No products in the cart.


Seth Rich Plot Thickens: “DC Insider” Speaks Of “Complete Panic” At Highest Levels Of DNC

Seth Rich Plot Thickens: "DC Insider" Speaks Of "Complete Panic" At Highest Levels Of DNC

This article comes from

Last week, Fox News dropped a bombshell report officially confirming, via anonymous FBI sources, what many had suspected for quite some time, that murdered DNC staffer Seth Rich was the WikiLeaks source for leaks which proved that the DNC was intentionally undermining the campaign of Bernie Sanders. In addition to exposing the corruption of the DNC, the leaks cost Debbie Wasserman Shcultz her job as Chairwoman.

Of course, if it’s true that WikiLeaks’ emails came from a DNC insider it would end the “Russian hacking” narrative that has been perpetuated by Democrats and the mainstream media for the past several months.  Moreover, it would corroborate the one confirmation that Julian Assange has offered regarding his source, namely that it was “not a state actor.”

Meanwhile, the plot thickened a little more over the weekend when Kim Dotcom confirmed via Twitter that he was working with Seth Rich to get leaked emails to WikiLeaks.


Which was followed up by the following posts on 4Chan’s /pol/ subgroup that high-ranking current and former Democratic Party officials are terrified of the Seth Rich murder investigation.

Anons, I work in D.C.

I know for certain that the Seth Rich case has scared the shit out of certain high ranking current and former Democratic Party officials.

This is the reason why they have backed away from impeachment talk. They know the smoking gun is out there, and they’re terrified you will find it, because when you do it will bring the entire DNC, along with a couple of very big name politicians.

It appears that certain DNC thugs were not thorough enough when it came time to cover their tracks. Podesta saying he wanted to “make an example of the leaker” is a huge smoking gun.”

Read more here.


Shorty Dawkins



  1. Maybe the new Special Counsel can get to the bottom of this. Certainly would be poetic justice if it blew up in the Dem’s faces.

  2. There should NEVER be any LAW enforcement asked to stand down without that officer to ask why? If the superior refuses to tell you, then you know it is (most likely if job related – someone too rich, someone being bought or blackmailed, etc) criminal action on the part of the superior, either by acquiescing or implementing. Why? Because YOUR OATH makes YOU personally responsible, just as it does that superior.

    There is never a “need to know”, because since you are personally responsible you do need to know; and if it is *terrorism or treason because of the actions being performed you are still, accountable, can still be given the death penalty. THAT is how critical the oath is and your duty is under our legitimate government.

    This oath obligates you (generic “you”) to the constitution.

    Obligates basically means: To bind or constrain; to bind to the observance or performance of a duty; to place under an obligation. To bind one’s self by an obligation or promise; to assume a duty. (Blacks Law Dictionary)

    What duties are every single person who serves within our government ( except for US Presidents who are held to a higher standard) – elected, hired, contracted, etc – required to do? The requirements are to SUPPORT and DEFEND THE US CONSTITUTION before orders of superiors and before the duties of the position occupied because without the US Constitution that position does not exist. That is the first requirement of all who serve within our governments – military, law enforcement of all types, representatives, those serving within agencies, etc. That is in writing.

    What does personally responsible mean lawfully?
    PERSONAL. Belonging to the person.
    2. This adjective is frequently employed in connection with substantives, things, goods, chattels, actions, right, duties, and the like as personal estate, put in opposition to real estate; personal actions, in contradistinction to real actions; personal rights are those which belong to the person; personal duties are those which are to be performed in person (

    RESPONSIBILITY. The obligation to answer for an act done, and to repair any injury it may have caused. 2. This obligation arises without any contract, either on the part of the party bound to repair the injury, or of the party injured. The law gives to the person who has suffered loss, a compensation in damages.
    3. it is a general rule that no one is answerable for the acts of another unless he has, by some act of his own, concurred in them. But when he has sanctioned those acts, either explicitly or by implication, he is responsible. (

    To say that a person is “responsible” means that he is able to pay a sum for which he is or may become liable, or to discharge an obligation which he may be under. Farley v. Day. 20 N. H. 531; People v. Kent, 100 111. 655, 43 N. E. 700; Com. v. Mitchell. 82 Pa. 349. A promise to be “responsible” for the contract of another is a guaranty rather than a suretyship. Bickel v. Auner, 9 Phila. (Pa.) 499. (

    BTW, the Oath is your (generic “you”) contract that you accept IF you want a government job. It is the requirement of the position.

    *28 C.F.R. Section 0.85 Terrorism is defined as “the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives”.

    Color of law. The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state, is action taken under “color of law.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 241.

Comments are closed.