trending seth rich
- Thread starter Rdcldad
- Start date
I don't know if Mueller could have negotiated something himself, but he had plenty of avenues for referral to the folks that could. And Assange was definitely smart enough to know that the US would seek extradition if he ever lost his asylum.
I'm not saying Mueller should have tried to speak to him but I do think it's odd that they didn't try given everything Assange has blabbered about. I'm just pointing out that there was probably an avenue to talk to Assange if Mueller's team wanted to talk to him.
If I were you two, I would not bring up sources after last night.
It's not Holli Would so it's probably above your reading level.
Huh? We were just discussing them. That's what I'm gonna start doing -- bring up all the toothless conspiracy National Enquirer stuff I can find and then go "Oh I was just discussing them, I didn't really believe it."
Yes, except for all the parts of it that has been proven true. This has been published on these boards more than once.
Good read.
However, in no way can I find anything that remotely resembles a "significant rebuke of a core Mueller claim".
It is a ruling in response to a request by Concord to hold MUELLER AND BARR in contempt for their public statements (Mueller's report, Barr's response).
On April 25, 2019, Concord filed the instant motion in which it argues that the Attorney General and Special Counsel violated Local Rule 57.7 by releasing information to the public that was not contained in the indictment. Concord’s main contention is that the Special Counsel’s Report, as released to the public, and the Attorney General’s related public statements improperly suggested a link between the defendants and the Russian government and expressed an opinion about the defendants’ guilt and the evidence against them.
The indictment referenced (the one filed against the Internet Research Agency in February 2018 in DC District Court) can be found here - https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1035562/download
The judge found that while both Mueller and Barr did violate 57.7, neither did so in bad faith, and the request to be held in contempt was denied.
The judge did NOT take issue with the accuracy of any of Mueller or Barr's statements/conclusions.
Doesn't quite appear that Mr. Mate's tweet accurately conveys any of that though.
Oh good. Would hate to think Mueller was less than thorough and fair.
It’s completely implausible that while people are murdered daily for next to nothing, that anyone might ever be murdered in a quest to gain the most powerful position on planet earth.
Yes. I think he was murdered for political reasons.
Yes. I think he was murdered for political reasons.
Sure, it’s completely plausible.
Anyone *could* be so motivated. D’s could’ve done it. R’s could’ve done it. Chinese could have done it, right?
It’s just that there’s not a shred of factual evidence to support any of that.
As soon as one unfounded assertion is debunked, another pops up in its place, only to be debunked and replaced by another. And another, and another, and...
A whack-a-mole game of insincere, disingenuous nonsense.
Eventually the debunkers tire of the nonsense before the conspiracy pushers. Because it’s not really about a search for truth for them.
Last edited:
I’d just start with the fact that there are exponentially more botched robberies than shadow government ordered hits in the country? Can we all agree on that?
Then I’d leave it to the cops to go where the facts lead them. We like cops, right?
Besides, if a hit were to have been ordered and funded by such nefarious puppet masters, I’d expect a better job. Like double tap to the head and dispose of the body.
Last edited:
Non-sequitir reaffirming that you have zero interest in conducting an intelligent conversation regarding the matter. Guess I’m in the wrong place for that.
Deuces.
Debunkers... such a noble, enlightened, truth searching lot. Certainly not smug, incurious partisans.
Lotsa smug, incurious partisans pushing the theories, from my experience.
Mate’s tweet clearly misrepresenting Judge Friedrich’s ruling and your response to me being a prime example of said smug, incurious partisanship.
I didn’t dismiss the reporter ad hominem. I didn’t eye roll emoji you. I didn’t “lol Epoch” you. I took the time to read source document and comprehend the ruling. If you consider that smug, incurious partisanship, so be it.
Blindly accepting a proposition without testing its validity seems equally incurious.
So does responding to rational analysis with goalpost-moving snark.
“Debunking” isn’t the goal, at least not for me. Separating fact from fiction is.
Last edited:
I totally agree. Can you show me who did that?
Interesting claim. Let's put that to the test. Watch this video and help me separate fact from fiction without what's on this board become the customary dodge of attacking the source for not being VOX, Salon or another approved corporate media giant. Nobody I tagged in it had the balls to watch it or reply. It's s short video and I have faith in you. Don't let me down. At worst, the anchor is smoking hot and has a sexy accent. It's not unpleasant to watch. But it does lay out the problems with the assumption that it's settled - regarding the Russians hacking the DNC. They are significant problems. Not conspiracy theories.
You are going to have to be more specific. I tend to be smug when I have to repeated explain the obvious. That said, - don't fall into the trap of assuming the parameters my partisanship. I'm never incurious - I've had my mind changed on a lot of things politically through this board over the years. That doesn't remove the possibility of examining a position with curiosity, concluding it is garbage and dismissing it.
Did you blindly accept Mate's summary of the Judge's ruling before passing it along here? Or did you perform even a cursory amount of research?
If you didn't blindly accept it, but also didn't test it's validity, do you think that's a responsible approach?
Challenge accepted. I actually watched the video yesterday. But I was driving back home from KC, and didn't have the time to research the claims made. Because accepting them as fact without examining the underlying support would be...incurious at best. Agreed? I'd like to take the time to do the homework, but I can't get that done today at the office. Maybe this evening.
Also, you can certainly see the problem with accepting certain media sources and dismissing others simply because of which side of the left/right spectrum they reside.
I actually did the opposite with your Mate retweet. And, at least in this case, I believe that I adequately showed that he mis-represented the Judge's ruling. I don't know if it was deliberate or negligent, malicious or sincere, but I do think it would be pretty hard to start with what was in the ruling and arrive at where he did. Unless he was just playing to his audience.
Now, if I had just said "LOL Maté", I wouldn't have learned any of that for myself, would I? Curiosity FTW.
I responded to your sharing of Mate's tweet with a pretty direct summary of how he misrepresented the judge's ruling. I say misrepresented because it's hard for me to see how anyone operating in good faith could misinterpret it that badly. But I'll leave open that possibility, just for kicks.
Your response to me was not "oops, guess they got me", or any reflection on the possibility that the non-MSM source may have been acting in bad faith.
Instead, it was:
There was nothing obvious to re-explain to me. All you gave it was a smug re-direct, with no acknowledgement that the originator (Mate) may have been in acting in bad faith, or at least never bothered to read what he reported on. Something I don't think you would have overlooked or excused if it were an MSM source.
At the very least, that kind of response doesn't really entice me (outside of my own curiosity) to go down more rabbit holes, especially when you characterize those who don't engage as "Nobody I tagged in it had the balls to watch it or reply."
Now, you don't owe me a reply to the a reply to the Friedrich ruling any more than I owe you a reply to the Epoch video. But I do think it's pretty unfair to expect one and not the other.
At the very least, if I go down a rabbit hole and find no rabbit, it would be nice of you to acknowledge that some of your sources might actually be less than noble operators themselves.
Last edited:
Well, the Seth Rich murder conspiracy is far more of a spoon fed narrative than a fact-based conclusion.
I guess you got me there.
you got the perp
you got the weapon
you got witnesses
you got motive
you got the facts right
I apologize @wino . I know you are a long time ostate.com poster but rarely post on 24/7. I'm so used to a certain debate style (partisan pissing contest) that goes on here, it was my default position with you. I appreciate your willingness to invest in a well thought out answer, so let me elaborate a bit.
I post on this board for fun. Purely for self entertainment. The board regular leftists are entrenched in their ideology so there's no point in engaging them for a purpose of changing their minds. There is value in engaging them for the benefit of someone who may be reading the exchange and learn something new. And there is also some visceral enjoyment to be had in pissing them off, for no reason beyond an unapologetic guilty pleasure. Therefore, some of my posts are supposed to make a well thought out counter argument to something I disagree with, while others are designed to do nothing but piss off people who I believe should be pissed off as often as possible. It's not my responsibility to explain which is which - but as far as recent posts in this thread, the Epoch Times video is the only thing I stand behind as a source I trust. On the rare occasion lately that someone stumbles in here who wants to actually have a debate and examine ideas with open minds like you seem to be doing, I welcome that. Again - Apologies for treating you like the riff-raff. You've not proven you deserve that.
Oh.... point of clarification - I didn't even know who "Mate" was that you were referring to - until you explained it above, because I didn't have any idea who the source was when I posted it. Why? Because it provided timely and interesting discussion material that would probably piss off @07pilt. Not much deeper than that, tbh. The validity of a source in a discussion forum is incredibly overrated. Some pan out, some don't. That's where the "conspiracy theory" accusations get stupid on this board.
By the way - One of the places I deep dive on information is a thread series on TMB that over time is probably around 10,000 pages of raw material, and that's the source of a lot of the tweets I share. In other words, If I am skimming through a thread and come across something that potentially makes an interesting point or shines some light on a discussion here, I might post it.
Sometimes it's something I do research. Sometimes it's just a pure troll job. And again... that's for the reader to decide which. We aren't publishing a research paper here.
That's about as deep as I invest in some of this stuff, and that's OK because again, it's just a message board and my give a shit level is rarely over 1/4 full.
Sure. Agreed. No rush.
Of course. That's kind of my thing. I don't trust any alphabet media. The only way to know the truth is to actively seek out an amalgamation of information - including info from outside a comfortable echo-chamber. Epoch Times definitely leans right editorially, but they have been incredibly accurate and well sourced. It's consistently been correct on a lot of things over the last 2 years. It's worth your view. I'll be interested in your feedback.
Good job. You gave it way more thought than I did.
True. True. Mea culpa.
Well... I didn't tag you. I tagged a bunch of lazy jackasses who have yet to watch or comment. As for rabbit holes and conspiracy theories... you don't even want to know the ones I've read and either rejected or decided not to post because they are just too far out in left field for now. I get accused of buying into the Seth Rich CT but that's really not true. I've always been unconvinced fully about Russian hacking, and Seth Rich is not only a possible source - but at minimum is obviously a cautionary tale as to something similar that may have happened (ie. someone else downloaded it and suffered no violent consequence, but still.. maybe not Russia).
You are probably right.
Happily. Mate' tweet may or may not be valid. I would say Epoch Times is worth listening to.
Let me ask you something. Why are you so stuck on proving the Seth Rich angle to be debunked? It's not debunked, and barring some unforeseen plot twist, never will be. Acknowledging that not only does not make you a conspiracy theorist, it doesn't even necessarily make you a Seth Rich truther. That's a narrative that's been pushed, nothing more.
