Fake News Fake News

a reply to: Idreamofme

Why does it matter at this point? Rich is already dead. But convenient excuse you are swallowing just to continue believing this lie. I guess "anonymous" is ok when it is something you desperately want to believe?

a reply to: ColdWisdom

Not buying it. You are just giving Wikileaks carte blanche to lie to you while discounting all evidence that says there is nothing to this conspiracy.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes but dead people still have friends, family, accomplices, etc.

Wouldnt want to get them in trouble by accident

a reply to: Krazysh0t

What evidence?

All we know is he was shot in the back twice, the gunmen left his phone, wallet, & wristwatch.

I'm not giving carte blanche to anybody, I'm just calling a spade a spade.

And Wikileaks is spade that hasn't been wrong ever, with anything they've reported.

And now we have Donna Brazille in on this, as well? Too many red flags.

originally posted by: Idreamofme
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes but dead people still have friends, family, accomplices, etc.

Wouldnt want to get them in trouble by accident

Well besides the parents who are crying themselves to sleep every day because you guys keep dragging their sons name through the mud. Clearly they don't matter.

a reply to: ColdWisdom

No. You are making assumptions that even the police haven't made. The wrist watch was torn and it is VERY likely the would be mugger panicked and ran after accidentally killing Rich. It happens. Especially in DC. It's not exactly the safest city in the world.

a reply to: ColdWisdom

And Wikileaks is spade that hasn't been wrong ever, with anything they've reported.

I am impressed that you have read every single post on WikiLeaks and fact checked every single one. Keep up the good work!

a reply to: Krazysh0t

If you read the op link, the whole article was about the rich family being fed false info about kimdotcom.

So someone (dems) are not giving them accurate info.

Donna brasil apparently leading the investigation. Inspector donna

a reply to: Idreamofme

So what makes that article true? Because you want to believe it. That's why.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Youre right. Makes more sense to me than the other "wikileaks offered a reward for info on his killers for no reason" argument.

a reply to: Idreamofme

Confirmation bias at its finest. FYI: Any asshole with money can offer a reward for something. That doesn't mean anything.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
The Russians hacked the DNC.

Grow up. This is stupid B.S..

it's impossible to talk sense to someone who simply buys whatever their party sells them. So, yeah, grow up.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Idreamofme
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes but dead people still have friends, family, accomplices, etc.

Wouldnt want to get them in trouble by accident

Well besides the parents who are crying themselves to sleep every day because you guys keep dragging their sons name through the mud. Clearly they don't matter.

If he went to wikileaks, he's a hero. Working with the DNC, who we have plenty of proof of election. Tampering and collusion both domestically and with the Russians btw, is the thing that's detrimental to his reputation.

a reply to: bender151

Well thanks for confirming to me what you just quoted that the parents don't matter.

a reply to: Sillyolme

I don't think you are a bot.

But I also don't think you are genuine.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It doesn't matter if a source is anonymous, when you can actually see the evidence.

If you don't know the difference between evidence and hearsay, well, that would explain a lot!

a reply to: Dem0nc1eaner

So what evidence that the police and the Rich family hasn't seen have you seen?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Dem0nc1eaner

So what evidence that the police and the Rich family hasn't seen have you seen?

Sorry, I should have quoted. I was responding to -

I guess "anonymous" is ok when it is something you desperately want to believe?

In relation to Wikileaks.

There is a massive difference between evidence that you can actually see, provided anonymously to Wikileaks, and the kind of "anonymous intelligence officials have said" hearsay BS that we keep seeing lately.

Wikileaks is above reproach. If you disagree, find me something fake they have published.

originally posted by: Dem0nc1eaner
Wikileaks is above reproach. If you disagree, find me something fake they have published.

I disagree. If WaPo cannot have credibility for posting anonymous sources then Wikileaks doesn't either. I notice you didn't post any evidence backing up these claims. Just that you blindly believe a source on the internet.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Dem0nc1eaner
Wikileaks is above reproach. If you disagree, find me something fake they have published.

I disagree. If WaPo cannot have credibility for posting anonymous sources then Wikileaks doesn't either.

Stop acting dense.

WaPo would have credibility for their unnamed sources - if their unnamed sources provided something tangible.

You know, tangible like the reams and reams of documents and e-mails provided by Wikileaks, freely available for the scrutiny of all.

I don't think you truly hold this position, I think you are trolling right now. Do you really not see the difference between verifiable documents and "she said, he said"?