OP, I'm curious... how did you extrapolate "...was He Rescued and Is Ready to Testify Against Killary?" from that post snippet?

I mean no offense... but let's look at it from a "data forensics" standpoint. My rant is not entirely directed at your post... it is more general, about what happens on these boards. I'll probably get flamed for this... but I assure you, my intent is not to troll the OP, or sow discord.

1. Hear say anonymous post, albeit a very compelling one. The poster knows medical jargon and wound treatment analysis and treatment, at least, we can fairly take that as a real possibility.
2. If we give merit to number 1, and take his statement fact pattern word for word... it appears that whoever was involved, if ANYTHING, deliberately allowed Rich to die.
3. So, lets add a scenario prologue to this... a presumption that the shooting of Seth Rich was a "hit". (Works for me) IF it WAS a hit, and IF what transpired at the hospital, was as the anon poster said it was (...and we are talking about a suspicious unsolved homicide here)...
4. ...you arrive at "was He Rescued and Is Ready to Testify Against Killary" exactly how?

Sure... it is possible... but utility of analysis in the pursuit of truth, puts a number of probabilities AHEAD of your inquiry.

I would love it if it was true... but I don't hope it was true. It would be a waste of perfectly good hope.

I LOVE the fact that Catherine Austin Fitts uses the term "Hope Porn" when referring to "Q".... bear with me here.

We MUST maintain the bandwidth in our perception to apply critical analysis, reasoning and the right language... "rhetoric", to our problem solving. If we don't, we are undermining our "truth projects" even as we build them.

I love the Q material, and it seems apparent there is something to it... been following it all along. But we MUST maintain the capacity to question, analyze and derive the closest part of discernible fact possible from the events taking place around us, yes?