patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,261,806 comments by 15,069 users - Al_Sharpton_for_President, gabbar, GreaterNYCDude, Tenpoundbass, TheDonald online now
invite response« First « Previous Comments 48 - 72 of 72 Search these comments
FNWGMOBDVZXDNW
2017 May 23, 11:52am
Kim dotcom was under FISA warrant. " I know this because in LATE 2014 a person contacted me about helping me..."
Seth rich was unmasked.
Jan 2015 podesta "I'm for making an example of a leaker"...
If Seth Rich was unmasked by the intel comunity around February 2015, that's a lot of circumstantial evidence. It's nothing like what is piling up against Trump, but it's worth an investigation. Trump should be able to figure that out pretty easily, huh?
Patnet Republican CONservatives are next on her list.
Hope Republicans who lost children in the Lying Republican WMD War are still suffering.
Republican injured servicemen in Iraq got what you deserve.
Ignorant fucks are welcome to defend the Lying LIARS.
Fox News retracted their Seth Rich disgusting BS story. Now what?
Give them 5 minutes,they will have a long list of their same old BS.
Wow--what a nothingburger statement. That was worse than Rachel Maddow's leadup to the Trump taxes. He knows it was Seth Rich because he called himself Panda? Are you kidding me?
And he's going to hide behind his lawyers and Mueller so he doesn't have to release any of these supposed documents?
The funny thing is that CBOE and Lips eat up this stuff. I guess they don't need evidence and sources anymore.
CBOEtrader
2017 May 23, 1:09pm
I guess they don't need evidence and sources anymore.
Whats the evidence for trump/russia collusion? Testimony again today admitted there was no direct evidence.
With seth rich, we have an actual 1st hand witness corroborated by wikileaks tweets. Thats called direct evidence. Im not claiming to know anything. I am pointing out seth rich as a far more likely hypothesis w some direct evidence, as opposed to the the wild conjecture of russia collusion which has no direct evidence.
FNWGMOBDVZXDNW
2017 May 23, 1:49pm
which has no direct evidence
Nobody knows what the fuck qualifies as direct evidence in your mind - that is other than suspicious things that confirm your worldview.
Can you post the Grand Jury indictment against Hillary?
"Its almost as if the MSM has an agenda..."
Fox News bombshell
Iraq has WMD!
So now you trust the MSM? Makes sense
Next FOX bombshell? : We found the WMD.
"With seth rich, we have an actual 1st hand witness corroborated by wikileaks tweets"
No you don't. You have one guy claiming he has some evidence that he can't or won't provide. Wiki hasn't corroborated anything.
CBOEtrader
2017 May 23, 2:25pm
"With seth rich, we have an actual 1st hand witness corroborated by wikileaks tweets"
No you don't. You have one guy claiming he has some evidence that he can't or won't provide. Wiki hasn't corroborated anything.
He's a first hand witness. Thats called direct evidence. Wikileaks directly corroborated the story multiple times. That also called direct evidence.
Nobody knows what the fuck qualifies as direct evidence
Lol, nobody knows the distinction between direct vs circumstantial? https://www.google.com/#q=direct+vs+circumstantial+evidence
Idiot.
Wikileaks directly corroborated the story multiple times. That also called direct evidence.
No, it didn't. Wiki refuses to reveal any sources and has refused to confirm or deny anything about the source of the DNC docs. You are lying.
He's a first hand witness. Thats called direct evidence"
Great. I am now able to state categorically that Trump paid Russia $2MM dollars to hack into the DNC and harm Clinton's chances in the general election. He further laundered Russian mob money to pay for it.
So, there you go. We now have a first hand witness and direct evidence of Trump collusion with Russia.. So, please don't ever say we don't have evidence again.
CBOEtrader
2017 May 23, 3:03pm
Great. I am now able to state categorically that Trump paid Russia $2MM dollars to hack into the DNC and harm Clinton's chances in the general election. He further laundered Russian mob money to pay for it.
This is the difference between us. You make up stories.
I focus on facts.
CBOEtrader
2017 May 23, 3:05pm
So, please don't ever say we don't have evidence again.
You have weak circumstantial evidence with which you are making inferences about guilt of an unknown crime.
W seth rich we have a crime, a motive, and direct evidence.
MisdemeanorRebel
2017 May 23, 3:17pm
Flaming Neoliberal Asshole Leonid Bershisky "Don't Let Original Trump-Russia Question Fade"
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-05-23/don-t-let-the-original-trump-russia-question-fade
Don't stop, believin'
Hold on to that feeeeeelin'
MisdemeanorRebel
2017 May 23, 3:19pm
Another forgotten story is the Pakistani Brothers who worked for House Dems.
FNWGMOBDVZXDNW
2017 May 23, 5:43pm
Lol, nobody knows the distinction between direct vs circumstantial?
Everybody knows what the distinction is in real life. Based on the fact that there is no direct evidence that Hillary and team killed Rich and you keep claiming that there is, it is clear that the distinction is different in your mind.
You have weak circumstantial evidence with which you are making inferences about guilt of an unknown crime.
W seth rich we have a crime, a motive, and direct evidence.
No--there is a quote from someone who knows firsthand that Trump paid $2MM to the Russians to throw the election to him. That is direct evidence. As you so eloquently stated.
CBOEtrader
2017 May 23, 8:00pm
You have weak circumstantial evidence with which you are making inferences about guilt of an unknown crime.
W seth rich we have a crime, a motive, and direct evidence.
No--there is a quote from someone who knows firsthand that Trump paid $2MM to the Russians to throw the election to him. That is direct evidence. As you so eloquently stated.
Link? I could use a good LOL.
Based on the fact that there is no direct evidence that Hillary and team killed Rich and you keep claiming that there is, it is clear that the distinction is different in your mind.
There is direct evidence tying the motive to the crime. Fact. That evidence is questionable, for sure, but its still a mountain more than anyone can produce for Trump/Russia, even w the full resources of our corrupt deep state thrown at it.
Link? I could use a good LOL.
I am now able to state categorically that Trump paid Russia $2MM dollars to hack into the DNC and harm Clinton's chances in the general election. He further laundered Russian mob money to pay for it.
CBOEtrader
2017 May 23, 8:07pm
Flaming Neoliberal Asshole Leonid Bershisky "Don't Let Original Trump-Russia Question Fade"
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-05-23/don-t-let-the-original-trump-russia-question-fadeDon't stop, believin'
Hold on to that feeeeeelin'
When your thinking starts with "Proving collusion is far more important ...", the rest will always be pure confirmation bias. How about finding the truth? These vultures really don't care.
Amazing.
FNWGMOBDVZXDNW
2017 May 23, 8:24pm
That evidence is questionable,
The evidence is a body, a hint without confirmation by Assange, a lame ass retracted fox story, and a realization that rich was the panda a year later. Their is motive for Hillary, for Trump, for Russia, and for any ant Hillary group. There is testimony by the parents that Rich was about to move to NY to work for the Hillary campaign. That contradicts the conspiracy narrative you are spinning. There is evidence (torn watch band) supporting a botched robbery.
Seth Rich,
Next time "Be Careful who you piss off."
Damn! Too late.
The Big Club can reach out & touch anyone or give up your watch & wallet.
MisdemeanorRebel
2017 Nov 20, 5:45pm
It was probably the same guys behind the railroad fence in Dallas.
« First « Previous Comments 48 - 72 of 72 Search these comments
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-05-16/murdered-dnc-staffer-seth-rich-shared-44000-emails-wikileaks
"not everyone within the FBI is on board with the "Russian hacking" narrative and are finally starting to come forward.
Finally, we find it 'shocking' that while the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, etc are all too eager to regurgitate each others anonymously sourced stories that are critical of Trump, not a single one of them had a single reference of this Fox News bombshell on their website at the time this article was published."
Its almost as if the MSM has an agenda...