HorrorMovieFans.com

Headhunter wrote:

At some point before or during February, Butowsky apparently speaks with veteran journalist Seymour Hersh, who Butowsky says indicated a link between Rich and the FBI. Hersh told Folkenflik it was “gossip” and that Butowsky “took two and two and made forty-five out of it.

OK. What does the FBI have to do with him leaking the emails to Wikileaks?

Jason wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Jason wrote:

zombie wrote:and now that we have definitive, undeniable, proof that seth rich was killed by dnc leadership (or a hitman hired by them), let's have some convictions? let's have some trials? or is this just like every other accusation and rumor and theory?

We have legitimate, undeniable proof that Seth Rich was indeed the DNC leaker. Short of the killer on video wearing a DNC hat, there is no evidence linking any human being to the crime. But look at what we know, then tell me if you don't think the DNC is responsible.

what i think is that if the dnc is irrefutably responsible, then they should be held accountable. they should be punished. if it's more than speculation and throwing mud, then i wanna see action taken.

can you link to the audio?

No matter who killed him, if he is found to be the leaker it is huge.

This is what I'm getting at. I've suspected strongly from the beginning that Rich was the leaker, and was almost surely killed from someone within the DNC. Outside of a leaked video containing an image of the Rich shooter with a DNC hat, we will never get that "proof". The leaked audio is from Seymour Hersh, with wikileaks themselves confirming that it wasn't a conspiracy and Rich was behind their leak. Yuge.

if we'll never get proof, then it is just a distraction for the public. it's fun to think about, but not much more. we'll never know what actually happened, by your own admission.

Seymour Hersh should have been put out to pasture a long time ago. At this point he's just an old nutjob who hasn't come across a conspiracy theory he won't give the time of day to and his batting average is not good at all. This is evidence of absolutely nothing (obviously).

zombie wrote:

Jason wrote:

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Jason wrote:

zombie wrote:and now that we have definitive, undeniable, proof that seth rich was killed by dnc leadership (or a hitman hired by them), let's have some convictions? let's have some trials? or is this just like every other accusation and rumor and theory?

We have legitimate, undeniable proof that Seth Rich was indeed the DNC leaker. Short of the killer on video wearing a DNC hat, there is no evidence linking any human being to the crime. But look at what we know, then tell me if you don't think the DNC is responsible.

what i think is that if the dnc is irrefutably responsible, then they should be held accountable. they should be punished. if it's more than speculation and throwing mud, then i wanna see action taken.

can you link to the audio?

No matter who killed him, if he is found to be the leaker it is huge.

This is what I'm getting at. I've suspected strongly from the beginning that Rich was the leaker, and was almost surely killed from someone within the DNC. Outside of a leaked video containing an image of the Rich shooter with a DNC hat, we will never get that "proof". The leaked audio is from Seymour Hersh, with wikileaks themselves confirming that it wasn't a conspiracy and Rich was behind their leak. Yuge.

if we'll never get proof, then it is just a distraction for the public. it's fun to think about, but not much more. we'll never know what actually happened, by your own admission.

We now know that Rich as behind the leak, through confirmation of wikileaks. Don't you think wikileaks would know who gave wikileaks the DNC documents in the first place? Why do you think they're tweeting this out?

Or are you talking about who is behind the murder itself?

Anyone who thinks WikiLeaks is totally nonpartisan and has no global political agenda needs their head examined.

Headhunter wrote:Anyone who thinks WikiLeaks is totally nonpartisan and has no global political agenda needs their head examined.

All the liberals said they were heros until the liberals obtained power and their dirty secrets came out.

Foo wrote:

Headhunter wrote:Anyone who thinks WikiLeaks is totally nonpartisan and has no global political agenda needs their head examined.

All the liberals said they were heros until the liberals obtained power and their dirty secrets came out.

I notice you didn't dispute my point. And I'm not a liberal.

Headhunter wrote:One of the admins needs to change the title of this thread. Clickbait.

What should it be? Iza edit.

Reign in Blood wrote:

Headhunter wrote:One of the admins needs to change the title of this thread. Clickbait.

What should it be? Iza edit.

Nothing more than "RUMOR" at this point.

Jason wrote: We now know that Rich as behind the leak, through confirmation of wikileaks. Don't you think wikileaks would know who gave wikileaks the DNC documents in the first place? Why do you think they're tweeting this out?

Or are you talking about who is behind the murder itself?

why is wikileaks tweeting it out? i think that it doesn't mean anything to the public, really. what are you and i gonna do with that information? it is interesting to think about though.

Headhunter wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:

Headhunter wrote:One of the admins needs to change the title of this thread. Clickbait.

What should it be? Iza edit.

Nothing more than "RUMOR" at this point.

Or even "WikiLeaks Claims". That wouldn't be misleading either.

Headhunter wrote:

Headhunter wrote:

Reign in Blood wrote:

Headhunter wrote:One of the admins needs to change the title of this thread. Clickbait.

What should it be? Iza edit.

Nothing more than "RUMOR" at this point.

Or even "WikiLeaks Claims". That wouldn't be misleading either.

Huh, we actually don't get many characters for thread titles here, ho hum.

every previous post still has the old title.

zombie wrote:

Jason wrote: We now know that Rich as behind the leak, through confirmation of wikileaks. Don't you think wikileaks would know who gave wikileaks the DNC documents in the first place? Why do you think they're tweeting this out?

Or are you talking about who is behind the murder itself?

why is wikileaks tweeting it out? i think that it doesn't mean anything to the public, really. what are you and i gonna do with that information? it is interesting to think about though.

If it was confirmed Russia was the source, it would be a huge story, would it not? If true, this debunks the media and intelligence agency narrative of the past year.

Amazing.

zombie wrote:every previous post still has the old title.

Does it fuck...

Headhunter wrote:Seymour Hersh should have been put out to pasture a long time ago. At this point he's just an old nutjob who hasn't come across a conspiracy theory he won't give the time of day to and his batting average is not good at all. This is evidence of absolutely nothing (obviously).

I truly cannot tell if you are being sarcastic, so I have something for you to, I guess, mull over.

I can see you're either not aware who Seymour Hersh is, or at the very least don't understand the impact he has brought to politics, since you're dismissing him so easily. Seymour Hersh is a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist who exposed the abuse at Abu Ghraib and the My Lai massacre. This is not somebody to be taken lightly. He exposed three of the largest political scandals in the last half-century with absolutely no bias. This dude is one of the ballsiest journalists in history. "I think I'll screw the Bush Administration today. I've already exposed some of the worst elements of the Vietnam War, got that under my belt. A Pulitzer Prize to my name. Now I'm gonna expose the fact that we're essentially torturing people in Abu Ghraib on a massive scale and that the government is totally complicit and doesn't care what's going on. Now I think I'll take down the DNC." Seymour, by the way, is a very wise individual. Listen to the audio. He's said he tries to stay far away from wikileaks and Julian Assange, etc... I wonder why? He's saying he doesn't want to be photographed walking up the steps of the Ecuadorian embassy or some shit. Would most certainly hobble his investigative journalism. Your association with them might draw the ire of some government that then people are less likely to work with you or you have secret agents breathing down your neck trying to figure out who your sources are. This dude is about as trustworthy as you're going to get.

I'm not going to read that wall of text but I do know who Seymour Hersh is. So that was a waste of your time.

Headhunter wrote:I'm not going to read that wall of text but I do know who Seymour Hersh is. So that was a waste of your time.

"I'm not gonna look at this 'evidence'. I'm not gonna read your 'post'. I know stuff about Hersh mang. u waste u time"

Foo wrote:

zombie wrote:

Jason wrote: We now know that Rich as behind the leak, through confirmation of wikileaks. Don't you think wikileaks would know who gave wikileaks the DNC documents in the first place? Why do you think they're tweeting this out?

Or are you talking about who is behind the murder itself?

why is wikileaks tweeting it out? i think that it doesn't mean anything to the public, really. what are you and i gonna do with that information? it is interesting to think about though.

If it was confirmed Russia was the source, it would be a huge story, would it not? If true, this debunks the media and intelligence agency narrative of the past year.

would it be a huge story if russia turned out to be the leaker? would you not just say that this kind of thing happens all the time?

it hasn't been proven, so until then, it's fun to think about but not much more. if it is proven, then that is something big for sure. if there is evidence that proves it, that we're not getting. cool. let the investigation happen. let it lead to something real. otherwise, it's just "oswald didn't kill jfk!"