https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/20/the-seth-rich-conspiracy-shows-how-fake-news-still-works/?tid=pm_politics_pop&utm_term=.8c3d4bdb2b24
never seen a rebuttal to the obvious point that Wikileaks didn't uncover any bombshells that would lead to someone getting killed (after the leaks had already happened). Which is why I continue to believe the driving force for this=people who think Pizzagate is real.
Before anyone freaks out again, I only feel it possible that Seth Rich is the leak and that's mostly to do with Assange spending money and attention on it and one anon source.It's also because wiki's other leaks were from people inside.
But I can break down the misleading techniques in this article.
Within 24 hours, reporters at NBC News, CNN and The Washington Post had debunked the story.
First, Rich's family quickly corrected the idea that Wheeler was on their payroll; he was hired by Ed Butowsky, a Texas businessman who had grown interested in the case.
Wheeler isn't on their payroll, but he is working for the family. Butowsky is paying. The family can't afford a PI. They probably also can't likely afford a PR lawyer who has been making their statements for them, so that guy is probably being paid by someone else. He's also not your regular family lawyer, but a political worker for the progressives. Wheeler was shown as discredited, but nobody debunked the story or proved the story true. All you have is Fox News anon source vs CNN's anon source.
These lack of little details actually make it easier for WaPo to declare WaPo debunked the story, but that's not what they did. The only thing established is that Wheeler is unreliable, and changed his story back and forth. The anon sources aren't reported by Wheeler or just Wheeler. They come from Fox News and CNN.
The piece then dismisses the wikileaks as nothing, which makes it a green shinobi special.
In fact, Wasserman Schultz's mismanagement of the DNC, and personal bias toward Hillary Clinton, had been known, and a sore spot for supporters of Sanders, long before the hack. Wasserman Schultz scheduled debates late in the process, and had to be pushed by the Sanders campaign to allow a debate before the New York primary. Clinton, who'd narrowly lost the 2008 primary, came into 2016 with the vast majority of endorsements from party leaders not actually a factor under the DNC's control. What the emails found was that in May, after Sanders had no serious chance at the nomination,
So the question is what is it then? If DWS was heavily biased, and the leaks show them expressing that bias and working within that bias, why do we assume May is the only point where this was happening? "Sure, the head of DNC wanted to work against Sanders, but the leaks only show May! Where we assure you the process was over!" The writer doesn't truly believe their own argument on a level that matters. To admit that the DNC and DWS had intent against Sanders is damage enough. There is never a smoking gun like that in most occurrences, because nobody is that stupid at high levels. However, the leaks showed Sanders walking into a system ready to work against him.
So asking for a bombshell is raising the bar of what is required in order to dismiss what is revealed when what is revealed is damaging enough on its own.
But for me, this is the sneaky part that people here have been doing as well:
The absolute faith that there will one day be proof of this conspiracy theory proof that Democrats carried out a political murder to punish a leak that had already happened is impervious to reality.
That is the actual conspiracy, that the Dems has Rich killed, and that conspiracy goes further into other deaths. However, Rich being the leak, which is what all of the recent news articles have been about, is not conspiracy. It's a possibility that is hinted to by some, but we have no proof. We also have no proof where the leak came from. It's an unsolved mystery, not a conspiracy. But if you paint the two together, you can associate the valid question with the grand conspiracy. That's manipulation.
