So Trumps son in law is an FBI "person of interest" in dealing with the Russians.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/do..._hp_ref=uk

Quote:Reports suggest the investigation also appears to be entering a more overtly active phase, with investigators shifting from work that has remained largely hidden from the public to conducting interviews and using a grand jury to issue subpoenas. The intensity of the probe is expected to accelerate in the coming weeks, the Post said.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...45916.html

Journalist Liz Crokin looking into the Seth Rich story, and cover up that surrounds it. Great information about this story. I bet this will be investigated further... The emails were likely leaked as Assange has suggested, not hacked. Considering his position as director with access...

---

The news will start flooding out. The story is too big and important to cover up as much as the DNC colluding with the media which was revealed in wikileaks DNC emails proves, wants it to go away.

Rich was investigating several cases of DNC voter fraud and suppression, and was set to testify on Hillary Clinton's email investigation. 44,000 emails were transferred. Also mentions others who were killed just prior to testifying about the Clinton connections. The true story is really Clinton, not Trump. That's the connection.

(May 19, 2017 at 11:57 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(May 18, 2017 at 11:24 pm)scoobysnack Wrote: If anyone can provide evidence of Russia doing anything we can talk about it. Media talking points don't count and certainly DNC conniption fits don't count as evidence. I'm looking for actual evidence, which doesn't exist as of yet, but I'd be curious to see what you all can come up with.

What would you consider evidence? Discounting the media tells me that this belief of yours is nonfalsifiable.

At that point, why should I give a fuck about changing your mind? You've essentially ruled out news, which is the only way any of us, yourself included, can get information.

Dishonest and delusional ... nice combo there!

If there is evidence I'd like to see it. So far after watching the FBI investigation, along with testimony, they don't have evidence, yet the media is pushing a narrative they want you to believe, and without evidence, you are taking their word for it. You have given them authority over you.

Here is a great exchange, where they admit there is no evidence, but really just want to keep pushing the idea that's it's there. Think about all the leaks, and not any evidence. Really they are playing on the ignorance of everyone and turning trivial issues into breaking stories. It's really to maintain the narrative, even as it falls apart daily, but only if you read between the lines and actually look for evidence, while ignoring everything related to Clinton. You can't point out the twig in Trumps eyes, while ignoring the log in Clintons. This whole thing stemmed from Clinton, and the emails which led to the head of the DNC having to resign, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Then then the interim getting caught colluding with the media, while telling everyone not to read the wikileaks, because it showed they were lying to the American people.

Chris Cuomo below actually told his viewers it was illegal to read the emails, and only the media could, so they could control the narrative. Do some of your own research, and stop relying on the biased media. I've said it before, look for what they are not wanting you to focus on.

I think Cuomo is having a mental break, saying he has no evidence there is collusion, just as the congressman says, but it's wrong to assume the evidence doesn't exist, but it's correct to assume the evidence does exist. Guilty until proven innocent seems to be the DNC talking point working out in the media lately.

You really don't know what I think about this. I'll tell you this, though -- discounting an entire line of evidence a priori marks you as a person who doesn't merit serious consideration, because you're wedded to your hypothesis rather than facts.

Also, there's the whole RARGH EVIL GIANTS WALK AMONG US ARGYARGBLARG thing which kinda kneecaps any argument you try to bring to the table straight out of the gate.

(May 20, 2017 at 1:52 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: You really don't know what I think about this. I'll tell you this, though -- discounting an entire line of evidence a priori marks you as a person who doesn't merit serious consideration, because you're wedded to your hypothesis rather than facts.

To be fair we don't have the evidence, and I need to come out and say that. The investigation so far is running into a cover up, that really points to a larger problem, of how 44,000 emails ended up getting sent to wikileaks, and then being released. The whole narrative from the beginning was constructed by the DNC. At first they said the emails were fake, and not to read them. Then they said they were real and they were hacked. Then the narrative changed to Russia, even when Julian Assange said Russia wasn't the source. Then Seth Rich was murdered, and wikileaks offered a reward for information about his death. The DNC offered no reward, and wanted the story to go away. You have to wonder why, especially since it was killed before he was going to testify about corruption in the DNC. 

Then when the emails started being looked at it was found the DNC was working with the media to control the narrative for the election. It wasn't unbiased media coverage, and still isn't.

The investigation is getting started and stonewalled, and barely covered by the media who was caught in the emails working with the Clinton campaign. It's a big story because it's just one part of a larger story of corruption, which has been going on for years, before Trump even decided to run. Trump is going to open up the vault, and allow the American people to see the corruption.

Scooby Seth's family would like you to drop this charade.

Family of Slain Former DNC Staffer Seth Rich Denies He Was in Contact With WikiLeaks

Quote:The family of slain Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich strongly denied reports by Fox News Tuesday that Rich, who was gunned down in Northwest Washington last summer, had been in contact with WikiLeaks.

Through a spokesperson, Rich's family called the report " unsubstantiated" and pointed out that Ron Wheeler, the private investigator who shared information with Fox News, is a Fox News contributor who was being paid by a third party and was not authorized to speak for the family.

"Even if tomorrow, an email was found, it is not a high enough bar of evidence to prove any interactions as emails can be altered and we've seen that those interested in pushing conspiracies will stop at nothing to do so," Brad Bauman, a spokesman for the family, said Tuesday. "We are a family who is committed to facts, not fake evidence that surfaces every few months to fill the void and distract law enforcement and the general public from finding Seth's murderers."

A federal investigator who reviewed an FBI forensic report -- which was written within 96 hours of Rich's murder -- and said he had examined the deceased's computer and told Wheeler, a former D.C. homicide detective, that Rich had made contact with the hacktivist group. Rich was 27 when he was killed.

It is alleged his point of contact was Gavin MacFadyen, a now-deceased American investigative reporter and director of WikiLeaks who was living in London at the time.

"My investigation up to this point shows there was some degree of email exchange between Seth Rich and WikiLeaks," Wheeler told Fox on Tuesday. "I do believe that the answers to who murdered Seth Rich sits on his computer on a shelf at the D.C. police or FBI headquarters."

Later on Tuesday, however, Wheeler distanced himself from the report, admitting to Fox News host Sean Hannity that while Rich's father, Joel Rich, signed a contract with him, he was being paid by an unnamed third party. He also said he not seen the emails or Rich's computer himself, and did not actually know where Rich's computer was.

"I have never seen the emails myself directly. I haven't even seen the computer that Seth Rich used," Wheeler told Hannity. "Here's the problem with all of this: I don't even know where the computer is. I checked with the police department, they say they don't know where the computer is, and with the FBI, they say they don't have the computer."

Wheeler said the information connecting Rich to Wikileaks came from "a very credible" FBI investigator who he refused to name.

But, this person, we checked him out... very credible. He said he laid eyes on the computer and he laid eyes on the case file, and he came across very credible," Wheeler said. "When you look at that, with the totality of everything else that I found in this case, it's very consistent for a person with my experience to begin to think, 'Well, perhaps there's some email communications between Seth and Wikileaks.'"

Maybe it is related to the DNC, and we don't know that for sure. It could have been a botched robbery," Wheeler added.

Rich's case remains unsolved, though police have previously claimed he was the victim of a "botched robbery."

Shortly after Rich's murder in July 2016, WikiLeaks published internal DNC emails that appeared to show top party officials conspired to stop Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont from becoming the party's presidential nominee. DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned soon after the emails were published.

So the stories about Trump and Russia that use anonymous sources are fake news, but this is definitely true?

I love it. He made shit up, having not even examined the dead man's computer, and credulous morons actually fell for it.

(May 20, 2017 at 5:48 pm)Moros Synackaon Wrote: I love it. He made shit up, having not even examined the dead man's computer, and credulous morons actually fell for it.

It can be rather awesome how unhinged minds work.

(May 20, 2017 at 2:16 pm)scoobysnack Wrote: To be fair we don't have the evidence, and I need to come out and say that.

You missed my point, which is that by brushing off any potential evidence based solely on who is providing it, you are necessarily practicing selection bias, and that impugns your credibility.

I'm not sure if your misunderstanding is deliberate, or simply based on being beholden to an outlook no matter the facts; but in either case, it doesn't matter to me, because it will have the same end result: you feeding your head with only those things you -- or more appropriately, your sources -- want you(rself) to feed on.