Tensions with Russia

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(10-13-2016, 04:14 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Why did it seem suspicious?  It was a botched robbery and the killer had to flee before getting a chance to steal anything.

Even Wikielinks said this.

"We treat threats toward any suspected source of WikiLeaks with extreme gravity. This should not be taken to imply that Seth Rich was a source to WikiLeaks or to imply that that his murder is connected to our publications."





Just stop an use your brain for a moment and you will realize how silly this conspiracy is.  If the info had already been leaked it would be political suicide to have him murdered.  As soon as it was disclosed that Rich was the source of the leak the media and law enforcement would be all over Clinton.

That's because they have a policy of never confirming or denying an informant regardless if they died.

If they say "Yup, that was our informant, dead on the pavement." then it tends to make future informants rethink their idea of sending information to them. Nobody wants to confirm something like "Yeah, **% of the people who give us information are dead." So they neither confirm nor deny.

Kind of exactly like the US and their spies. They will never admit that the "US tourist" taking photographs in a hostile country is a spy, because what could they possibly gain from that?

Most robberies I hear about don't have the guy getting shot in the back multiple times. The front? Sure, maybe there was a struggle. How do you botch a robbery where you shoot the guy in the back multiple times and don't have time to even take his wallet?

Not saying it is certain he was the leak, I am just saying it's possible he was.
- - - - - - - -

Trump has a tape talking about how you just grab them by the *****.... and Clinton's former campaign chair, turned head of DNC rigged the primaries so she could win, resigned when caught, and had a job in Clinton's campaign in less than 24 hours.

That's your two candidates for President.

It's really hard to have "political suicide" nowadays..... unless you yell "BYAH!" at a campaign rally, or not know/forget what Aleppo is, apparently. Then it's obviously game over.

[fredtoast]

(10-13-2016, 05:11 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: That's because they have a policy of never confirming or denying an informant regardless if they died.

If they say "Yup, that was our informant, dead on the pavement." then it tends to make future informants rethink their idea of sending information to them. Nobody wants to confirm something like "Yeah, **% of the people who give us information are dead." So they neither confirm nor deny.

Kind of exactly like the US and their spies. They will never admit that the "US tourist" taking photographs in a hostile country is a spy, because what could they possibly gain from that?

This still doesn't make any sense.  If the Wikielinks reward produces information that links Clinton to the killing of Rich are they going to keep it hidden?

[Rotobeast]

(10-13-2016, 07:29 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This still doesn't make any sense.  If the Wikielinks reward produces information that links Clinton to the killing of Rich are they going to keep it hidden?

I'd wager any future informants wouldn't come forward, were WikiLeaks to admit that Rich were an informant and his family members end up dead.

[fredtoast]

(10-13-2016, 10:09 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: I'd wager any future informants wouldn't come forward, were WikiLeaks to admit that Rich were an informant and his family members end up dead.

Then why bare they offering money to find the killers if they are just going to hide the info?