and that's called "strawmanning". nowhere did i say it's a fact, only that it's likely, and that i wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if it was proven true.
The way you worded what you said definitely gave off the vibe, don't accuse me of intentionally strawmanning you.
Even saying "The DNC has motive and resources, therefore it's LIKELY they did it" is completely invalid. Having resources and motive is not equivalent, even
slightly, to guilt. And even then saying "Likely" is complete crap. 0.01%? 1%? 10%? 20%? 99.999%? You can't decide. Yes, there exists, out there, in the vast sea of billions of possibilities, the one possibility that the DNC ordered a hit on him. That does not make it reasonable to believe that the DNC assassinated him.
Notice that even WikiLeaks themselves isn't assuming this, because they know that would be irresponsible and logically invalid.