Seth Rich story resurfacing

[AnonymouseUser]

Susan Rice began unmasking Americans' identities in July. Seth Rich was murdered on July 10th. The important question is, did she unmask Seth Rich before or after his murder?

 

[Jhhnn]

Susan Rice began unmasking Americans' identities in July. Seth Rich was murdered on July 10th. The important question is, did she unmask Seth Rich before or after his murder?

Desperate obfuscation.

 

[brycejones]

Newt Gingrich mentions Seth Rich murder this morning on Fox News, says it needs investigating.

So what?

 

[brycejones]

Susan Rice began unmasking Americans' identities in July. Seth Rich was murdered on July 10th. The important question is, did she unmask Seth Rich before or after his murder?

You've got it all wrong! It was Col. Mustard with the hammer in the dining room!

 

[AnonymouseUser]

Desperate obfuscation.

Yes, that's exactly what the Russian hacking narrative is.

 

[feralkid]

Yes, that's exactly what the Russian hacking narrative is.

It's always wise to wait for the facts to arrive before jumping to conclusions; in both cases.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Newt Gingrich mentions Seth Rich murder this morning on Fox News, says it needs investigating.

Newt Gingrich? Do you happen to do a stand up comedy routine anywhere. I'd love to see it.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Susan Rice began unmasking Americans' identities in July. Seth Rich was murdered on July 10th. The important question is, did she unmask Seth Rich before or after his murder?

The important question is, will you seek professional help before it's too late.

 

[Chiropteran]

It gave me a fairly accurate picture of the election. I completely understand why it was confusing to you.

They made a prediction, and ultimately they were wrong. If you can take that and use that as an argument as to how they can't be wrong in another case, perhaps you don't understand logic.

 

[Chiropteran]

Yes, Gingrich is an attention whore & conspiracy theory fluffer.

The Russian conspiracy, with zero evidence after months of costly investigation, is taken seriously by the liberals.

Yet Seth Rich potentially being the DNC leak, with 44,053 emails worth of evidence, the word of Assange & Kim Dotcom, is simply discarded as a silly conspiracy theory.

 

[Commodus]

The Russian conspiracy, with zero evidence after months of costly investigation, is taken seriously by the liberals.

Yet Seth Rich potentially being the DNC leak, with 44,053 emails worth of evidence, the word of Assange & Kim Dotcom, is simply discarded as a silly conspiracy theory.

The words of Assange and Kim Dotcom aren't worth the electrons it took to transmit them. They both have obvious axes to grind and should never, ever be given blind trust like you're giving them now.

However, I would trust Rich's parents, not to mention the fact that Wheeler has backtracked on the lies he told about Rich. There isn't any real evidence here -- just a lot of hand-wringing by Trump fans hoping for something, anything that will make it look like Russia wasn't playing Trump supporters like a violin.

The Russia collusion investigation is different. Trump campaign members and associates did have contact with senior Russian officials in July; Flynn and Sessions did lie about whether or not they'd spoken to the Russians; Trump did fire Comey to interfere with the investigation; the Russians did hope that they could use Flynn to influence American politics. Rules on classified material means that you're not going to see the raw content in some cases, but there's enough actual, credible information to warrant an investigation.

 

[xthetenth]

The Russian conspiracy, with zero evidence after months of costly investigation, is taken seriously by the liberals.

Yet Seth Rich potentially being the DNC leak, with 44,053 emails worth of evidence, the word of Assange & Kim Dotcom, is simply discarded as a silly conspiracy theory.

This makes it incredibly clear what's going on and what's not going on. You're just accumulating things that people say supports your side uncritically. How does an email about a lunch editor with metadata showing it was edited in a Russian copy of Word point to Seth Rich leaking it as opposed to anyone else? It doesn't. It's just a pile of something like evidence that you use to show that the DNC is bad and therefore your side is right.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yes, that's exactly what the Russian hacking narrative is.

Crowdstrike, the cyber firm hired by the DNC, found two state level intrusions into the DNC systems. They & the US intelligence community determined they were of Russian origin. The French set honeypots for 'em & made even more telling determinations-

https://arstechnica.co.uk/security/2017/05/emmanuel-macron-russian-hacking-defence/

Coupled with tag team trolling acts like yours & Chirpy's they've been highly effective against people susceptible to conspiracy theory mind games. People who don't know any better act as repeaters for the pros.

I figure if Seth Rich were killed for reasons other than a botched robbery it was to create the distraction into conspiracy theory you now employ. Otherwise it's hard to construct a counter theory to the truth.

 

[zinfamous]

Susan Rice began unmasking Americans' identities in July. Seth Rich was murdered on July 10th. The important question is, did she unmask Seth Rich before or after his murder?

Yes, that's an important question to ask--If the audience that you keep around the house consists entirely of cacti.

 

[zinfamous]

The Russian conspiracy, with zero evidence after months of costly investigation, is taken seriously by the liberals.

Yet Seth Rich potentially being the DNC leak, with 44,053 emails worth of evidence, the word of Assange & Kim Dotcom, is simply discarded as a silly conspiracy theory.

I have more respect for sandstone than I do you.

 

[Paratus]

Newt Gingrich exposed himself as a hypocritical fool back in 1994, and has never recovered. It looks like Fox news keeps the entertainment value at maximum absurdity, though.

Posters : We have found a troll! (A troll! a troll!)

Ban him ban him!


Poster 1: We have found a troll, may we ban him?

(cheers)

Mod: How do you known he is a troll?

P2: He posts like one!

M: Bring him forward

(advance)

AU: I'm not a troll! I'm not a troll!

M: ehh... but you post like one.

A: The liberals made me post like this!

All: naah no we didn't... no.

(all: yeah, ban him ban him!)

M: What makes you think his is a troll?

P2: Well, he made watch Newt!

M: Newt?!

(P2 pause & look around)

P2: I got better.

(pause)

P3: Ban him anyway!

 

[Paratus]

They made a prediction, and ultimately they were wrong. If you can take that and use that as an argument as to how they can't be wrong in another case, perhaps you don't understand logic.

No it's just you who doesn't understand how risk and uncertainty play together when it comes to making predictions about the future.

You actually think 538 said Trump was going to lose.

 

[xthetenth]

No it's just you who doesn't understand how risk and uncertainty play together when it comes to making predictions about the future.

You actually think 538 said Trump was going to lose.

This is why just about every video game that's accurate about percentages gets accused of lying. No kids, 90% doesn't mean a guaranteed hit, it means one out of every ten is going to miss.

 

[Chiropteran]

The words of Assange and Kim Dotcom aren't worth the electrons it took to transmit them.

Please explain your answer, because it smells like desperate BS.

Wikileaks has NEVER reported a false story, unlike your media gods. Assange has a 100% flawless record.

What is your reasoning behind not trusting the word of Assange?

PS: Truth that favors Trump is still truth.

 

[Chiropteran]

No it's just you who doesn't understand how risk and uncertainty play together when it comes to making predictions about the future.

You actually think 538 said Trump was going to lose.

No. 538 predicted a Trump loss. And they WERE WRONG. They will be wrong again. You clearly are brain damaged if you somehow think they can't be wrong again because they miss-predicted the 2016 election. Is that your stance?

 

[Jhhnn]

Please explain your answer, because it smells like desperate BS.

Wikileaks has NEVER reported a false story, unlike your media gods. Assange has a 100% flawless record.

What is your reasoning behind not trusting the word of Assange?

PS: Truth that favors Trump is still truth.

When Assange says he didn't get the Podesta & DNC hacks from Russia it just means he received them through an intermediary.

 

[Chiropteran]

How does an email about a lunch editor with metadata showing it was edited in a Russian copy of Word point to Seth Rich leaking it as opposed to anyone else?

Wow, take a look at that strawman. When have I ever claimed anything about Russian metadata? What exactly are you smoking?

Maybe respond to facts I actual use in my argument instead of trying to knock down a strawman, okay mr tenth?

 

[Chiropteran]

When Assange says he didn't get the Podesta & DNC hacks from Russia it just means he received them through an intermediary.

You seem to have trouble with debate.

When you are calling someone a liar, you need proof. Not a hunch. CNN has been caught publishing lies. Wikileaks has not. Your "hunch" is meaningless.

 

[zinfamous]

No. 538 predicted a Trump loss. And they WERE WRONG.

538 predicted a 2/3rd chance that Trump would lose the election (a 33% chance that he would win), but a 97% chance that he would lose the popular vote. That's it. the rest of your post is deleted because you opened with an ignorant lie, you useless barnacle.

 

[zinfamous]

You seem to have trouble with debate.

When you are calling someone a liar, you need proof. Not a hunch. CNN has been caught publishing lies. Wikileaks has not. Your "hunch" is meaningless.

You aren't even trying to post honestly.