KimDotCom Tweets "I knew Seth Rich and was involved in Wikileaks DNC Leak

The only thing you naysayers have right now is the fact that Kim decided to go the legal route and not the Hollywood route that you were hoping would not happen so you can come here and laugh. That means you have less than nothing.

originally posted by: anonfamily
a reply to: introvert

You are the troll here. Go away before I spray some troll-be-gone. - Anon

Ah yes. It all makes perfect sense now.

It was you all along wasn't it Introvert??? You're part of the Deep State. You leveraged the truth into silence once again you sneaky Deep State Person you!!!

Oh how the dominoes fall when the pieces of the puzzle....fit.....together...........something something......nevermind. We're on to you now.

a reply to: anonfamily

Ok. But we never claimed to have anything though either. Kim Dot.com did.

originally posted by: anonfamily
The only thing you naysayers have right now is the fact that Kim decided to go the legal route and not the Hollywood route that you were hoping would not happen so you can come here and laugh. That means you have less than nothing.

Legal route? So that means they knew their assertions could cause legal problems? Of course, that means they could not back their assertions and would be open to legal ramifications.

In other words, they backed-out because they have nothing and do not want to open themselves to ramifications of spitting lies.

a reply to: BlueAjah

That letter is crazy right? You really think the Rich family did all that research on Kim Dotcom over night and wrote that letter and sent it to Hannity so quickly? The Rich's "spokesperson" was obviously prepared for this, and this smells like an attempt at a cover-up.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: anonfamily
a reply to: introvert

You are the troll here. Go away before I spray some troll-be-gone. - Anon

Ah yes. It all makes perfect sense now.

It was you all along wasn't it Introvert??? You're part of the Deep State. You leveraged the truth into silence once again you sneaky Deep State Person you!!!

Oh how the dominoes fall when the pieces of the puzzle....fit.....together...........something something......nevermind. We're on to you now.

I may be the Deep State Troll...perhaps...maybe.

You will never know.

a reply to: introvert

Yes the legal route. Maybe you need help reading? Study law for a bit and then come back.

You don't just spill all your evidence to the public before its given to proper authorities and investigators. It would potentially cause the evidence to be inadmissible in court, or almost impossible to defend.

Again, educate yourself in law and then come back.

Those who thought Kim would just spill everything, even after he mentioned he would talk to his lawyers about this first, are foolish. Those who came to mock the foolish are even more foolish.

a reply to: anonfamily

Can you provide a logical, intelligent response in which I can properly respond, or do I have to deal with this stupidity?

How embarrassing.

a reply to: introvert

Logically speaking, I can't provide an intelligent response because the recipient of said response would need to be intelligent in order to receive it. We've concluded you are not that which is needed for transmission of said response.

I am embarrassed for you.

a reply to: anonfamily

Logically speaking, I can't provide an intelligent response because the recipient of said response would need to be intelligent in order to receive it.

So you cannot provide an intelligent response because you think I am not intelligent enough to understand it?

Why is your ability to formulate intelligent responses dependent upon the intelligence of the recipient?

That's even more embarrassing.

Wait what spin



Misspelling is often changed???



This goes beyond fake news

a reply to: introvert

What, you can't grasp this logical concept? Let me clarify...

If you ask someone to tell you something funny, but you don't have a sense of humor, logically speaking that person will never be able to tell you something funny.

I'm embarrassed you have issues with this simple logic.

originally posted by: BlueAjah
This is interesting. I hope that Seth Rich's family reads it:

Someone Is Lying To Seth Rich’s Family About Kim Dotcom

Great find! Sheds light on NZ happenings that'll never ever make it in any form into US media, might get folks to questioning too much!

a reply to: iWontGiveUP

Huh, was out of room and all I got was you're "AHA" moment.

Can ya elaborate what the point is about spelling correction.

Thx

a reply to: Phoenix

He made one official release, any alteration is...

This isn't a birthday card dear

This is big league

a reply to: iWontGiveUP

Hmmm......might be reading a bit much into that tidbit.

Here's one from me,

Perusing media and social sites covering both sides of issue.

The amount of pushback out there on anybody not towing official line regards Seth Rich is only exceeded by highly known politicians having something hanging over their heads and the antics they pull.

Really? If just a robbery gone bad why are PTB pushing back to such extremes.

Example, when Hannity says on air

"I don't know what I'd do if I lost a child or close relative"

Followed by saying he was not discussing Seth Rich's murder any more for time being.

Was Hannity family threatened, one could construe that without much of a stretch.

He closed by saying "Hopefully I'll see you here tomorrow night"

Hopefully? that's odd closing.

If just robbery gone bad why is Media Matters on the attack?

In fact seems entire left apparatus has been mobilized - over a robbery gone bad.

It presents a curiosity to say the least.

a reply to: Phoenix

wasnt personal, it reads terribly (mobile version)

Your insight and observation is spot on

There is much aloof happening currently

Much

a reply to: Granite

This is from behind the scenes at the Seth Rich murder page, whats it mean?

That is untrue. There is a second conspiracy theory floating around out there that doesn't claim Rich as a source of the leak--quite the opposite--and people that are familiar with the sources will know what I'm talking about. But I'm not here to give conspiracy theorists a podium. Geogene (talk) 05:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

This is by far the best piece of reporting I have seen on this story.
link

May 21, 2016 — WikiLeaks Director Gavin MacFadyen reportedly receives DNC email transfer from Seth Rich according to anonymous sources who relayed the information to a private investigator (who has now recanted after supposedly being threatened by former DNC chairwoman Donna Brazile).

May 25, 2016 — Date of the last email in the DNC Email Archive released by Wikileaks.

How does a record dated four days later then the transfer date appear in the data sent?

originally posted by: roadgravel

May 21, 2016 — WikiLeaks Director Gavin MacFadyen reportedly receives DNC email transfer from Seth Rich according to anonymous sources who relayed the information to a private investigator (who has now recanted after supposedly being threatened by former DNC chairwoman Donna Brazile).

May 25, 2016 — Date of the last email in the DNC Email Archive released by Wikileaks.

How does a record dated four days later then the transfer date appear in the data sent?

More than one transfer, or more than one leaker? The majority could have come from a single source, but chances are that source had friends that had access as well.