Just keep doubling down on that fear uncertainty and doubt. If you're wrong, you never had any credibility to lose.

The last trove of emails stop close to his murder date. Wikileaks published the first trove shortly after he was killed.

This DNC staffer was shot twice on the back of the head after an historical leak of DNC emails during a bitter and corrupt DNC campaign.

Sure, we've all heard the kernels of information that lend creedence to the possibility. They just don't accumulate to anything close to a credible case. When you load up your rhetoric with words like "murder", "historical" and "corrupt", you clearly demonstrate that you have no interest in building consensus through anything but fear. Why is it that you can't put forth the details of an event without providing the conclusion you demand your audience comes away with?