Q mentions Assange and Seth Rich.
Q is basically saying that Seth Rich leaked to Wikileaks.
If Q thinks that, there has to be some sort of proof.
Why would they sit on proof?
That doesn't make any sense.
Obviously there are a lot of signs that point that way.
Assange and Wikileaks (along with Seymour hersh) have all but confirmed this.
Someone as high up as Q team believing this means there must be proof.
Concrete proof.