Fox retracts hoax story about Seth Rich murder

Originally published at:


Hannity will continue, the difference being: “Seth Rich Murdered over DNC Emails” is now “Seth Rich Murdered over DNC Emails?”


Please put this freak out of our misery.


What’s worse is that the original story was debunked immediately by Buzzfeed and (IIRC) WaPo, and the family came out saying the story was false. Fox then changed the story without issuing an update and still got it wrong. This is a picture perfect example of what horrendous journalism looks like, and yet:

This asshole literally posts this tweet linking to a story of the family asking for people to not politicize their son’s death int he middle of a rant politicizing their son’s death. This is vile.


See his statement he gave after teasing it for days:


Perhaps we should start an investigation into the murder of Hannity. His cries of, “I’m not dead yet!” only prove he’s part of the conspiracy.


Media Matters: These are Sean Hannity’s advertisers

Sean Hannity is a professional propagandist for President Donald Trump, as well as a bigot, a sexist, and a conspiracy theorist. As host of Fox News’ Hannity, he has used his platform to advocate for authoritarian tactics toward the press, defend Trump’s obstruction of the investigation into collusion between the president’s associates and Russia, and attack judges who have ruled against Trump’s Muslim bans.


Did Hannity imply that Hillary did it?
If not, he’s off his game.


cough, cough :cow2: :poop: :exclamation: cough


Oh, the hoo-hannity.


Would it be too much trouble to actually link to the much-referenced debunking of this hoax?

I don’t understand how it can be proven or disproven that any particular DNC staffer was supplying Wikileaks with inside information. I would like to understand this.


Read the Talk page as well to gauge the ebb and flow of swamp water crazy.

1 Like

Upon whom would the burden of proof fall? What is the standard of proof we should use?

Based on your own assumptions, the story that Fox flogged far past its expiration date was, at best baseless, unprovable, hyper-partisan speculation.

For the record, I would like to see the debunking also. I presume it exists, and has some level of evidentiary merit. I make this presumption because I seriously doubt Fox would have issued a retraction unless they were satisfied the speculation had approximately zero merit.

1 Like

There’s a lot more to debunk than just whether or not the staffer was talking to Wikileaks.

The full conspiracy theory apparently was that he was murdered for doing so, that the crime was made to look like a botched robbery, and that the Mayor, police department, and federal officers had all conspired to accept it as a robbery and drop the case.

And apparently FOX reported that a “federal source”:

“said the FBI had conducted a forensic analysis of Rich’s computer and discovered thousands of emails with Wikileaks. But a law enforcement official told CNN that the FBI never had possession of Rich’s laptop and did not conduct a forensic analysis of its contents.” (source)

1 Like

This is as close to the original there is left, they changed the story mid stream without an editor’s note.

It was immediately debunked by other media outlets, but Fox News’ parent company ran the story for a week despite the original source’s editorial note on the 17th.

THEN the parent company posted a full retraction after a week.


He MIGHT have been the leaker, there are several things to consider -

Have Kim Dotcom’s claims any validity? If not, how was he so certain back in 2014 that Wikileaks was going to be a major thorn in Hillary’s side come the election? Of course, his claims may totally have no validity.

Why did Craig Murray claim the leaks came from an insider?

Why did Julian Assange essentially finger Rich as the leaker? Of course, he could have done it to throw the scent off a Russian affliation, but he’s surely risking the utter destruction of his reputation and legacy if that were to come out in the future (like if we ever do see any definite evidence that it was Russians.)

Why didn’t the DNC give the FBI direct access to their computer servers? That’s pretty fucking weird.

So Rich COULD have been the leaker, as in the claim that it was Russians, we haven’t really seen any evidence either way. My big problem with the idea that Seth Rich was assassinated: signs of a physical struggle and the fact that he was still alive when the killer(s) left doesn’t scream professional hit to me. If you have professional killers taking out a very intoxicated guy, why would there be a physical struggle at all?


Maybe assumptions is not the right word here.

Thank you @davide405, @Nonentity, @RickMycroft, @emo_pinata, @Trisaneldritch! Much information to absorb.


Kim Dotcom wanted Hillary to lose the election and is yet to follow through with his promise to provide evidence publicly (instead posting a twitter poll about going to the special prosecutor, he also lies a lot)

Craig Murray is generally a poor source of information (and claims to have gotten a package from the source in Spetember after Rich died)

Julian Assange is generally a bag of dicks and was obsessed with getting back at Hillary Clinton (the Wikileaks twitter regularly lied and mislead about HRC, the contents of the leaks, and the conspiracies surrounding HRC and the DNC - note Wikileaks has never provided false leaks but have politicized all their activities surrounding them)

The DNC refused the FBI access during the years long investigation into HRC’s personal email server after years of investigations in Benghazi (he gave a press announcement 7/5/16 saying the investigation was done, and don’t forget his mishandled both that press release and the October letter)

We won’t ever know the source in a way that will satisfy the people looking for “the truth” in this case.


Oh fuck me:

Fuck everything involved with this.


Ed Butowsky wasn’t listed as director of Reclaim New York in 2014. (Some of these alt-right fronts are really lagging in filing their Form 990s.)

1 Like