why couldn't he have been killed for what he could expose in the future? IF he did work with the Russians and/or Wiki-Leaks, then he was a future risk to expose the Russian's involvement in our election. that's a much better reason to kill than revenge. This is exactly how the Russians have acted in the past. They kill people that might expose them for spying and meddling in foreign governments. We can't just disregard recent history, or the real facts that exist.

my greater point is that we don't know what really happened, and revenge for an already tanking campaign is not a very logical reason he was killed. why kill for leaking when you could ruin their life and jail them? either way, all of this could be stirred out of the actions of a scared drug addict that attempted a random robbery, killed him, and ran away scared.

btw: i do not condone any of the Clinton's bullshit. we don't have all the facts, but i "know" that they slid right along the line of being illegal, but always with just enough distance from illegal activity to get away with it. They're both lawyers. That's their game.