A conspiratorial tale of murder, with Fox News at the center

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's not an ad-hom.

It's an observation of repeated behavior. I'm agreeing with your OP, you don't have to play the victim.

One guy spouting off while receiving a Fox paycheck is hardly grounds to classify the Seth Rich saga as fake news however.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: JinMI

So you are admitting the Seth Rich story is fake news then?

Is the whole story FAKE NEWS?
Is he alive somewhere?
Did the "authorities" capture the perps?
You need to be a little more specific about your "FAKE NEWS" claim.

BTW did you see this news?
www.theguardian.com...

The Crown Prosecution Service has confirmed to the Guardian that the European arrest warrant against Assange has been dropped after Sweden’s request.

Surely there is no coincidence with the attention to Rich's unsolved case getting attention and Assange just NOW having charges dropped?

a reply to: JinMI

One guy spouting off while receiving a Fox paycheck is hardly grounds to classify the Seth Rich saga as fake news however.

As I've shown, there is more to the story than just one guy receiving the paycheck. The fact that he is being funded by a frequent Fox News guest "out of the goodness of his heart" is also concerning. The fact that this SAME guy being paid by Fox News is also supposed to be operating as an independent investigation also stinks to high heaven. The fact that no one but right wing media is supporting the narrative that the FBI has stuff on this connection is concerning. The fact that the family has refuted these allegations and is threatening legal action is concerning.

But no you and your belittling "predictable" bull# have to grind my argument down to one point and dismiss that.

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: JinMI

So you are admitting the Seth Rich story is fake news then?

Is the whole story FAKE NEWS?
Is he alive somewhere?
Did the "authorities" capture the perps?
You need to be a little more specific about your "FAKE NEWS" claim.

I'm pretty sure if you read the article and my opinion on it that it is clear what I'm getting at is Fake news. So if you don't know then all you've done is tell me you didn't read the article OR you are being deliberately obtuse. Either case, I really don't care to continue.

BTW did you see this news?
www.theguardian.com...

Surely there is no coincidence with the attention to Rich's unsolved case getting attention and Assange just NOW having charges dropped?

Have you heard of these things called coincidences? Just because Wikileaks makes the news around the same time as this Seth Rich story is breaking doesn't mean there is smoke there.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

But no you and your belittling "predictable" bull# have to grind my argument down to one point and dismiss that.

You don't recognize your own strategy?

Hey, let's try this. Who does John Podesta now write for????

www.washingtonpost.com...

Look man, this is nothing new. This particular story, for the 3rd time now, is correct. Opinion piece or even possibly yes, fake news. He brought nothing to the table as I've stated from the beginning of his story..as I've shown you.

a reply to: JinMI

Then why are you still arguing with me? I'm trying to have a discussion and you seem intent on just being an asshole.

PS: I don't give a # who John Podesta write for. This thread isn't about him. It's about Seth Rich and Fox News lying about him to manufacture news and controversy.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You pinned me out, kinda spiraled from there. I was showing DWJ the difference between the sources in your story. At the very least there is an actual person to hold responsible for the non information and a trail back to Fox.

Did you find it odd that they wanted a retraction OR an apology?

ETA: Yes, I know you don't care about equally opposite relevant arguments.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Fox should do the right thing and have the family on air, to tell their side.
At least have Brad Bauman and Rod Wheeler on to debate.

Assange should speak up too. More and more, he seems like a shady little rat.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: DJW001

One is named. As in Wheeler owns this. Whether he be right or wrong, his name is on it. Unnamed official could be anyone and thus no culpability, but you know this.
Here

Uh, the other story has a byline, so that reporter is also accountable. Journalists can protect the identity of their sources, by the way. The two accounts vary. The first account sounds like something a police official might say about a case. The second sounds like something a political operative would make up to start rumors.

a reply to: o0oTOPCATo0o

Fox should do the right thing and have the family on air, to tell their side.

Their side is: "Go away you political ghouls!" Fox should respect their privacy.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

*puts tin foil hat on*

Sounds like "they" got the the family and PI.

a reply to: DJW001

A journalist who is held responsible?? You must be joking!?

Whenever an unnamed source I pause and look for anything that supports it. Lately, that's getting harder to find.

originally posted by: o0oTOPCATo0o
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Fox should do the right thing and have the family on air, to tell their side.
At least have Brad Bauman and Rod Wheeler on to debate.

Assange should speak up too. More and more, he seems like a shady little rat.

I doubt they'll do that though. They aren't even acknowledging this is a thing.

Fox News said in a statement that it is continuing “to track developments in the story and will update further” when there are new developments. It had no comment about the family’s reaction or about Wheeler and Butowsky.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Guys. Guys. This thread isn't about Trump.

Not the point. The point is, lately the pro-Trump crowd has been systematically shutting down every anti-Trump thread using anonymous sources due to lack of credibility. By accepting the same anonymous sources to stories that suit their agenda, they are showing further proof of their hypocrisy.

a reply to: Jefferton

I understand the point completely. I don't want to talk about Trump in this thread.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Jefferton

I understand the point completely. I don't want to talk about Trump in this thread.

I understand that as well. But it isn't really Trump being talked about, only his hypocritical followers.
But we will speak of him no more!

Since this OP is about Seth Rich, I'm putting this up for record. Don't know if its true or not, but if it is, WOW.

Seth Rich's Doctor?

originally posted by: NightFlight
Since this OP is about Seth Rich, I'm putting this up for record. Don't know if its true or not, but if it is, WOW.

Seth Rich's Doctor?

I'd take anything coming from /pol/ with a HUGE grain of salt.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Either case, I really don't care to continue.

yeah once again if it not YOUR narrative you choose not to discuss it
no surprise
in your world no one would ever leak anything bad about the dems, even when they circumvented the will of their own primary voters

it will be interesting to see if assange maintains the reward offered for info on rich's death now that he may have regained his freedom
but hey thats all "smoke" as well

a reply to: shooterbrody

I'm just not going to feed an obvious troll question that can be answered through a simple application of critical thought from what I posted in the OP. Clearly that is triggering you. Typical troll response. I will address the one point you made that seems legit though.

it will be interesting to see if assange maintains the reward offered for info on rich's death now that he may have regained his freedom
but hey thats all "smoke" as well

Assange already blinked on the turning himself in thing. I don't trust him to carry through on anything after that. He's just a political football at this point.