If Seth Rich was the leaker.
A couple of things have been troubling me with the recent Seth Rich narrative(s), and I am loathe to comment, but given Kim Dotcom's latest outburst, along with Assange's thinly veiled hints I think a couple of things should be kept in mind.
Let's say Seth Rich was the leaker of the DNC emails:
- If he was the source:
- It makes no sense to kill him after the fact. It would draw–and is drawing– attention to him with regards to an inevitable investigation. Wouldn't it make more sense to simply out him as the leaker? OK, so what if that means it detracts from the Russia narrative? –Why not just leave him be? If the FBI are going to discover he is the leaker either way, wouldn't killing him be the worst possible decision given resulting spotlight?
- If he was a cut-out:
- Let's say he was given the DNC material by a third party (zi Russians), who knew he had suspicions about the motives of the DNC, who could be trusted to pass it on. It makes far more sense to kill him after the fact, because it snuffs out any evidence he could give linking him to the third party, while simultaneously implying those who "wanted revenge" killed him.
I know this will be a difficult pill for many on the sub to swallow, but I feel it should be kept in mind.
It may very well be that Seth was the leaker. His murder, however, is most likely to have been a botched robbery with the next most likely explanation being a third party who used him as a cut-out killed him, with the least likely scenario being the DNC killing him to send a message.
Just my opinion.
Submitted May 27, 2017 at 06:45AM by tvor_22
via reddit http://bit.ly/2r7aO2C