George Webb names Seth Rich's killer - Alpha Jalloh

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: drock905
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Let's wait and see if he provides any evidence before automatically dismissing him.

He was supposed to provide the evidence last week and didn't. That is the tell-tale sign that he has nothing to show and his just stringing you along.

Kim Dotcom did not promise evidence last week.

He promised a statement about providing evidence which he followed through on.

a reply to: drock905

George Webb needs to explain whats so special about FBI bullets.

Agents can buy their own ammo as long as it's on the approved list.

He makes a serious error in telling us that the bullet recovered was an "FBI" bullet.

All of the ammo on the approved list is over the counter available, not like the FBI has bullets stamped FBI on the projectile.

.40 S&W

Barnes all-copper bullets (140 & 155gr) loaded by: Cor-Bon (DPX40140)
Winchester Ranger 180gr JHP (RA40T)
Winchester Ranger 165gr JHP (RA40TA)
Winchester Partition Gold 165gr JHP (RA401P)
Winchester Bonded 180gr JHP (Q4355)
Speer Gold Dot 155gr JHP (53961)
Speer Gold Dot 180gr JHP (53962)
Federal Tactical 165gr JHP (LE40T3)
Federal Tactical 180gr JHP (LE40T1)
Federal HST 180gr JHP (P40HST1)
Remington Golden Saber 180 gr JHP (GS40SWB)

a reply to: Perfectenemy

That they claimed for the gazillionth times that Russia hacked the election but still have no answer how they did it?

No. The claim is the Russians hacked the DNC, not the election. Saying the "claim" is the Russians hacked the election is another false red herring.

What's up with the DNC didn't show us the servers because resaons. I'm surprised that people still have no problem that the FBI wasn't allowed to take a look at the f#cking servers themselves. That's a huge red flag if i've ever seen one.

As I have said before, since the FBI is not demanding to see the server may indicate they don't need to look at it. They may already have the info they need from other sources.

a reply to: Grambler

There has been just as much info about the Awan brothers doing inappropriate activities with intelligence as there have been about Russia hacking the DNC.

True. But has any info or evidence come out to support the specific claims made in this video?

Again, I would like to see proof before I believe aany of these things. I am not going to put caveats about one side having more credibility because there is an investigation.

The investigation itself is proof that one may have more credibility than the other. Obviously, there was good reason to investigate the Russia-Trump aspect.

They are not investigating the Seth Rich aspect because it may be a steaming pile of conspiratorial garbage.

When we find out there is an investigation in to the Rich issue, I'll take it more seriously.

originally posted by: whywhynot

originally posted by: Lucidparadox
lol

Its so funny that the right completely fabricates this whole seth rich thing to distract everyone from the fact that their president is about to get impeached.

Nice try conservatives, but its not gonna work.

HOAX BIN

I agree with the dude in the other thread who came up with an incredible phrase for this stuff..

Conservative Fan Fiction

lol.. I love it ^

Kind of like the antithesis of Democratic Delusional Syndrome

I really dig that phrase! "the antithesis of Democratic Delusional Syndrome".
Only problem is I find lots of people, across the board, do not know the definition of antithesis.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: AnonyMason

I call it "forceful ignorance." Anything that sounds remotely appealing, they immediately believe without question. Anything that they don't want to believe, they call "fake news."

There's also a cognitive dissonance component that comes in when the leaks turn out to be true and then they switch to "it's a deep state coup" on the one hand but never update their worldview to include the fact that the leak wasn't "fake news" after all. In that way, each leak can be both "fake news" and a "deep state coup" by the "globalists" who are trying to unseat the "anti-globalist" hero of the everyman — a superwealthy globalist douchebag who has a long long history of screwing over the little guy. (more cognitive dissonance)


Once again... you have said everything I want to say. I dont understand how they cant see this ^


When the "Fake News" is proven true... they never admit it. They always then jump to another excuse.
There's a reason that foreign teenagers can dupe this lot with fake news blogs. They're addicted to bulls#.

originally posted by: facedye

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Youtube... More confirmation bias fodder for the gullible. Yet no actual hard evidence for any of this.

"no actual hard evidence for any of this."

looks like you have no idea who george webb is, or what he's been uploading for the past... ooooh i don't know.. 219 days.

careful who you call gullible - you just might be the pot calling the kettle black.

if you think there's nothing suspicious about a "failed robbery murder" of someone in the DNC who is now known to have been in contact with wikileaks over the course of the election, you're posting comments on the wrong website.

please name one other "failed robbery" you can think of where the victim ends up dead while still retaining every single item that would be of interest to the robber.

Actually, that makes MORE sense that he still retained everyhting that would be of interest to the robber.

A robbers motive, is to rob, not kill. If things go awry, and he has to kill... it probably wasnt part of the plan.

At that point the robber want to...
A: Get out of there as fast as possible leaving as little evidence behind as possible.
and
B: Not take anything that can trace him/her back to a murder scene.

Its commons sense.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

There has been just as much info about the Awan brothers doing inappropriate activities with intelligence as there have been about Russia hacking the DNC.

True. But has any info or evidence come out to support the specific claims made in this video?

Again, I would like to see proof before I believe aany of these things. I am not going to put caveats about one side having more credibility because there is an investigation.

The investigation itself is proof that one may have more credibility than the other. Obviously, there was good reason to investigate the Russia-Trump aspect.

They are not investigating the Seth Rich aspect because it may be a steaming pile of conspiratorial garbage.

When we find out there is an investigation in to the Rich issue, I'll take it more seriously.

Well I'd hope someone is investigating the Seth Rich murder since he was murdered and they haven't caught anyone.

Call me crazy, but I figured murders were pretty high on the list of investigations....

With the odd facts involved in this robbery gone bad and with how high a profile the victim was as well as the press it HAS gotten, I'd think there would be a bit more being updated from those actually investigating.

One thing I have wondered about this....so the robbers left supposedly without taking anything. Most people would assume that if a cell phone was there then one was not taken, but wasn't it common practice for these guys to have a personal cell and a work cell? Could the work cell have been the target of the robbery?

a reply to: Vasa Croe

Well I'd hope someone is investigating the Seth Rich murder since he was murdered and they haven't caught anyone. Call me crazy, but I figured murders were pretty high on the list of investigations....

I'm sorry. I should have been more specific. I meant an investigation in to the specific claims that have been made surrounding his death, by people such as the man in the OP.

With the odd facts involved in this robbery gone bad and with how high a profile the victim was as well as the press it HAS gotten, I'd think there would be a bit more being updated from those actually investigating.

There may not be much to update us on.

a reply to: Perfectenemy

The investigation is into possible collusion. You do understand that whether or not collusion occurred is a dinstinct issue from Russian interference into our election right?

I'm still waiting for any real evidence for the russian collusion until then he is still innocent and of course a rational and logical explanation how Russsia managed to get the silent majority to vote for Trump.

To what degree the Russians swayed the vote is something that can only be speculated. What's not a matter of speculation is this bulls# about "the silent majority." Lmao. Neither candidate won a majority of the vote and Donald Trump garnered 3 million less votes from American voters. "The silent majority" is an absurd notion that has been popular with conservatives since Nixon. It's intended to make GOP voters feel like they're part of a majority — a majority of "real" Americans — who aren't otherwise detectable... because they're "silent." In other words, it's made up bulls#.

The truth is Hillary was destined to win and she rigged the election so Bernie her "real" opponent had to drop out.

Nobody is "destined" to win. Hillary seemed like a shoe in only because Trump is such a clown. Bernie would have trounced Trump in the GE. Everyone knew DWS was in the bag for HRC way before the WL release. If it wasn't obvious before, it was when Gabbard stepped down.

The rest of that nonsense is hardly worth addressing. The hypocrisy of you lot knows no bounds. First you say this:

I'm still waiting for any real evidence for the russian collusion until then he is still innocent

And then you spew a lengthy fairytale that is only backed by your desire for it to be true. You have no standards aside from your emotions and political expediency. You are in fact, by choice, blind and deaf.

Notice that you completely failed to comment on the fact that you and your peers have marched Lemmings-style into one hoax after another, each time believing that you had "the truth" only to have it fall apart in front of you. Yet you keep falling for it because you want it to be true and that overpowers your ability to reason.

At the very least, you should try applying your professed evidenciary standards universally.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Youtube... More confirmation bias fodder for the gullible. Yet no actual hard evidence for any of this.

watch 219 videos to find out - or at least enough to get some context behind why he's more than relevant to this investigation. it's not a "conspiracy theory" - we're discussing a real murder here. a real murder which hasn't even made any sense to the MSM reporters that reported on it while the story was happening. there was always an air of uncertainty to this case from the very beginning, PARTICULARLY because of the facts.

i asked you about any other case like this that you can point to in order to convey a sense of exceptionalism to this one. to be blunt about it - robberies that involve murders don't also include no evidence of a robbery.

to be crass about it - you wouldn't shoot a guy you're planning to rob only to leave all of the things you could have robbed intact.

the fact that you're demanding "new hard evidence" on quite literally the most sensitive murder in Washington at the moment is pretty funny. you seem like the type who thinks crimes are only solved when the smoking gun is made available.

nobody here needs to prove anything to you, and from what i can tell, most members here replying to you are only trying to courteously and genuinely keep you informed.

feel free to leave your fingers in your ears and your blindfold tight on this one, you have every right to. when you're done with that, though, there's quite a bit of material here for you to consider.

Uh... No... Evidence doesn't work like that. Produce some actual hard evidence that this is something other than a robbery. Stop assuming a narrative and flexing the evidence to suit it.

you mean aside from the fact that he wasn't robbed? LOL

a reply to: theantediluvian

In fairness you have authored many posts that have turned out to have yet proven to have been true.

Its just human nature to want to believe accusations that benefit your world view. I myself have been guilty of this. But we should all strive to demand to see proof before seeing any of these allegations.

originally posted by: Lucidparadox

originally posted by: facedye

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Youtube... More confirmation bias fodder for the gullible. Yet no actual hard evidence for any of this.

"no actual hard evidence for any of this."

looks like you have no idea who george webb is, or what he's been uploading for the past... ooooh i don't know.. 219 days.

careful who you call gullible - you just might be the pot calling the kettle black.

if you think there's nothing suspicious about a "failed robbery murder" of someone in the DNC who is now known to have been in contact with wikileaks over the course of the election, you're posting comments on the wrong website.

please name one other "failed robbery" you can think of where the victim ends up dead while still retaining every single item that would be of interest to the robber.

Actually, that makes MORE sense that he still retained everyhting that would be of interest to the robber.

A robbers motive, is to rob, not kill. If things go awry, and he has to kill... it probably wasnt part of the plan.

At that point the robber want to...
A: Get out of there as fast as possible leaving as little evidence behind as possible.
and
B: Not take anything that can trace him/her back to a murder scene.

Its commons sense.

what you are describing is in no way "common sense."

if a robber has to kill, they'll want to retain anything for their efforts that they possibly can. they just had to kill someone when they only wanted their personal items - their goal, then, is to grab any personal items possible to "make up for" their taking of a life.

ever seen a cashier/clerk get shot? does the robber typically run off without grabbing anything from the register?

again, what you are describing is not common sense. it's certainly not common for a robber to kill but not rob. it just looks like you've never been robbed before. on that note, i can assure you it's a pretty straight forward process. the assailant typically either is poor & hungry, looking to get even, or is looking to add a notch onto his belt.

none of these motivations above would result in the circumstances that seth rich's murder is concerned with.

originally posted by: facedye

originally posted by: Lucidparadox

originally posted by: facedye

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Youtube... More confirmation bias fodder for the gullible. Yet no actual hard evidence for any of this.

"no actual hard evidence for any of this."

looks like you have no idea who george webb is, or what he's been uploading for the past... ooooh i don't know.. 219 days.

careful who you call gullible - you just might be the pot calling the kettle black.

if you think there's nothing suspicious about a "failed robbery murder" of someone in the DNC who is now known to have been in contact with wikileaks over the course of the election, you're posting comments on the wrong website.

please name one other "failed robbery" you can think of where the victim ends up dead while still retaining every single item that would be of interest to the robber.

Actually, that makes MORE sense that he still retained everyhting that would be of interest to the robber.

A robbers motive, is to rob, not kill. If things go awry, and he has to kill... it probably wasnt part of the plan.

At that point the robber want to...
A: Get out of there as fast as possible leaving as little evidence behind as possible.
and
B: Not take anything that can trace him/her back to a murder scene.

Its commons sense.

what you are describing is in no way "common sense."

if a robber has to kill, they'll want to retain anything for their efforts that they possibly can. they just had to kill someone when they only wanted their personal items - their goal, then, is to grab any personal items possible to "make up for" their taking of a life.

ever seen a cashier/clerk get shot? does the robber typically run off without grabbing anything from the register?

again, what you are describing is not common sense. it's certainly not common for a robber to kill but not rob. it just looks like you've never been robbed before. on that note, i can assure you it's a pretty straight forward process. the assailant typically either is poor & hungry, looking to get even, or is looking to add a notch onto his belt.

none of these motivations above would result in the circumstances that seth rich's murder is concerned with.

Actually it happens quite often, Im at work so I cant go and site robberies.

But loot is not taken alot of the times in these cases.

Usually when the robber never had any intent at all in firing their weapon.

Just as you said, the majority of robbers are just poor, hungry, oppressed people looking for a way to get their next meal. they dont want to harm anyone. Killing is usually accidental, or done in self defense (and by that I mean the person they are robbing pulls a weapon)

Both George and Jason have seen the goons

Cat is out of the bag

Godspeed and good luck gentleman

a reply to: Lucidparadox

I honestly think that the fact that as far as we know nothing was stolen isn't as big deal as some people make it out to be

When someone is murdered, anger stokes the fire of their loved ones who seek justice for their loss. I know this first hand.
I find it odd that those who should be demanding answers turn their anger towards those seeking the truth. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

originally posted by: Lucidparadox

originally posted by: facedye

originally posted by: Lucidparadox

originally posted by: facedye

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Youtube... More confirmation bias fodder for the gullible. Yet no actual hard evidence for any of this.

"no actual hard evidence for any of this."

looks like you have no idea who george webb is, or what he's been uploading for the past... ooooh i don't know.. 219 days.

careful who you call gullible - you just might be the pot calling the kettle black.

if you think there's nothing suspicious about a "failed robbery murder" of someone in the DNC who is now known to have been in contact with wikileaks over the course of the election, you're posting comments on the wrong website.

please name one other "failed robbery" you can think of where the victim ends up dead while still retaining every single item that would be of interest to the robber.

Actually, that makes MORE sense that he still retained everyhting that would be of interest to the robber.

A robbers motive, is to rob, not kill. If things go awry, and he has to kill... it probably wasnt part of the plan.

At that point the robber want to...
A: Get out of there as fast as possible leaving as little evidence behind as possible.
and
B: Not take anything that can trace him/her back to a murder scene.

Its commons sense.

what you are describing is in no way "common sense."

if a robber has to kill, they'll want to retain anything for their efforts that they possibly can. they just had to kill someone when they only wanted their personal items - their goal, then, is to grab any personal items possible to "make up for" their taking of a life.

ever seen a cashier/clerk get shot? does the robber typically run off without grabbing anything from the register?

again, what you are describing is not common sense. it's certainly not common for a robber to kill but not rob. it just looks like you've never been robbed before. on that note, i can assure you it's a pretty straight forward process. the assailant typically either is poor & hungry, looking to get even, or is looking to add a notch onto his belt.

none of these motivations above would result in the circumstances that seth rich's murder is concerned with.

Actually it happens quite often, Im at work so I cant go and site robberies.

But loot is not taken alot of the times in these cases.

Usually when the robber never had any intent at all in firing their weapon.

Just as you said, the majority of robbers are just poor, hungry, oppressed people looking for a way to get their next meal. they dont want to harm anyone. Killing is usually accidental, or done in self defense (and by that I mean the person they are robbing pulls a weapon)

did you just imply that seth rich had a gun on him, and that's why he was shot? this is without merit.

your rebuttal is very weak. please define what you mean by "it happens quite often" or rethink your hypothesis altogether.

this man, who was in contact with wikileaks over the course of the election, was shot in cold blood, (twice in the back) and had none of his personal items stolen.

if none of his items were stolen, but he was shot to death in the middle of washington DC, what makes you believe it was a failed robbery?

seriously, other than mainstream news reporters telling you that "sources" told them it was a failed robbery, what makes you believe this was a failed robbery? what *exactly* are you basing that on?

a reply to: facedye

Looking at when Rich left the bar and when he was murdered, seems to be a long period of time there.

What was he doing? It doesn't take that long to walk that distance.