect a reward, but not for someone she had probably never met.

because its the right thing to do?

Then why aren't you doing what you want her to do?

I have no money

So your proof is that liberals aren't evil Trumptards who would use a death as a political dagger?

I don't support any politicians because I understand history. what i cant stand are people ignoring the murder of a young man because people who support the president also want to see justice for a democrat.

also want to see justice for a democrat.

Something tells me that if this democrat couldn't be used to smear Clinton then people wouldn't give a shit. It's impossible for me to know this for sure as I can't magically understand the intent of everyone involved, but with all of the fucked up rhetoric pointed toward the Left by the talking heads on the Right... I'm fairly confident in my assessment. Shit, I wouldn't be surprised to hear 1 down, 30 million to go.

Clinton did mention it. The Rich family has been very consistent in their desire for peace and not being in the public eye. They could have requested he not be used for political purposes.

maybe it was "some Puerto Rican guy" who killed him? https://www.hulu.com/watch/266073

If it was a robbery, why was nothing stolen off of him?

If it was a simple robbery, why is WikiLeaks offering a reward for information?

Exactly!

One reasonable explanation: He tried to run, was shot in the back, the shooter freaked out and ran because gun shots attract a lot of attention.

So why would they even pull the trigger in the first place if fun shots attract a lot of attention

Because he was robbing him, and he disrespected him by running.
It's not that uncommon of a scenario. There's a lot of adrenaline and you have to consider armed robbers are a bit unstable to begin with.

Your theory is that SR was killed because a robber felt "disrespected"? Are you fucking kidding me?

It's not my theory. I'm saying just saying it's entirely plausible.
I saw an almost gang fight in a gas station this week... over one guy(non gangster) looking at the other guy's face for too long.... he had a tattooed face (indicating gang affiliation).
The police have all the facts, like a video I guess... I don't have much info and I'm just reminding you there's still a reasonable explanation other than leaker being assassinated.
WikiLeak's interest in the case makes it seem a lot like the latter... but that kind of senseless violence sure as fuck occurs in america all the time. I'm not fucking kidding you.
here: https://www.google.com/search?q=botched+robbery&tbm=nws

Your logic is so flawed.

Okay, SkunkBush. You really got me with that one.
burrrrrns

I agree with you that it could have all beeen a botched misunderstanding where someone would shoot another person in the back twice for "disrespecting" them during an theft. Anything in this God Forsaken world is possible. The flawed object I'm stating is that you can put out a thousand different scenerios that could exist, but the most logical one is that he was murdered for what he did.

Well, he was murdered before wl published. So that means the DNC tracked him, and murdered him? but the FBI didn't track him.
Or whatever, I really can't make a conclusion. If there's security footage, I'd like to see it.

You think it sounds reasonable that someone would decide to turn an attempted robbery into murder because he ran? Hello Media Matters

Uh... yes. Not that the act was reasonable, but that it could happen and does happen.
Okay, picture this:
Robber: high on meth Give me your stuff! points gun
Victim: Oh shiiiit! Starts running
Robber: starts shooting Oh fuck... I need to get out of here!
....
I'm just saying it's plausible. And not uncommon. The WL rewards makes me think he's the leaker. But I'm just trying to.... ah fuck it.
Hi! I'm totally Media Matters! :D

There were 2 "robbers".

There could never be two robbers! you're right!!! impossible!!!!! criminals never gang up!

You are the one that implied there was 1...

This just in: Meth head changes course of human history by robbing the exact right person at critical point in election.

There's an assumption in that statement that I don't agree with assuming.

Yeah, it was probably ecstasy.

There's an assumption in that statement that I don't agree with assuming.

Yeah, it was probably crack.

Its not plausible. Its not likely. If you actually really do believe that he is the leaker then your not Media Matters. Your just a fucking moron. I actually live in a city where the possibility of getting robbed is a reality. People do not get shot for running. They get shot for fighting back. Which, based on the locations of the bullets, and the fact that there was no report of muzzle burn(which would indicate the shots were point blank) is not possible.

If he ran, they would have likely hit the shoe leather express themselves. The only reason they might have shot him otherwise would be because he saw faces that would allow him to ID them later.

Which again makes no sense if they did not actually rob him you fucking retard. This is not bumblefuck Iowa. Its Washington D.C. You think a DC cop is gonna even waste his time with some white guy who 'almost got robbed'? Nope.

Okay, next time someone robs you at gunpoint, just run! No way they'd shoot you! Awesome! It's amazing the police don't hand out pamphlets... just run away! no problems! XD

Nope I would just hand my shit over. Which is what any normal person would do. Thus, avoiding getting shot.

Nah, run and no way they'll shot

I'm just saying it's plausible. And not uncommon

I guess it is plausible, but it is incredibly strange that Seth's wallet was not taken at the very least.

I agree. However, panic does happen. Murder is probably a difficult thing to process.

He was out late at night/early morning after getting drunk at a bar. It's rather unlikely he had his laptop on his person, and even so if he tried to run he wouldn't get far. As far as gunshots, they could have him down and still have plenty of time to do whatever they needed to do before the police show up.

Can someone just give me a reliable source saying the police took his laptop?

I've not seen one. I can only assume based on circumstance that it is unlikely he would have it on his person, as he turned down a ride and was walking home.

Drugs like meth are extremely uncommon in DC - virtually impossible to get. Hypothetically it could've been the PCP down there, but nobody is scared on that shit if you've already commited murder. Take this from a former junkie from that area around the time this occured.

meth was just an example. pcp, heroin, crack... formaldehyde?
a lot of drugs make you squirrely.

I see what your point is, and it would be understandable. But if you're already strapped, and already fired, you're getting that money to cop in order to make those charges worth it.

And the police confiscated his computer because it's standard practice for botched robberies?

Do you have a reputable source saying his computer was confiscated? I just see fox and little blogs talking about it.

If it was a simple robbery, why is WikiLeaks offering a reward for information?

Because wikileaks love making vague statements which rile up people who buy into the "Clinton is a mass murderer" theory.

Exactly. Assange has a serious vendetta against Clinton, I'm assuming because of her "can't we just drone this guy" quip a couple of years ago, although there may be more to it.

although there may be more to it.

you think?

you think?

Yes, I do. Do you...?

So you're saying that this is happening because Assange has a vendetta against Clinton? However, you don't seem to think that Clinton has a vendetta against Assange, even though she wanted to "drone him." That makes sense.

I'm sure wikileaks would ruin ten years of bi-partisan credibility just to lie about Clinton. Especially after she lost the election...

So you're saying that this is happening because Assange has a vendetta against Clinton?

Yes, that has been pretty obvious for over a year now.

However, you don't seem to think it's possible that maybe Clinton has a vendetta against Assange, even though she wanted to "drone him." That makes sense.

She made a joke. She hasn't done anything to him.

I'm sure wikileaks would ruin ten years of bi-partisan credibility just to lie about Clinton.

Yes, vendettas are not rational.

Especially after she lost the election...

Lost the election thanks to Assange.

If it was a robbery, why was nothing stolen off of him?

By definition, an attempted robbery is an unsuccessful one. They happen all the time.

If the perpetrators tried to mug him, but he fought back (signs of struggle per his family) and one of them shot him, it is very possible they would flee in a panic knowing that gunshots at ~4am will draw attention (which they did within minutes).

These scenarios happen. Here's a recent botched robbery where no property was stolen (it's just one example, I'm sure there are plenty more).

If it was a simple robbery, why is WikiLeaks offering a reward for information?

Likely to obfuscate who the real leaker is. If WL has any source protecting integrity, they wouldn't be winking and nodding at the real source.

Just think about it, if you were a potential leaker, would you want WL/Assange "hinting", "implying", or "insinuating" that you were the leaker? Fuck that. Even if I was dead, I wouldn't want my family or partners at risk.

This makes a lot of sense but I'm going to have to downvote you.

lol, OK. No worries.

Thank you for making sense.

Just think about it, if you were a potential leaker, would you want WL/Assange "hinting", "implying", or "insinuating" that you were the leaker? Fuck that. Even if I was dead, I wouldn't want my family or partners at risk.

This doesn't make any sense - Wikileaks saying anything at all puts this into play. It's not like potential future leakers all know that Seth Rich truly wasn't involved and will recognize Wikileaks' action as an obfuscation tactic.

It makes sense if you think Assange isnt a virtuous actor.

Wikileaks saying anything at all puts this into play.

You bring up a good point. I think most people would agree with this.

This is why I said that if you believe he has any integrity as a person protecting his sources, he wouldn't be winking and nodding at the real source.

I, personally, believe WL works or has worked with Putin, but I don't believe Assange is cartoonish levels of evil. I give him the benefit of the doubt in that he is not endangering Seth Rich's family/partners with these "hints". Otherwise, we'd have to believe that he's willing to just throw his sources out there while pretending that he protects them.

To speculate why as he would do this, he may be trying to "weed out" potential leakers who don't trust him or who are fickle. There could be other reasons I haven't considered.

However, the fact of the matter is that he "Wikileaks saying anything at all puts this into play." We can only speculate as to why, but I believe he has enough integrity to mean when he says that he protects his source and doesn't just throw them out there with "hints" and "insinuations".

For sure but if it is a botched robbery why is the fbi involved, its not their jurisdiction. Dc metro pd would ahve all the evidence.

Have you considered the possibility that the FBI isn't involved? What is the evidence that they are?

I have. The pi said his source at the fbi confirmed the fbi forensics team had examined it.

Only party that would make sense to be in possession of it is dc metro police, as the investigation is ongoing. Proof they have it?

I have. The pi said his source at the fbi confirmed the fbi forensics team had examined it.

Are you saying the FBI confirmed this? As far as I know, only anonymous sources have claimed/confirmed this.

This article says the FBI is not probing the case.

Only party that would make sense to be in possession of it is dc metro police, as the investigation is ongoing.

Why would anybody, but the owners of the laptop, be in possession of it?

Proof they have it?

I don't think the FBI or the DC Police have it. I'm not sure why they would and I haven't seen evidence that they do.

The owner was murdered. Its evidence in a pending murder case. Thats why the owner wouldnt have it and why the police would.

You're not sure why police would have evidence from a murder scene?

If you were killed during a robbery miles from your home, the police don't get to search your computers. That's not the way things work. They will use it as evidence if they believe it is related to the crime. I don't know if the DC Police do, since I don't believe Seth Rich had the computer with him and the police say they believe it's an attempted robbery.

Regardless, it is possible they have the laptop and it may be understandable. That doesn't validate any of the other claims made regarding the FBI or Wikileaks.

That's not the way things work. They will use it as evidence if they believe it is related to the crime. I don't know if the DC Police do, since I don't believe Seth Rich had the computer with him and the police say they believe it's an attempted robbery.

They look for motive. That could include going through his recent communications to see if anyone had a reason to want to kill him. They could get a warrant to search his computers, or maybe his family voluntarily gave the police his computer/phone, etc.

Regardless, it is possible they have the laptop and it may be understandable. That doesn't validate any of the other claims made regarding the FBI or Wikileaks.

I agree, this story doesn't seem to be anything but a rumor probably started by Trump/Sanders supporters.

a former law enforcement official with first-hand knowledge of Rich's laptop

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/amp/dnc-staffer-s-murder-draws-fresh-conspiracy-theories-n760186

As far as I know, only anonymous sources have claimed/confirmed this.

Are there any named sources?

they would flee in a panic

Shortly after all this happened someone on Reddit looked at maps of all the street cameras nearby. IIRC he got murdered at the one spot with no cameras, with a straight shot east with no cameras into a park.

Interesting. What do you think are the implications of this?

Regarding cameras, I had read that there were cameras, but they missed the actual event:

"Security footage from a nearby market showed two men following Rich through a crosswalk by his home moments before he was shot, FoxNews.com has learned. The camera only captured the assailants’ legs and Rich after he was shot and fell onto the street."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/10/slain-dnc-staffers-father-doubts-wikileaks-link-as-cops-seek-answers.html

What are the implications you ask? Does someone need to spell it out letter by letter for you or something. Sheesh.

no he already knows, look at his history, its his job to cast doubt on anything in r/conspiracy.

I know I know. I should know better than to feed the Trolls but sometimes it's just so enraging and I'm human ya know lol.

yeah i'm guilty of it too. People should see us dissenting against them for they won't know.

The mother fucker was dead... How can you buy a robbery like that unless you're an absolute fucking moron? Come on now....

The mother fucker was dead... How can you botch the robbery part at that point unless you're an absolute fucking moron? Come on now....

This isn't some kind of hypothetical situation. Gunshots will cause people to look out their windows. It will cause police to respond. It leads to witnesses and other loose ends. You don't have to be a "moron" to want to GTFO of the situation without digging through their wallets. It happens all the fucking time.

http://www.cleveland19.com/story/11578888/heartless-family-friends-and-community-mourns-gunned-down-store-clerk

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-downey-police-officer-killed-20151119-story.html

Oh, also, he wasn't dead when they left him. He was alive, breathing, and conscious.

Likely to obfuscate who the real leaker is. If WL has any source protecting integrity, they wouldn't be winking and nodding at the real source. Just think about it, if you were a potential leaker, would you want WL/Assange "hinting", "implying", or "insinuating" that you were the leaker? Fuck that. Even if I was dead, I wouldn't want my family or partners at risk.

That's what I've thought from the start. Assange is trying to say the dead guy did it to stop the FBI/DNC from looking any further. "case closed; no need to look for the leaker any more"
* cough * Tulsi Gabbard.

Yeah your botched robbery comparison linked is a little different. Those attackers left after a fight and their masked was pulled off.

How many botched with a person shot in the back and nothing stolen?

Well, for one, Seth Rich was found breathing and conscious.

Regardless, just a few minutes of research yielded these results:

http://www.cleveland19.com/story/11578888/heartless-family-friends-and-community-mourns-gunned-down-store-clerk

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-downey-police-officer-killed-20151119-story.html

I'm sure there's more. Is there a threshold number of botched robbery examples for you to consider this as a legit possibility?

And why would wikileaks protect a dead source?

His family? Any potential partners?

The family that is so sure he wasn't the leak? Yeah in sure he told his family about how he was about to break the law and give wikileaks all that info.

If he had a partner you would think the leaks would keep coming...

It's called blackmail. The family doesn't have to be in on it. They would be killed as collateral.

"Attention potential leakers: Even if you are dead, we will go after your family, your friends, and/or anyone else you love."

If he had a partner you would think the leaks would keep coming...

How do you know that? They could be laying low or something. You can bet the DNC was on high alert after the hacks/leaks.

If he was shot in the back, why isnt the laptop from his backpage destroyed by the bullets?

Ohhhhhhh they too it from him then killed him...

Backpack?

Is Russia, we find English sometimes wery confusing.

Everything that goes against my preconceived notions is an evil right-wing Russian conspiracy!

There are a lot of weird grammar problems in the thread is all. Even in the title.

Ahh gotcha, we tend to misinterpret English here in Russia ;)

:-o

He'd been at a bar until late drinking. If he had a backpack on, its likely they would have reported it.

The laptop was taken from his home. He was murdered in the street a few minutes from his house.

This. he still had his keys in his pocket. Any professional would have took his shit and used the keys to gain access and secure his laptop and any notes. They'd have plenty of time. This is Amateur hour bullshit.

That's what I'm saying. If this was a hit it was incredibly sloppy. He was still conscious when police and first responders arrived on the scene and nothing was missing from his person. There's just too many weird things about this whole event.

My hands and wrists are sore from painting and typing all day, but I agree with you, and this is another comment explaining my position, if you've seen it, sorry, ignore please.

Why leave evidence that would point back to them and aid investigators, unless some other party had Rich Shot and have no interest other than muddying the waters and introducing doubt? Maybe someone in the DNC did it, but not for the reasons espoused, ( like a personal vendetta ) or it was another party altogether.

It's increasing hard to imagine the Clinton foundation employing amateurs when they are already under the microscope especially considering their wealth and reach, while I imagine the DNC would have the Clinton foundation's resources at their disposal and would likely leave them to choose who to employ.

Honestly, it's more likely that if either group is guilty, the decision was taken and executed by a compartmentalized group within the organization that might have the implicit support of whoever is in charge ( they would be an invisible part of that organization ) but operates outside their purview to contain the possible collateral damage and fallout.

That's how a group like that would operate within any of the letter agencies and those agencies would be the most likely sources of those groups personnel.

And if that is the case, any investigation would see these people charged with the crime, as Hillary or whoever would have plausible deniability. Whoever is in charge might not even know Themselves if it was someone within their organization as they would never be part of the decision process or even have personally met the people involved. They might not even be aware the threat assessment group (TAG) exists within their organization, it's not like they'll be at the company picnic.

his laptop was in his house.....

If it was a robbery, why was nothing stolen off of him?

A better question is what evidence is there that it was a robbery? The answer is none.

well the police report and supposed footage of 2 men coming up to him then shooting twice, then running away.

That's not a robbery, that's a murder. A robbery involves robbing.

If something happened to spook the robbers and they ran before they could get anything that's another story, but your description does not say that.

what description are you referring too? As someone whos lived in a city for many years I can tell you the story of attempted robberies where the robbers get spooked and run is pretty common, although not quite the same for shooting the victim first.

Heres a few examples of narritives of botched robberies, note the similarities... https://patch.com/virginia/woodbridge-va/man-shot-during-botched-robbery-attempt-woodbridge-police

http://www.wmcactionnews5.com/story/19027800/man-shot-while-fighting-off-armed-robbers

http://www.wsmv.com/story/19027800/man-shot-while-fighting-off-armed-robbers

http://www.cleveland19.com/story/13048736/akron-man-shot-in-botched-robbery-attempt?

what description are you referring too?

Just the description you provided. I haven't seen the report myself.

If something happened to spook the robbers and they ran before they could get anything that's another story, but the description does not say that.

well what did you mean by this then? I thought you were referring to something else too.

did your read any of those links? Those were just the top ones that show up on google. Their narratives are all similar to this one. Im not going to say theres zero chance of assassination BUT until there is, Im saying just a coincidental robbery gone wrong.

I just meant that if something did happen to spook the robbers like a light turning on or a person coming down the street I'd think it would be mentioned on the report.

Otherwise how did they determine it was a robbery and not a murder? There had to be something that made them think that. In the links you provided there is always a pretty clear indication that it was a robbery due to the circumstances.

fair point. My friend whos an avid believer of the assassination theory sent me the police report(which I dont have anymore but he found it online somewhere) and its practically blank so I guess that does give some credence to the theory. I guess I just see this as a very hard narrative to convince people he was assassinated. Like JFK or even Oswald himself, theres soooooo many people and motives that all point to the same thing where as with this, I dont see anything connecting really.

Hey maybe it was just lazy police work and they didn't want to leave an open case? Unfortunately for them they chose the wrong case to be lazy on because all eyes are going to be going over this one haha.

yea they had no idea that people on reddit and 4chan would spend hours if not days investigating into this. I bet those police on the report are freaking out about anything they might have done before now.

That's the whole point. 2 guys walk up to a guy and kill him...that's murder. You can't call it a botched robbery unless you can show they intended on robbing him. The botched robbery label is important as it dictates the narrative surrounding the whole thing. Without any reasoning to call it a botched robbery law enforcement should label this a homicide/murder

well I would say it seems like it could have been a botched robbery AND a murder. doesnt have to be one or the other.

Again...what indicator gives it any credibility to even remotely consider it a botched robbery?

You mean the Police Report that states that nothing was stolen? You shills aren't even trying anymore.

does the report indicate an assassination? does any evidence indicate an assassination?

Came here to say the same thing.

He was murdered because he was the wikileaks leaker. Not because he mugged for his watch and wallet, which were not stolen.

his leaks havent been connected to the podesta leaks. He leaked 40K+ emails from 7 different dnc officials but not hillary or podesta

That's fine. He still did the right thing.

If it was a robbery, why was nothing stolen off of him?

Who knows? He may have caused a commotion that spooked the robber.

If it was a simple robbery, why is WikiLeaks offering a reward for information?

Who knows? Maybe Wikileaks has a propaganda agenda of their own.

Alive when cops arrived. Body cameras gone missing. FBI confiscated laptop from his home within 24hrs of the murder. Julianne Assange gave every indication it was Seth.

Source for any of that other than Assange hinting it was him?

beyond the discredited PI, is there any evidence of the FBI confiscating his laptop?

Maybe Wikileaks has a propaganda agenda of their own.

their agenda is making the truth hurt bad

Maybe Wikileaks has a propaganda agenda of their own.

Ding! Ding! Ding!

If it was a robbery, why was nothing stolen off of him?

What part of the headline ("botched robbery") don't you understand? And it's interesting to note how you left the word "botched" out of your question.

So shoot someone in the back, who is fleeing so you can do 20 to life, leave him alive no less...and this wouldn't be botched, this would just so happen to be the worst robbery in history

well when desperate people with guns panic they obviously arent thinking too clearly. If you google "man shot in botched robbery" you would be surprised by how many times it happens.

It's interesting that people never seem to accept that a person robbing someone at gunpoint might not act in a rational way when things don't go how ge planned.

Plus, if he saw faces and ran, they have the possibility of being Id'd later and being charged with Aggravated Assault with a Deadly weapon. If the shooter was unfamiliar with his weapon he could have mistakenly pulled the trigger in the excitement, that can happen with inadequate trigger discipline. After that first shot, you better finish the job.

why ever shoot anyone when there are overhwelming odds you will be caught?

Hell, have you ever walked into the kitchen and realized you have no clue why you went in there? Never assume the rationality of people, especially people desperate enough to be trying to rob other people.

Your questions should revolve around the facts and evidence gathered, not the assumed motivations of an irrational actor.

life isn't grand theft auto you retard, when a robber who just wants to steal and run botches a job and shoots the guy his first thought is "I don't want to get caught shooting this guy" rather than spending time looting the body

I personally don't see how you can call it a botched robbery. If they didn't steal anything and you don't have a confession, all you know is 2 guys murdered another guy. It's rushing to a conclusion that itself is unproven. No facts point out it was an attempted robbery besides you saying people get robbed. You can also say people get murdered. It's not uncommon. With the facts that are know I wouldn't rule out a botched robbery, but I wouldn't call it a botched robbery either.

They are just investigating it as a botched robbery because they don't have a motive for murder. All you need as a motive for armed robbery is a wallet with some cash and credit cards. Motiveless murders are very rare.

But they didn't steal anything. There's no evidence for robbery. If you were a decent detective you would investigate a murder first, since there is no evidence of a robbery. Look how much his name is blowing up right now. You're telling me a detective wouldn't notice that? There is more evidence that somebody wanted to kill him then there is of someone robbing him. Murders happen. Sounds like we have officer Barbrady on the case.

But they didn't steal anything.

That's why it's called botched. Botched robbery was their original speculation for motive because they could not find any other motive. They haven't changed it because they have not found any evidence supporting anything else. The ramblings of Bernie bros and Trump tards in conspiracy forums does not count as evidence.

That's the problem. You can't just name a motive. You would say unknown. You can't claim it was a botched robbery with zero evidence of a robbery.

That's the problem. You can't just name a motive. You would say unknown. You can't claim it was a botched robbery with zero evidence of a robbery.

Yes you can.

Lol. If you want to sound like an idiot. Why not say OJ did it? There is zero evidence of OJ doing it. In the glove wouldn't fit.

Because OJ was locked in a cell in Nevada. What were you doing that night?

Yeah but there's no evidence that OJ did it. So why not say oh Jay did it?

Because he had an alibi. Do you?

I don't think you understand. There is zero evidence that OJ did it. Why not say that OJ did it? I mean it's possible. People have broken out of prison before.

Or maybe it was self-defense. Maybe the fact that Seth had a watch means that he stole it from them. These things happen.

So a guy with a good full time job just decides to violently steal a watch in the middle of the night? lol.

You're still my chief suspect. You have yet to provide an alibi, and keep changing the subject.

Your the one who's claiming it's a normal everyday thing. Nothing to see here. I'm saying investigate. Have you ever seen one episode of CSI? Your head can't be that far in the sand or could it?

No, I have not seen a single episode of CSI. When did I ever say not to investigate? In fact, I have said several times that you should be investigated. I also think that they probably have investigated. Questioned friends, family and coworkers and found nothing, so they have stuck with their original conclusion. If your buddy Assange has real evidence of motive, and not just sly insinuation, maybe he should turn it over to Metro DC PD, and that would give them the probable cause they need to get warrant for the DNC. He hasn't, because there is none.

The fuck are you? If you were a detective and asked friends and family, you wouldn't come up with one possible conclusion to murder? Ridiculous. LOL.

No, you are ridiculous. Still waiting for your alibi, and for you to release the 20,000 emails that you are hiding.

I didn't know Jerrys could use Reddit.

Jerrys? Is that some ww2 insult for Germans?

I don't think so. I've never heard it used for that.

The way I see it is:

Robbery: Watch, wallet, cell phone,etc taken; no harm to victim.

Botched robbery: Something goes wrong (victim fights back, has their own weapon, etc) and nothing is taken and the robber runs away. Victim may or may not be physically harmed in the process.

There are signs that Rich struggled with the person(s) during the confrontation which further supports a botched robbery, imo.

I see what you're saying as well. Lots of unknowns in this case.

But your evidence for a botched robbery can't be because he wasn't robbed and that people sometimes shoot people and not rob them even though they meant to rob them.

The simple facts are two guys murdered another guy. That's all you know. That's what the investigation is. Maybe after you get a lead on the suspects you could find out more of what happened. Until then all you know is two guys murdered another guy.

After interviewing his family and friends. Asking everybody he knows if he had any enemies, anybody wanting to kill him. This is standard detective work. Just because somebody's dead and they still have all their belongings and it's in DC apparently means that you are a victim of a botched robbery. Why would the police do their job when they can just say "nothing to see here move along."

He was robbed of his life and the US people a freedom fighter.

or he was a russian agent killed by the CIA.

er....er....Russia! /s

well theyre saying it was a "botched" robbery so I think that implies they didnt actually take anything because they must have panicked and shot him than ran away.

If it was just a robbery, with gun violence, then why didnt Hillary use this to promote gun control laws. After all, he worked for the DNC too

Nothing to see, move along citizen.

She did.

This news story has been debunked now both by journalists and his family. Time to move on to the next mystery and forget you were every wrong. Or double down on being wrong. Your choice.

Dude, the DC cops just blank face when asked about this. And his family is probably angered at the complete lack of investigation, blatant coverup with loss of evidence and a cop/likely shooter with no bodycam being first on the scene, or the MedAnon who sounded pretty legit and operated on him. TBH they are probably frightened. Do you think they just accept the "It was a simple robbery, they took nothing, but we just can't let you have his laptop, we are so very sorry for your loss, we gave it our best go, hope no more tragedies befall you" reach around from the corrupt police?

Don't be a useful idiot.

It might have been someone with a personal vendetta, or it might have been someone unconcerned with evidence attempting to muddy the waters

what if something small was stolen from him like, say a usb drive?

I'd like to see this one shillsplained to me as well.

Fox reported an FBI source confirmed they have a forensic file on the computer that proves he was emailing Wikileaks.

So if this is true, would it be enough to convince the shills on /conspiracy that Seth Rich is not a nothingburger?

But why do Washington DC police even have the laptop? Saying it doesn't contain WL emails (which I believe) implies that you did in fact look for WL emails.

I don't know. I'm just stating that the FBI never had it.

Well I assumed the FBI was involved due to it being WAS D.C. Or Federal for some reason per it being /w DNC.

But you know what happens when you ass-u-me.

You don't just assume that - Fox explicitly told you that and they were lying.

Oh I missed that part.

We don't know that. We know that your article (written by known Clinton operative who was himself subject of wikileaks' releases) has claimed that an unnamed FBI source and an unnamed FORMER DC police source have said that:

Meanwhile, a current FBI official and a former one completely discount the Fox News claim that an FBI analysis of a computer belonging to Rich contained thousands of e-mails to and from WikiLeaks.

Local police in Washington, D.C., never even gave the FBI Rich's laptop to analyze after his murder, according to the current FBI official.

And a former law enforcement official with first-hand knowledge of Rich's laptop said the claim was incorrect. "It never contained any e-mails related to WikiLeaks, and the FBI never had it," the person said.

No one knows if theap top exists and now the PI is backtracking on his entire story.

How do you know they kept it?

Holy shit homie, you must be getting PAAAIDDD..

You ever thought that Shills had the exact opposite effect they were intended to have?? Instead of hating trump and "correcting the record", they made everyone hate that CUNT even more 😂😂😂 Shills have us a trump presidency! Wow! Thanks Hilldawg, Thanks Johnny P!

Holy shit homie, you must be getting PAAAIDDD..

For what?

Because anyone who defends Clinton against unsubstantiated accusations is a Shareblue/CTR shill. /s

i wish. then id have a job instead of sitting here dealing with this

It's not so bad, Idiots on the internet can be just as entertaining as the RL ones

Removed. Rule 10. Only warning.

Holy shit homie, you must be getting PAAAIDDD..

You ever thought that Shills had the exact opposite effect they were intended to have?? Instead of hating trump and "correcting the record", they made everyone hate that CUNT even more 😂😂😂 Shills have us a trump presidency! Wow! Thanks Hilldawg, Thanks Johnny P!

Well you're trusting Fox.

But on Tuesday, Wheeler told BuzzFeed News that he had no personal knowledge of whether Rich sent emails to a contact at WikiLeaks.

"That story on Fox 5 last night was inaccurate," said Wheeler, a former DC homicide detective. "I don't even know where the computers are."

"I don't know for sure, I don't know as a matter of fact if the emails went out to the WikiLeaks or anybody else," Wheeler told Sean Hannity. "But it sure appears that way."

He was misquoted but still believes it to be so.

This FBI forensic file has nothing to do with Wheeler. Fox corroborated Wheeler's claims with this FBI source saying the forensic file exists.

So we will have to wait and see, like usual.

" Fox corroborated"

uh huh

It's not like Wheeler doesn't know who the source is.

You mean the MSM is citing an anonymous source?

Fox reported that a PI, who was not hired by the family, was told by an anonymous Washington Police detective that an anonymous FBI employee said they have this file.

Seems like the only information we get from the media anymore is anonymous alleged hearsay.

And now the PI is saying the entire story was made up and he was misquoted by Fox news.

Fox reported that a PI, who was not hired by the family,

Patently untrue. They hired him but with funds given by someone else. They chose him, the Rich family signed the cintract.

The FBI isn't investigating his murder and doesn't have his laptop. The shitty source from the made up story already took back everything

well what you have to convince us is that the clinton/dnc had something to do with his murder. Im completely fine with the idea that he leaked emails about 7 DNC officials (none of whom were hillary or podesta) because thats not even that important since those emails contained nothing about pizza, Bernie, or anything it seems really. You need to convince us that Seth had something worth killing him for, as well as who killed him. (the latter will most likely never be found since no one on reddit knows how to write a FOIA request.)

"shillsplained" LOL I like that, I'll definitely be using it. Very relevant... Especially in this sub lately. I almost don't even go here anymore and I used to frequent very often.

Here's what gets me...

The Washington police state they have his laptop. They could have used it to make sure someone didn't have a personal vendetta against the guy. No where is it confirmed that the FBI did their FBI analysis on the laptop except for the PI who has a track record of lying.

Also news organizations say they confirmed what the PI has said via their own sources.

Fox news said that, right? Not very convincing since he works for them.

So we can now disqualify statements of people that work for CNN according to your decree.

Good to know.

Sure, when only one agency is reporting it with only one source.

Yes, it is. "Anonymous sources" don't go around to multiple news organizations scheduling repeated leaks.

So thanks for your permission. I'll be quoting you in the near future.

Sweet. Are you aware that in this case they provided absolutely zero proof?

Sounds familiar. What other large scandals have been pushed by media recently that completely relied on anonymous sources?

Goose/Gander. Pot/Kettle.

Has anyone other than Fox confirmed it?

Believing that the DC cops accurately investigate crimes was your first mistake

Different country, but look at the Ed Heath investigation

No Wheeler states that either the FBI or the Washington Police have his laptop. No one else has ever verified the laptop exists. Both departments deny that they have a laptop.

Because he was either carrying it while he got robbed, or his parents gave it to the people doing an investigation. As I've said before, his parents probably did not even know what a "wikileak" was before the investigation.

Also there are no sources except for this Wheeler guy that claim there even is a laptop.

At least in this case the guy actually put his name on the line.

As opposed to all of the "anonymous intelligence sources" that the entire Russia/Trump conspiracy theory is based on...

Also, you're wrong. At least one (notice, anonymous) "former law enforcement official with first-hand knowledge of Rich's laptop" confirmed that.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/amp/dnc-staffer-s-murder-draws-fresh-conspiracy-theories-n760186

At least finish your quote before.

And a former law enforcement official with first-hand knowledge of Rich's laptop said the claim was incorrect. "It never contained any e-mails related to WikiLeaks, and the FBI never had it," the person said.

Hmm...

How does a former law enforcement official happen to have first-hand knowledge of what was on Rich's laptop

yea the only problem with him now is this story about his investigation into "a group of pedophile lesbians that go around kidnapping little girls to rape"

But on Tuesday, Wheeler told BuzzFeed News that he had no personal knowledge of whether Rich sent emails to a contact at WikiLeaks.

"That story on Fox 5 last night was inaccurate," said Wheeler, a former DC homicide detective. "I don't even know where the computers are."

"I don't know for sure, I don't know as a matter of fact if the emails went out to the WikiLeaks or anybody else," Wheeler told Sean Hannity. "But it sure appears that way." He was misquoted but still believes it to be so.

and someone believing something is evidence, as long as it's about democrats

So now Wheeler is a nobody whose beliefs are meaningless because he said the opposite of what you claimed? You just used the first part of his statement to try and squash the Seth Rich conspiracy...

Go back to stormfront Trump boy.

Why would you expect Trump supporters to like Stormfront? They're not the ones who use Stormfront's rhetoric.

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

So, you have a guy saying he lied about something and actually has no evidence - but you want to believe it anyways so you post the very quotes he just said we're lies as refutation. Amazing.

The title of the article says he was misquoted, your reply clearly makes it seem he refutes any connection between him and wikileaks.

Your post is deliberately misleading to make it out that the PI doesn't believe there is any connection. However there is a video of him saying he does...amazing.

Why does it matter what he thinks? Is he now the guy who gets to decide if it's true or not? He knows as much as anyone else - fucking nothing.

He is a private investigator who was investigating this incident, so his view is important and probably knows more than us on this.

Why are you so angry over this? You were deliberately misleading in your post and I called you out for it.

He absolutely does NOT know more than us, that's the entire point here. His view is meaningless and reflects (like all of us) his personal biases which are on record.

He knows nothing,he is a fox watching ass kissing bigot,like yourself.

Proof they have a computer or you're a trump bernie sycophant or a shill

Source?

The_Donald

Lol

They actually don't have the laptop lol that John wheeler guy was lying. He's a normal FOX contributor, how can anyone not see these tricks?

Thanks for clearing that up. What would the world do without you. /s

Rod Wheeler. And he said that both the FBI and DCPD claim to *not have the laptop.

Jesus, if you're gonna spread disinformation at least make sure it's not so easily debunked.

Because it wasn't a botched robbery.

Not the police, the FBI took his computer for forensics.

They didn't. It was made up two days ago, and they were supposed to prove it yesterday but never did.

I have read almost everything I could about Seth and Trump/Russia. Could it be possible that both are true? Do I have to pick a side? I do not trust the government. They have proved over and over again that trusting the government is foolish. People in government don't even trust the government. I think all of us know this. So why would you trust either side? Left/Right they report to the same master. Just one side worships Satan and the other Lucifer. Don't get caught in their net. As long as we fight each other we can be blindsided. The truth is all that matters, if you want the truth we should be working together. The Right focus on the aberrations with the Seth investigation and the Left should keep pressing for full disclosure with Russia.

How could the narrative of Russia hacking and leaking DNC emails be true if it turns out they were leaked by Seth Rich? Genuine question.

If that turns out to be true, great! The truth trumps all (no pun). But it seems if one cancels the other, then both conspiracies need to come to a conclusion.

This murder was not meant to look like a botched robbery. It was meant to show dominance. This is TPTB dragging their balls over DC police department's face. They told them to stand down and they did. The police department care about the optics, so they came up with a half-ass robbery explanation. The perpetrators don't care about the optics. They are saying to us: "We own you."

That would be problematic, because the DC police aren't the only people who could investigate, and leaving evidence behind would be a loose end that could bite them in the ass.

You're not getting it. They have more power than anyone who would or could investigate them.

I think you're reaching a bit, if someone had hard evidence and released it to the public, it could easily lead to many problems for them. The rich don't want poor folks having a martyr to get behind and that is what Rich could easily become.

What problems? What is the public going to do? The public didn't do anything for Manning, Snowden, or Assange.

We're not talking about the rich. We're talking about global gangsters.

For all TPTB's machinations and technology and guns -- and your scoffing -- the fact that they attach so much importance to controlling public perception imparts the extent to which they respect and fear its power.

The public is toothless when they feel, as individuals, that they're acting alone. That's why you don't see anyone rioting for Manning, Snowden and Assange -- the media are controlling the perception, making them figures of controversy (not to mention they're still alive -- unless that's a controlled perception as well). In such conditions, if you decide to take meaningful action, you aren't assured of anyone having your back or of your sacrifice having any real consequence.

But to know without ambiguity or controversy that your leaders are complicit in murder-- and knowing that everybody knows it-- takes it to a whole new level. You would know that everyone is questioning their pillars of trust and breaking free of the spell that the media has over them. And then you realise you know that noone would reproach you for snapping the neck of one of these gangsters, who's necks break as easily as anyone else's -- you would not then be an unsung hero rotting in a jail cell who's motives are lied about, but just the opposite -- and people would fight over who gets to draw first b lood.

The reason mafia methods gain so much traction is that they're able to isolate individuals, make them feel that they're acting alone against many who are organized around a common purpose (which is true). Change that, and the rest is easy.

thats actually quite creepy. Someone dies and the cops take his computer? why? If I was shot in the street walking home, I would like to think my family would be ANGRY if the cops took my property.

If they did, they did it with either a warrant or with the family''s permission, and to search for a possible motive. It's not like they're going to publicly release his browser history or charge him with downloading Game of Thrones episodes.

because the Police take laptops and stuff when you are robbed. They like to add insult to injury.

Why take a laptop from your house if you were "robbed" in the street though?

can you guys just accept for once in your life that everything not controlled by you is lying to you day in and day out?

Are you fucking kidding

lol u wish

The police claim they don't have the computer. The FBI claims the same thing. Why hide it without any sort of explanation? All they'd have to say is "we're keeping it because it's part of an active investigation" but we haven't heard shit out of any of them.

http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/125871795#p125887977

Joe Capone the owner of Lou's City Bar, last place that Seth Rich was seen alive was in a private room of the White House 6 days prior to his death.

http://img.4plebs.org/boards/pol/image/1495/00/1495004263062.jpg

Why was his laptop taken from his home when he was robbed and killed on the street?

If it was, it was to search for a possible motive. If his laptop was at his home and went missing, who had access and when?

If it was an assassination, why wasn't he killed on the spot? Why would the assassin not at least try to make it look like a robbery, and steal his stuff? No assassin would ever leave a mark like that 'almost dead'.

Ditto. This, as I've said before is my problem with the Assassin theory. My hands and wrists are sore from painting and typing all day so I'll just past my other comment here:

Why leave evidence that would point back to them and aid investigators, unless some other party had Rich Shot and have no interest other than muddying the waters and introducing doubt? Maybe someone in the DNC did it, but not for the reasons espoused, ( like a personal vendetta ) or it was another party altogether.

It's increasing hard to imagine the Clinton foundation employing amateurs when they are already under the microscope especially considering their wealth and reach, while I imagine the DNC would have the Clinton foundation's resources at their disposal and would likely leave them to choose who to employ.

Honestly, it's more likely that if either group is guilty, the decision was taken and executed by a compartmentalized group within the organization that might have the implicit support of whoever is in charge ( they would be an invisible part of that organization ) but operates outside their purview to contain the possible collateral damage and fallout.

That's how a group like that would operate within any of the letter agencies and those agencies would be the most likely sources of those groups personnel.

And if that is the case, any investigation would see these people charged with the crime, as Hillary or whoever would have plausible deniability. Whoever is in charge might not even know Themselves if it was someone within their organization as they would never be part of the decision process or even have personally met the people involved. They might not even be aware the threat assessment group (TAG) exists within their organization, it's not like they'll be at the company picnic.

This makes me sick to my stomach. Is it true that police were told to stand down from conducting an investigation into Seth's botched robbery murder?

How do you botch a robbery, then shoot Seth twice in the back and then run? How did he end up facing away? Was he fleeing or did they spin him around and then shoot?

Why did the FBI retrieve his laptop for a robbery in the first place. It wasn't even a murder when police responded he was alive and talking

Remember, they can't find his computer. The DC police says the FBI has it. The FBI says the DC police have it. That laptop has more than likely been melted down into slag.

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)

I am sure they took the laptop to see if it could of been anything more than a robbery, but obviously so far the information they have found points to a robbery.

Also, I side with his parents that the DNC leak story is bogus.

Could have

Good question.

If it was a botched robbery, why haven't the Democrats been making him the poster boy for gun control?

To those of you assholes who say we are JUST NOW MENTIONING SETH RICH ON THIS SUB -examine this post of mine from FIVE FUCKING MONTHS AGO AND SUCK OUR COLLECTIVE DICKS ON BEHALF OF PATRIOT SETH RICH

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/6btpor/to_those_of_you_assholes_who_say_we_are_just_now/

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Removed. Rule 6.

Dahboo 7 posed this same question... Really tripped me out.

It makes perfect sense to seize the laptop of someone murdered in a simple random street robbery but to not even examine DNC servers which were hacked by the Russians.

He was. It was posted last time /r/t_d tried to make that argument:

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Man-Shot-Killed-in-Northwest-DC-386316391.html

Hillary Clinton spoke about Rich on Tuesday morning, amid remarks in New Hamphire on gun violence.

"Just this past Sunday, a young man, Seth Rich -- who worked for the Democratic National Committee, to expand voting rights -- was shot and killed in his neighborhood in Washington. He was just 27 years old," she said. "Surely we can agree that weapons of war have no place on the streets of America.

If this narrative is not coordinated how come you are all using the same talking points?

Clinton did mention it. The Rich family has been very consistent in their desire for peace and not being in the public eye. They could have requested he not be used for political purposes.

maybe it was "some Puerto Rican guy" who killed him? https://www.hulu.com/watch/266073

That would be a truck

It's a weapon of protection. That's why they exist.

At least in this case the guy actually put his name on the line.

As opposed to all of the "anonymous intelligence sources" that the entire Russia/Trump conspiracy theory is based on...

Also, you're wrong. At least one (notice, anonymous) "former law enforcement official with first-hand knowledge of Rich's laptop" confirmed that.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/amp/dnc-staffer-s-murder-draws-fresh-conspiracy-theories-n760186

Why should she?

So if I let the police do their work to find a friend's killer, I'm at fault? I should put up a reward for the killer or else I'm fine with letting them remain on the streets to kill again?

Anyone who doesn't put up a reward is fine with murder? Brilliant logic. He was one of tens of thousands who worked in the same party as her. Maybe if it was someone who worked directly with her you might expect a reward, but not for someone she had probably never met.

If something happened to spook the robbers and they ran before they could get anything that's another story, but the description does not say that.

well what did you mean by this then? I thought you were referring to something else too.

did your read any of those links? Those were just the top ones that show up on google. Their narratives are all similar to this one. Im not going to say theres zero chance of assassination BUT until there is, Im saying just a coincidental robbery gone wrong.

There were 2 "robbers".

This just in: Meth head changes course of human history by robbing the exact right person at critical point in election.

Its not plausible. Its not likely. If you actually really do believe that he is the leaker then your not Media Matters. Your just a fucking moron. I actually live in a city where the possibility of getting robbed is a reality. People do not get shot for running. They get shot for fighting back. Which, based on the locations of the bullets, and the fact that there was no report of muzzle burn(which would indicate the shots were point blank) is not possible.

I'm just saying it's plausible. And not uncommon

I guess it is plausible, but it is incredibly strange that Seth's wallet was not taken at the very least.

So your proof is that liberals aren't evil Trumptards who would use a death as a political dagger?

He was out late at night/early morning after getting drunk at a bar. It's rather unlikely he had his laptop on his person, and even so if he tried to run he wouldn't get far. As far as gunshots, they could have him down and still have plenty of time to do whatever they needed to do before the police show up.

Drugs like meth are extremely uncommon in DC - virtually impossible to get. Hypothetically it could've been the PCP down there, but nobody is scared on that shit if you've already commited murder. Take this from a former junkie from that area around the time this occured.

meth was just an example. pcp, heroin, crack... formaldehyde?
a lot of drugs make you squirrely.

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

because its the right thing to do?

Then why aren't you doing what you want her to do?

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Removed. Rule 6.

I didn't know Jerrys could use Reddit.