Because of the media, power balances, legalities etc of US life, they obviously wouldn't be doing them in an open Third World/Banana Republic style (where, depending on the country/political climate, the state doesn't hesitate much to semi-openly get rid of enemies and more or less everybody knows they did it).
Because people who would be targets of political murders don't die at a statistically unusual rate. Unless you think they are also being secretly replaced with more pliant clones/cyborgs or we are all just copied over to a less unruly simulation. Then it would be harder to know.
They don't have to be well known people that you would identify as targets. In fact those would be the worst to target. They could be potential whistleblowers you never learned of, for example.
That said, sticking to well known people that could be targets, there's a large variety of those to e.g. MLK Jr, Malcom X, JFK, Robert Kennedy -- to name but a few in a single decade's span.
Some of them, we don't know who did them at all (e.g. MLK).
But even if that was the case, it's not difficult to manipulate a "crazy" to do something, especially if you have both crazies and guns in abundance in a country.
It would be a nice way to avoid blame for the whole thing, and you can even have some mafia figure/ex-cop collaborator kill them afterwards, before said crazies ever get to go to trial for the first murder.
>you have to come up with some evidence otherwise it's just conspiracy theorizing
You think there's much evidence in e.g. banana republic political murders too, even those where still everybody knows the government or some mogul with special interests ordered them?
It's not difficult to say it's not difficult. Again, it's a completely evidence-free claim.
You think there's much evidence
There isn't any evidence the government is taking out hits on politically inconvenient figures in the US. "There can't possibly be any evidence, look at some other (vaguely described, non-specific place/event) where there is also no evidence, QED" is pretty much classic conspiracy-theorist logic (if you can call it that).
(edit removed the yet in "proved yet")
If he's being paid by someone closely affiliated with the Democratic Party - and I don't know that he is, I'm building an air castle here - then distancing the Rich family from WikiLeaks would be in his best interest.
This seems likely to me, as per the CNN article you linked:
> Wheeler was put in touch with the Rich family through Dallas businessman Ed Butowsky, who told CNN he had offered to pay any bills associated with the investigation.
> "You have a family who can't afford a PI. Their son was killed. So I offered to help out," Butowsky said.
If they truly couldn't afford a PI, then I doubt they could afford a top-tier PR professional to speak on their behalf.
When you don't want to accept the obvious, it's easy to just keep scratching away until you think you find something (look up pareidolia).
Quite possibly. After all, they're against leaks when they're aimed at Trump: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/817322050297745408
> And we're supposed to trust that the family actually knows what really happened?
The supposed bombshell yesterday fell apart, as conspiracy theories tend to do.