“The Washington Times now does not have any basis to believe any part of that statement to be true, and the Washington Times retracts it in its entirety,” the paper said in a published statement. It added, “The Washington Times apologizes to Mr. Rich and his family.”

AD

Rich’s family has been combating the unproved theory that he was killed in Washington in the summer of 2016 in retaliation for leaking emails published by WikiLeaks during the 2016 campaign. The emails embarrassed the DNC and Hillary Clinton by appearing to show that the organization was favoring her candidacy over her primary rivals, including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

AD

There is no evidence that Seth Rich was the source of the email leak, which intelligence agencies believe was the work of Russian hackers. District police believe his unsolved slaying was the result of a botched late-night robbery.

Nevertheless, his death became the basis for a theory pushed by far-right sources and promoted by conservative news outlets, including the Washington Times and Fox News. The theory seemed to gain currency among its proponents because it suggested that Rich — not Russia — was the source of the DNC hack, as President Trump asserted during the campaign.

AD

The Times’s retraction was part of a settlement between the newspaper and Aaron Rich, who filed a lawsuit March, Rich’s attorney, Michael Gottlieb, told CNN.

The op-ed column at issue was written by retired Adm. James Lyons. It carried the headline, “More coverup questions: The curious murder of Seth Rich poses questions that just won’t stay under the official rug.”

AD

“Interestingly, it is well known in the intelligence circles that Seth Rich and his brother, Aaron Rich, downloaded the DNC emails and was paid by WikiLeaks for that information,” Lyons wrote.

The paper said in its retraction that it “now does not have any basis to believe any part of that statement to be true, and the Washington Times retracts it in its entirety.”

AD

The newspaper also said it “disavowed” and retracted another statement in the column: “Also, why hasn’t Aaron Rich been interviewed [by law enforcement], and where is he?” In fact, the Times said, it now “understands that law enforcement officials have interviewed Mr. Rich and that he has cooperated with their investigation. The Washington Times did not intend to imply that Mr. Rich has obstructed justice in any way.”