Who was Seth Rich, who killed him, and why do the media claim he was killed in a robbery where nothing was taken?

If you're a college-age American you almost certainly don't pay much attention to politics.  I'm not throwing rocks here--I didn't either when I was in college. We all had/have too many demands on our time.  But I digress...

You probably think the FBI, DOJ and the media are all reasonably honest and competent, and would never conspire to cover up a serious crime-- like the murder of a.27-year-old staffer for the Democrat National Committee.

The victim was Seth Rich, who was an information tech for the DNC.  He was killed at 4:30 a.m. on July 12th, 2016, in Washington DC in what the cops absurdly said was a "botched robbery." 

Except the so-called [bullshit] "robbers" didn't take his billfold, watch, cell phone or gold chain jewelry.  Also, strong-arm street thugs don't usually shoot a victim, since it vastly increases the risk of conviction and jail. 

So the murder made no sense.

But...about two weeks earlier someone had downloaded 2 gigabytes of damning emails from the DNC server.  The emails clearly showed top officials of the Democrat National Committee conspiring to sabotage the campaign of Bernie Sanders, who was the only challenger to Hilliary Clinton for the party's nomination.

The emails were given to Wikileaks founder Julian Assange, who began releasing them on Wikileaks' website.

Interestingly, the chairman of Hilliary's campaign--John Podesta--was also a top official at the DNC.  And most of the emails published by Wiki, showing collusion to throw the nomination to Hilliary, were either sent by Podesta, or to him, or copied to him.

The DNC immediately claimed "the Russians" had hacked into their server and copied the emails.  But strangely, when the FBI offered to examine the server to confirm the claim, the DNC refused. This alone should have cast huge doubt on this Narrative.  But of course the mainstream media never asked the top DNC people why they refused the FBI's offer, or for their evidence of a hack.  Instead, every mainstream media outlet continued to echo the Narrative that the server was "hacked by Russians."

Independent researchers were skeptical.

When Wikileaks published the contents of the DNC emails, several analysts examined the metadata on those files--things like start and stop times, relaying nodes and so on.  That metadata established with great precision that on the evening of July 5, 2016, 1,976 megabytes of data were downloaded from the DNC’s server in 87 seconds.

Simple division shows that's a transfer rate of 22.7 megabytes per second.

In 2016 no Internet service provider was even remotely capable of downloading data at that speed. 
These statistics are matters of record, and utterly disprove the Narrative that the copied emails were the result of Russians hacking the DNC server.
To summarize:  Someone with direct physical access to the DNC server downloaded the emails.  But the DNC and most of the Lying Mainstream Media continue to this day to insist that the emails showing corruption in the DNC were hacked by Russians, working for Trump.

After the information above was published by "The Nation," the Democratic National Committee wrote The Nation: “U.S. intelligence agencies have concluded the Russian government hacked the DNC in an attempt to interfere in the election. Any suggestion otherwise is false and is just another conspiracy theory like those pushed by Trump and his administration. It’s unfortunate that The Nation has decided to join the conspiracy theorists to push this narrative.”

The media also claim Seth Rich was just an unlucky victim of a "botched robbery." 

The founder of Wikileaks, Julian Assange, has said he didn't get the emails from Russian sources, but hasn't said how Wikileaks did get 'em.  But he seems to have inadvertently confirmed that the source was DNC computer tech Seth Rich:

In the interview with a Dutch television station, WikiLeaks’ founder Assange said this:

Assange: “Whistleblowers go to significant efforts to get us material, often very significant risks. There’s a 27-year-old that works for the DNC who was shot in the back, murdered, just two weeks ago, for unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in Washington. So…

Anchor: “That was just a robbery, I believe, wasn’t it?”

Assange: “No, there’s no finding. So, ah – “

Anchor: “What are you suggesting?”

Assange: “I am suggesting that our sources, ah, take risks and they, they become concerned to see things occurring like that.”

Anchor: “But was he one of your sources ?”

Assange: “We don’t comment on who our sources are.”

Anchor: “But why make the suggestion about a young guy being shot in the streets of Washington?”

Assange: “Because we have to understand how high the stakes are in the United States. Our sources, ah, our sources face serious risks, that’s why they come to us so we can protect, ah, their anonymity.”

Anchor: “But it’s quite something to suggest a murder. That’s basically what you are doing.”

Interestingly, Assange had offered a $20,000 reward for information leading to the identification of Rich's killers.  If Rich hadn't been his source there's no reason for Assange to have had any interest in the murder.

It gets lots more interesting.  Within hours of the death the FBI had seized Rich's laptop from his apartment.  Why?  If the murder was simply a botched robbery, the laptop couldn't possibly have contained any information on the murder.  Yet the FBI seized it.

More interesting:  Even vaunted federal agents can't seize private property without a warrant--and any such warrant would have had to specify the reason the FBI was asking to seize the laptop, and the relevance to the murder.   It would be fascinating to know a) if a warrant was indeed issued; b) the name of the judge who allegedly issued it; c) the reason or reasons stated on the alleged warrant for seizing the private, unrelated property of a murder victim.

If Rich's murder was the result of a botched robbery--the Narrative relentlessly pushed by the media, DC cops and the DNC--none of this makes sense.

But if someone at the DNC suspected Rich had downloaded their emails--emails the DNC knew would incriminate them utterly--it was a good bet he would have copied them to his laptop.  If the DNC had told one of their friends in the FBI, that utterly corrupt agency could have seized the laptop to get rid of evidence that would have destroyed the Narrative that "the Russians hacked us, at the urging of Trump!"

One more twist:  Since the FBI normally wouldn't be involved in the murder of a non-federal employee, any seizure should have been done by the DC cops.  And sure enough, the FBI says they gave the laptop to the DC cops (after making an "image" of the disk).

The laptop is missing.  DC cops say they don't know where it is.

Yeah, da coincidences just keep on coming, eh?

Oh, and I love this one:  Recently a left-wing website claimed the DNC had nothing to do with Rich's murder.  But of course the only way to know that was if the killers had been found, and just happened to volunteer to investigators why they killed him in that so-called "botched robbery."

So every part of the Lying Mainstream Media continues to support the bullshit Narrative. 

And 95% of the uninformed, uninterested, gullible American public believes it.  Cuz the media keep tellin' 'em it's true.