[aty268]

It's more likely he was murdered for doing something he shouldn't have been doing rather than anything else. The area where he lived had no shooting in the past 16 years or so, and this young guy gets clearly murdered for no reason and not even robbed?

Rich was pissed at what the DNC did to Bernie (look at his past), and I think it's a fair guess to say he wanted to screw them over. He was in the perfect position to do so. If that's the truth, why Assange won't leak that, I'm not sure.

On top of all this, CrowdStrike themselves said under oath that it's likely it was hacked internally, although they have now conveniently changed their stance. See my original comment.

[nooron]

Hey, I wanted to tell you I worked deep in the Democratic Party's technology operations for several years. I didn't know Seth but I know plenty of people who did. What you are saying is nonsense.

I can't prove a negative, but I am not sure where you got the idea that Seth was in a "perfect position to screw" the DNC over, nor the idea he was motivated to do so. His family has begged for years for conspiracy theorists like you to let this rest.

[aty268]

Great, then I would love to hear the more likely explaination for his murder.

[dooblethrowaway]

You have even less evidence for this position than CrowdStrike does for their position. You are doing the exact thing you accuse others of doing.

[aty268]

I disagree. I'm looking at the most likely scenario here, the same reason I (and most people) believe Jeffery Epstein was murdered.

-Crowdstrike said it's likely someone internally hacked the server

-Seth Rich was in the position and time to do so and had a direct grudge against the DNC

-He was murdered almost around the exact same time the server was hacked in a wealthy area with no history of something like that ever happening.

You can come to other conclusions. I've come to mine. It's not certain of course, but it's the most likely with the information I have now. If you think it's more likely he was randomly murdered, that's possible but it's not the most likely.

[dooblethrowaway]

==You can come to other conclusions. I've come to mine.==

You can come to any conclusion you'd like. Just like I can point out your obvious hypocrisy. You demand far more evidence from others than you present for your own stance. The Mueller Report and Senate Intelligence Report each investigated this allegation and found it to be non-credible [1].

Mueller Report:

"Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s final report said WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange had made statements “designed to obscure” the source of the DNC leaks and of having “implied falsely” that Rich was his source."

Senate Intelligence Report:

"One narrative from Assange involved a conspiracy theory that Seth Rich, a DNC staffer killed in a botched robbery, was the source of the DNC email leak and had been murdered in response. On August 9, Assange gave an interview on Dutch television implying that Rich was the source of the DNC emails, and that day WikiLeaks announced that it would be issuing a reward for information about Rich’s murder. In a subsequent interview, Assange commented about the WikiLeaks interest in the Rich case as concerning “someone who’s potentially connected to our publication.”

The bipartisan Senate report was unequivocal about the factual basis for this theory: “The Committee found that no credible evidence supports this narrative.”"

[1] https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/senate-i...

[nooron]

Could you explain how you know he had a grudge against the DNC, and how you know he had access to these materials?

[Kaveren]

armed robbers randomly targeting people are not criminal masterminds. they are often hastily planned, or are completely opportunistic. you could easily accidentally shoot someone, or the victim says or does something you didn't expect, or you panic. it's very believable someone would abandon a botched robbery.

bloomingdale, washington d.c., where he got shot, has a rate of robbery almost 4x the national average, and twice the murder rate.

[bernnotice]

> It's more likely he was murdered for doing something he shouldn't have been doing rather than anything else. The area where he lived had no shooting in the past 16 years or so, and this young guy gets clearly murdered for no reason and not even robbed?

There had been a string of armed robberies in the area, which residents had been complaining about.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/bloomingd... https://www.popville.com/2016/07/two-more-armed-robberies-in...

It also simply doesn't fit the mold of an assassination attempt. Seth Rich was shot (twice) in the back, not the head, without a silencer. In fact, he was conscious when police got there, and didn't succumb to his injuries until he was in the hospital 1.5 hours later.

Conspiracyland (https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9yc3MuYWNhc3QuY29...) did its season 1 on Seth Rich murder. I highly recommend it.

[Kaveren]

> and this young guy gets murdered for no reason and not even robbed?

im sure you're an expert on crime but it is not in fact ridiculous that when a robbery is botched and someone gets shot they won't steal anything because you want to run immediately. you're sheltered.

[pilsetnieks]

It will soon be 4 years that a petty and vengeful executive is in power that would do anything to spite his opponents, real or imagined. Would he not use every possible avenue to investigate this, and, had they found something, use all his considerable media influence to trumpet it everywhere he can?

[k33n]

Assange's entire being has been dedicated to protecting the identity of whistleblowers since before he started WikiLeaks. He's not going to name a source. Look at what he's been through. He's not going to crack now.

[aty268]

That's true, but in this case the sole source would be dead. What would he have to lose?