ADDED: Slate's Jeremy Stahl has this "WikiLeaks Is Fanning a Conspiracy Theory That Hillary Murdered a DNC Staffer":
There is of course absolutely zero evidence for this and Snopes has issued a comprehensive debunking of the premise itself (Rich is only 27 and has only worked at the DNC since 2014 so is unlikely to be in possession of information that might take down Clinton, he was on the phone with his girlfriend at the time of the shooting and she hasn’t reported any FBI meeting, there have been a string of robberies in the area, an FBI rendezvous at 4 a.m. only happens in movies, the whole thing is batshit crazy, etc.).Why does Stahl flaunt his non-neutrality? You can't say "absolutely zero evidence" (unless you don't know the meaning of the word evidence). Assange's statement is evidence. And the leaking and Rich's place of employment are evidence. Even if you think that's not much, it is something. Why fall back on statements like "the whole thing is batshit crazy." People complain about Trump's style of speaking, but it seems to me that an awful lot of people have moved to that level or worse.