I'm sorry but Assange has been doing everything in his power to say Seth Rich is the leaker without saying the words "Seth Rich is the leaker."
He's a wanted fugitive that's living in an embassy. If disclosing Seth Rich as a leaker would get Assange killed or something, then he'd already be dead over the dozens of other documents and cables he's leaked. This isn't even evidence though. You're saying, "I'm pretty sure that Assange
wants to say Seth Rich is the leaker," which means nothing. That's just something you're speculating about. It's baseless. We can't even assess Assange's credibility to claim something like that, because he isn't even claiming it.
Snopes is a bullstuff factory on the same level of disingenuous garbage as CNN. There's a reason why they're going in the stuffter, it's cause their left-leaning bias gets in the way of fact-checking politics. If we ever get into a religious debate you're free to link back to them though.
It was the #1 most reputable source for discrediting internet bullstuff, up until Annoying Orange ran for president and people chucked 'political bias' at Snopes when they understandably responded to all the bullstuff stuff he's said. Maybe if Hillary said an equal number of false things, then you'd have a case. But that's obviously not right.
Open your goddamn eyes. I know you'll just dismiss these sources outright though, because something something alt right sites, right?
More like 'something-something sites that have no checks and balances to make sure their stories aren't bullstuff'. The fact they're alt-right sites doesn't automatically make their articles false - it's the fact that their articles aren't properly researched and rely on false information and speculation.
Poll