Was Scalia murdered like SETH RICH they better Exhume his body

NEW wikileaks email from Soros lawyer wanting to downplay George Soros involvement.
Wikileaks #9372

Some strange 'coded' language in this email.
Wonder who "Tom Hamburger" is.

a reply to: IAMTAT

There's a journalist called Tom Hamburger on The Washington Post. Probably him, although it's hard to say for sure since I don't know what email you're talking about.

See: www.washingtonpost.com...

a reply to: audubon

The bit you quoted upthread doesn't mention Beebe at all, so it was misleading.

I thought you said you had read the entirety of Skeptic's thread? If you had you would have known the Guevara was the third person reached.

There is a two-hour window between the body being discovered and the Judge being called.

Ok, I give you that much, I live in Texas so I know how big it is; hell the ranch itself is larger than the island of Manhattan. But there is a one hour window between when Justice Scalia's body was found and when the sheriff received notice from the dispatcher. Unless you think the dispatcher sat on the call for an hour, then there was at least a one hour gap between when the body was found and when it was reported to the sheriff.

From the incident report filed by the sheriff:



Poindexter was trying to circumvent the sheriff even coming out to the ranch and was being cagey about who it was, but the sheriff wasn't having it.

The description of the room as found by the sheriff certainly gives the impression of 'all is well,' but then that is to be expected.

The remainder of the report fills in some more details. The pillow was indeed covering part of Scalia's face, though not enough to have obstructed his breathing. The report also states that Scalia's hands were "resting at his side," whereas an interview with Poindexter, he states, "“His hands were sort of almost folded on top of the sheets.”

Minor difference, but details matter.

a reply to: audubon

Poindexter, incidentally, was an appointee under the Reagan and GHW Bush administrations, so would have been of Scalia's own political persuasion, and he is stating that Scalia died naturally.

That's the wrong Poindexter. If you had actually read that entire thread thoroughly, you would have known that. Before you post your opposition and criticism to the discussion, you really should go read Skeptic's entire thread and look up all pertinent links to the discussion.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
I thought you said you had read the entirety of Skeptic's thread? If you had you would have known the Guevara was the third person reached.

Nope, I was just going by what you posted.

But there is a one hour window between when Justice Scalia's body was found and when the sheriff received notice from the dispatcher. Unless you think the dispatcher sat on the call for an hour, then there was at least a one hour gap between when the body was found and when it was reported to the sheriff.

Not quite, the Sheriff was called by his own office at 12.15pm. It doesn't explain the delay, but that doesn't make the delay suspicious. I mean, it wasn't an emergency, it was a report of someone who was already dead. They weren't going to go screaming over with their sirens blaring.

Say the time of discovery at the ranch is correct (11.15am), the people at the ranch then delayed for 20 minutes (not at all odd, if people are confused and trying to figure out what happened) before phoning the Sheriff's office (which would be a stupid thing to do if they were trying to conceal the death from the Sheriff!). It's now 11.35am.

We don't know what took place next, but all we know is that at 12.15am the Sheriff received a call from his office saying that Poindexter wanted the US Marshal telephone number.

That's just over half-an-hour from Poindexter's first call to the Sheriff's office (and there may have been others) to the office contacting the Sheriff himself. Like I said, it's not an emergency and no-one outside the ranch knows who has died yet anyway.

The next bit is unclear (the Sheriff's office gives Poindexter the San Antonio number for the Marshal service, so why does Poindexter then phone the Sheriff again, trying to get the Marshals involved?) but it takes another 20 minutes (from the 12.15 conversation to the 12.35 conversation).

This is the sort of speed at which things take place in real life. People dither, have second thoughts, all sorts of reasons.

The description of the room as found by the sheriff certainly gives the impression of 'all is well,' but then that is to be expected.

It is certainly to be expected in a case of natural death!

Minor difference, but details matter.

Well, perhaps. But in this instance I really don't see what this adds to the bigger picture.

originally posted by: queenofswords
That's the wrong Poindexter. If you had actually read that entire thread thoroughly, you would have known that. Before you post your opposition and criticism to the discussion, you really should go read Skeptic's entire thread and look up all pertinent links to the discussion.

You are quite right, I had got the wrong John Poindexter. That was careless of me, since both Scalia and Poindexter were Reagan appointees, I mistakenly thought the John Poindexter at the ranch was Scalia's contemporary and fellow-conservative.

But so what? Everyone in this discussion has made mistakes, some more significant than others, and this is (a) a coincidence and (b) really not consequential at all.

The relevant point was that the John Poindexter being quoted said it was a natural-looking death.

a reply to: audubon

Nope, I was just going by what you posted.

So, then when you said:

Yeah, I read all that. It's a load of hooey. It isn't 'far-reaching' at all.

You were misrepresenting your position on having read the linked thread? You meant only that you had read my comments in this thread and had not read Skeptic's thread, and all related links?

Your position becomes more untenable with each post you make.

originally posted by: audubon

originally posted by: queenofswords
That's the wrong Poindexter. If you had actually read that entire thread thoroughly, you would have known that. Before you post your opposition and criticism to the discussion, you really should go read Skeptic's entire thread and look up all pertinent links to the discussion.

You are quite right, I had got the wrong John Poindexter. That was careless of me, since both Scalia and Poindexter were Reagan appointees, I mistakenly thought the John Poindexter at the ranch was Scalia's contemporary and fellow-conservative.

But so what? Everyone in this discussion has made mistakes, some more significant than others, and this is (a) a coincidence and (b) really not consequential at all.

The relevant point was that the John Poindexter being quoted said it was a natural-looking death.

Inconsequential?!! ~~sigh~~

You insult those that spent hours meticulously and accurately researching and then presenting their findings for serious discussion. IMO, you don't even need to be on ATS with such a flippant attitude that prevents you from doing due diligence in your own comments. I just checked----you are relatively new.

You will soon find out that most people here that do in depth research on important topics, especially those that "smell of cover-up and conspiracy", and then share those in this formum, don't appreciate the flippant attitude and dishonest evaluation.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

I was replying to this remark of yours:

There was a lot that got dug up in the tread to which I linked in the OP

I was saying I'd read the OP. Your OP contained links to a news story, a Wikileaks email, two ATS threads, a twitter account, and a Wikipedia article.

I didn't click all those links (and I sincerely doubt that I am alone in that) since you had summarised the relevant bits, and I found them insignificant.

You yourself said in the OP:

I have yet to find any connections between Elmendorf and any of the key people discussed in Skeptic's thread (linked below) regarding Scalia's death. It is my hope that by posting this thread, others here at ATS may find this of enough interest to put forth some effort and discover if there is anything to this latest wrinkle.

So, remind me why I was supposed to be reading a thread that had no connection to the person you had started a thread about?

My position does not 'grow more untenable', you're just distracting from the subject of the discussion by trying to find fault in the flow of conversation rather than the material under discussion.

My position is that Scalia was a fat old chain-smoking man in very bad health, who had recently been turned down for heart surgery, and that he died in completely normal circumstances. Absolutely nothing has turned up to change that view. So far, my proven mistakes consist of misidentifying a non-famous John Poindexter as the once-famous John Poindexter. And, er, that's it.

Meanwhile you and a few others have police, judges, autopsists, secret society members, assassins, Democrats and goodness only knows who else, running around wreaking havoc in a Texas county, in order to smother an ill old man in bed using a pillow (then leave that pillow over his face, despite supposedly trying to cover up the murder by making the rest of the room look undisturbed!), and creating a cover-up that even ropes in the deceased's own family.

I wonder which one of these two positions is the untenable one.

a reply to: audubon

So, remind me why I was supposed to be reading a thread that had no connection to the person you had started a thread about?

The above shows that you don't even understand the OP. Elmendorf is but one aspect to all of this. The OP was about the possiblity of Scalia having been murdered and the email which was included (which Elmendorf was originally sent) was related to that as part of the discussion.

We get it that you think there is "nothing to see," here and that all of the other things mentioned do not bare any sort of weight in relation to the topic at hand; the possible murder of a Supreme Court Justice. The fact is that there were plenty of law enforcement and former law enforcement officers who thought that there should have been an autopsy, even though Scalia was, "a fat old chain-smoking man in very bad health."

Veteran homicide investigators in New York and Washington, DC, on Monday questioned the way local and federal authorities in Texas handled the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. “It’s not unreasonable to ask for an autopsy in this case, particularly knowing who he is,” retired Brooklyn homicide Detective Patricia Tufo told The Post.

“He’s not at home. There are no witnesses to his death, and there was no reported explanation for why a pillow is over his head,” Tufo said. “So I think under the circumstances it’s not unreasonable to request an autopsy. Despite the fact that he has pre-existing ailments and the fact that he’s almost 80 years old, you want to be sure that it’s not something other than natural causes.”

Bill Ritchie, a retired deputy chief and former head of criminal investigations for the DC police, said he was dumbstruck when he learned that no autopsy would be performed.“How do you know that person wasn’t smothered? How do you know it’s not a homicide until you conduct an investigation? You have to do your job. Once you go through that process, you can conclude that this is a naturally occurring death.”

linky

So we tin hat wearing lunatics aren't the only ones who think there should have at least been an autopsy.



This was in the most recent Wikileaks release (v7) related to the message they want to deliver:

R's will probably say tonight that POTUS should not nominate anyone, or anyone should be confirmed until next year. She should object to that in interviews or appropriate forum tomorrow.

/podesta-emails/emailid/9174

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

The above shows that you don't even understand the OP. Elmendorf is but one aspect to all of this. The OP was about the possiblity of Scalia having been murdered and the email which was included (which Elmendorf was originally sent) was related to that as part of the discussion.

Again, since you said that there is no connection between Elmendorf and the people in one of the many links you provided, I had a choice of reading about Elmendorf or about something else that wasn't relevant.

You still haven't even suggested what I might have learned by reading the thread you said had no connection to the person who sent the email that inspired this thread.

We get it that you think there is "nothing to see," here and that all of the other things mentioned do not bare any sort of weight in relation to the topic at hand; the possible murder of a Supreme Court Justice. The fact is that there were plenty of law enforcement and former law enforcement officers who thought that there should/ have been an autopsy, even though Scalia was, "a fat old chain-smoking man in very bad health."

The officers and ex-officers quoted (on a slightly-unhinged looking website about Israel, but anyway...) said it would be 'reasonable' to perform an autopsy. Judge Guevara found it 'reasonable' not to. This doesn't swing things one way or the other, because all these quotes date from a period when it was still unclear what had happened, so everyone was in a degree of confusion (this is even ignoring the fact that the people being quoted didn't have access to the information that Guevara had).

The guy being quoted about a heart attack is relying on early and confused reports of the death - it wasn't a heart attack, so his remark is redundant. And the guy being quoted about the possibility of him being 'smothered' is relying on the early and confused reports about a pillow being found over Scalia's face - no pillow was found over Scalia's face, so his remark is redundant too.

Incidentally, in your OP you repeated that bogus factoid about a pillow being found over Scalia's face, as though it was a cast-iron fact and hugely significant, so it ill behoves you to cast aspersions about 'not looking into things properly'!

Anyway, you guys seem to prefer to attack me rather than look at the evidence in a critical way, or even quote it properly, so I'm going to take a breather from this for a bit and see how you get on.

a reply to: audubon

Again, since you said that there is no connection between Elmendorf and the people in one of the many links you provided, I had a choice of reading about Elmendorf or about something else that wasn't relevant.

You still haven't even suggested what I might have learned by reading the thread you said had no connection to the person who sent the email that inspired this thread

Again, your insistence that Elmendorf is main the topic of the thread is off base. And if you note, I said, "I have yet to find any connections...," which only means that as of the time I posted and up to the present, no readily apparent connections existed. The other bit of information you seem to be ignoring, is that most of the guest list has yet to be released so a thorough cross checking is not possible.

New leaks are happening daily as well so pertinent information could be in the pipe for publication as we type.

I gave a brief summary of the referenced thread and even said, "See Skeptic's thread for details," which you described as, "something else that wasn't relevant," thereby completely eroding the foundation of whatever else you might have to say on the matter.

And your little quip about the 'bogus factoid,' fails to take into account that the pillow is only mentioned in the title of the thread to which this one is the follow on; another rhetorical failure.

And btw, haven't attacked you, have attacked your arguments as to why what has been posted is relevant.

a reply to: namelesss

So what? It's high time that dog was removed due to lack of any ethics at all! Killing works as well as waiting for him to damage humanity further until a more 'natural' firing!

Speaking of lack of ethics...

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

IMO this was an obvious assassination done by the Obama administration. Not sure if anyone has posted this, but this picture shows what Podesta was referring to when he wrote in the email : "Didn't think wet works meant pool party at the vineyard."



www.commonsenseevaluation.com...

it couldn't be more obvious what Podesta was referring to.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I'm going to surmise a bit. I saw a live video of the Obama's at Scalia's wake (I cannot find it now, only other video of them during their brief appearance) in which they were standing together alone facing a camera and their body language and facial expressions gave me the strong impression they were so uncomfortable they could barely stand it. Michele was actually bending over at the waist to hide her face.

Shortly after that time, I saw Obama speaking at a gathering (the last Governors Association Dinner during which he made that joke about Scalia) and his affect of ebullience and relaxed, easy going self-confidence was very striking to me. I sensed he was extremely relieved that the deed of getting rid of Scalia so the Supreme Court could be stacked was over. A huge weight had been lifted from his shoulders.

From what I've come to understand over the years, in the world of the elite, in order to move up the ladder of greater power, status and wealth they have to carry out higher levels of criminal activity. This was like an out-going Presidential feat, assuring his place in the hierarchy of things.

Just my two copper pennies.

Now that there is only an Orwellian style Ministry of Truth that serves as a propaganda arm for the Clinton campaign, it falls now to the Alt-Right and its "basket of deplorables" to get these things out there. I am not seeing this anywhere in the mainstream as yet which doesn't surprise me in the least.

If there is any credibility to this it would prove beyond all doubt that the US has a criminal government, a corrupt judiciary, and a complicit media. This is way bigger than any alleged groping, and locker room banter caught on tape is less than trivial by comparison to the magnitude of this and it needs to be displayed, writ large for all to see. One thing all those Alt-Right Bloggers and Deplorables better understand though is that speaking the truth about Ol Granma Sociopath and her slime ball operatives may prove to be very bad for your health.

For the sake of your Country, your children, and yourselves, I urge you to get this out there to everyone you can, any way you can.

I don't know if we can link 4chan on here, but here goes...
look at this!
They have an email from the latest dump that seems to nail it that Scalia's death was a murder.
In the link there is a link to the email.
Podesta was sent a map with the ranch coordinates where the murder occirred. They treat it as a movie script in the emails.

a reply to: butcherguy

Saw that, the notion traces back to GLP.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: butcherguy

Saw that, the notion traces back to GLP.

And?
Is the email a GLP plant?

a reply to: butcherguy

No. But the idea that the email refers to Scalia's possible murder does.

I've read that thread and to me it is a stretch wherea the Podesta "wet works," email is quite a bit less so.

I can see where they're trying to go with it, I just think it's a bit too tenuous.