Assange Implies Murdered DNC Staffer Was WikiLeaks' Source (washingtonpost.com)

Okian Warrior quotes a report from Fox News: WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange implied in an interview that a murdered Democratic National Committee staffer was the source of a trove of damaging emails the rogue website posted just days before the party's convention. Speaking to Dutch television program Nieuswsuur Tuesday after earlier announcing a $20,000 reward for information leading to the arrest of Seth Rich's killer, Assange said the July 10 murder of Rich in Northwest Washington was an example of the risk leakers undertake. The Washington Post provides some details of the murder in its report: "Rich was shot twice in the back as he walked to his townhouse about 4:20 a.m. Nothing was taken, but police have said attempted robbery is their leading theory for a motive, noting a spike in robberies in the neighborhood in the preceding weeks. WikiLeaks released the trove of emails later that month, on July 22. Rich, 27, had worked for the DNC for two years and helped develop a computer program to make it easier for people to find polling places on Election Day. After his death, the DNC's then-chairwoman, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Fla.), attended a vigil for Rich in front of his home, and Hillary Clinton, before she was nominated in her run for president, evoked his name during a speech in which she advocated for limiting the availability of guns."

Comments

Clintons have killed tons of people

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a list, it's over 50 people.

Re:Clintons have killed tons of people

[Anonymous Coward]

lots of people involved with the Clintons seem to have a sudden case of suicide for no apparent reason.

Re:Clintons have killed tons of people

[Miamicoastguard]

Link?

Re:Clintons have killed tons of people

[gnu-sucks]

Here's the list: (scroll down to "THE CLINTON BODY-COUNT")

http://www.whatreallyhappened....

Going to testify against the mob is probably a safer bet.

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[gnu-sucks]

http://www.whatreallyhappened....

Scroll down to "body count"

Perhaps some of this is circumstantial, perhaps some is accidental. Perhaps. But perhaps some percentage of this really is what it seems (to me) to add up to.

Re:Clintons have killed tons of people

[LynnwoodRooster]

Decent little list here.

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[Stenchwarrior]

Works for fundamentalist Christians the same way, I think...

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[Anonymous Coward]

You realize suicide isn't actually that rare right? In fact 2/3 of "firearm related deaths" are attributable to suicide.

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[Calydor]

Two directories and a file name in all caps.

Domain name already borderline conspiracy theory invoking.

I'm ... going to need a slightly more reputable source to believe it.

Re:Clintons have killed tons of people

[bobbied]

There's a list, it's over 50 people.

Being a Conservative Republican myself since Regan.. This list is hog wash born in the darkest corner of Arkansas. The Clinton's are many nasty things, but they are NOT stupid enough to be out ordering hits on their detractors. I don't put it past some of their supporters, but Bill and Hill wouldn't do something as stupid as you suggest.

So can we PLEASE STOP with this tripe? Dredging up Vince Foster and Fort Marcy Park is pointless and detracts from *real* issues, like Hillary's role in the "bimbo eruption" team and what she allowed to be said about the long parade of women claiming Bill sexually abused them, then turning around claiming to be the "champion of women's issues" because she happens to have that kind of plumbing, not because she's done anything.

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[johnsmithperson123]

I'm not willing to believe that the Clintons are killers. Not because they have moral scruples. Because murders are just too high profile and easy to understand.

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[Anonymous Coward]

> I'm ... going to need a slightly more reputable source to believe it.

Of course, attack the messenger.
Which Allinsky rule is that, again?

Re:Clintons have killed tons of people

[PolygamousRanchKid]

There's a list

Please add me to the list!

Me too!

Tons of people? I guess I must have missed that "Soylent Clintons" sales day in my supermarket.

Re:Clintons have killed tons of people

[Anonymous Coward]

He meant as in DON

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[Darinbob]

What's wrong with attacking the messenger? Are we supposed to believe every moron that comes along just because the moron is a "messenger"? If a conspiracy theorist comes along and claims the moon landing was a hoax then you attack both the message and messenger.

Re:Clintons have killed tons of people

[uncqual]

It's possible that dealing with the Clintons might just drive some people to suicide.

Re:Clintons have killed tons of people

[Alomex]

Nothing "decent" about that list. Vince Foster suicide was investigated to death by Republican prosecutor Kenneth Starr. Starr's report stated that he found no reason to believe the death was other than suicide.

A list that contains such a person after being cleared by such an impeccable source with ample investigative resources is now proven to be impervious to facts.

Heck for all I know Clinton killed every one of the other names listed, but this is the equivalent of the list opening with "the earth is flat and the moon landing was faked". No one in their sane mind would give any value to such a list.

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[coldsalmon]

Snopes has declared all of this False. http://www.snopes.com/politics...

"Clinton was acquainted with some people who died — that's about all one can make of this list."

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[Fire_Wraith]

Basically, we can either choose to believe that:
A) The Clintons are merciless killers whose cunning conspiracy knows no bounds, but are also so cluelessly inept as to get caught for stupid stuff that would be much more easily hidden than a string of murders, OR
B) This is a bunch of conspiracy BS.

I've been hearing this same crap for almost 24 years now. No amount of investigations by any number of conservative lawmakers has made anything stick, nor has the right-wing media been able to do anything more than rumormonger about fringe innuendo and conspiracy schlock. Cry wolf enough times, I stop believing you after I keep not seeing any wolves. Sorry, I'm just not buying it.

Re:Clintons have killed tons of people

[skids]

And you don't even know how to spell his name?

Wow what an opening. But we'll defer on making fun of the spelling skills of conservatives since you're all probably feeling pretty low already these days.

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[smkndrkn]

What's wrong with attacking the messenger? Are we supposed to believe every moron that comes along just because the moron is a "messenger"? If a conspiracy theorist comes along and claims the moon landing was a hoax then you attack both the message and messenger.

So they're a moron for linking a website and mentioning a very popular theory? Not sure how this gets voted insightful. The idea that powerful people, especially this particular pair, might be wrapped up in murders is certainly not moronic. You sir are a cunt.

Re:Clintons have killed tons of people

[ChrisMaple]

Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?

Re:Clintons have killed tons of people

[MouseTheLuckyDog]

they have a word ofr it now.
Arkanacide.

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[MouseTheLuckyDog]

You do realize that this dates back to the early 90's when file names on Microsoft-OS based systems were always all caps?

Re:Clintons have killed tons of people

[Cytotoxic]

Yeah, it is nutty tinfoil hat stuff.

However, it is interesting that they came up with someone who committed suicide by shooting himself in the chest. Twice. With two separate guns.

That's nutty enough to inspire a boatload of conspiracy theories all by itself - forget any connection to political powers.

And there was a guy who committed suicide by cutting his arms 11 times, his neck twice and shooting himself in the head in such a way that no gun was found.

Or the suicide by gunshot to the back of the head.

Or the chick who packed her luggage and arranged it in the living room before committing suicide by gunshot.

Another guy who committed suicide with two guns? Wait... What?

Somebody spent a lot of time trolling the papers for weird suicide stories. How the heck do you even find a single "suicide by two guns" story? That can't be true... can it? Not the Clinton part.... just the "suicide by two guns" part. Most of these stories have to be covered in goofy sauce that doesn't hold up to scrutiny, right?

So a quick trip to Wikipedia.... and multiple gunshot suicide is actually a thing. And not just "guy rigged up two guns", but actual "dude took 3 shots in the chest to kill himself" multiple gunshot suicide. from the wiki:

One particular case has been documented from Australia. In February 1995, a man committed suicide on parkland in Canberra. He took a pump action shotgun and shot himself in the chest. The load passed through the chest without hitting a rib, and went out the other side. He then walked fifteen meters, pulled out a pistol and shot himself in the head. After reloading the shotgun, he leaned the shotgun against his throat, and shot his throat and part of his jaw. He then reloaded a final time, walked 200 meters to a hill, sat down on the slope, held the gun against his chest with his hands and operated the trigger with his toes. This shot entered the thoracic cavity and demolished the heart, killing him.[5][6]

Now that's determination.

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[smelch]

This has already been declared false by snopes. http://www.snopes.com/meta/cou...

Re:Clintons have killed tons of people

[russotto]

Vince Foster suicide was investigated to death by Republican prosecutor Kenneth Starr. Starr's report stated that he found no reason to believe the death was other than suicide.

And that's why Ken Starr is alive today.

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[RoccamOccam]

How do they know it is false? The police investigation hasn't even been completed yet. Rather odd to announce "False" when they can't really know.

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[Anonymous Coward]

Snopes is a nice web site. It would be a shame if something happened to it.

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[Darinbob]

Not a moron for linking to the website and mentioning it, but for pointing to that website as evidence.

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[emil]

Here is a nice fact for you: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... "Responding to homicide allegations, an official of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology acknowledged that doctors initially were puzzled by a circular wound on the top of Brown's head when his remains were recovered at the crash scene. The forensic pathologist then consulted with others and took extensive X-rays. As a result of these consultations and full-body X-rays, we absolutely ruled out anything beyond a blunt-force injury to the head."

Re:Clintons have killed tons of people

[serbanp]

Well played, sir! It even sounds plausible, just like in that extraordinary film.

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[ooloorie]

I've been hearing this same crap for almost 24 years now. No amount of investigations by any number of conservative lawmakers has made anything stick, nor has the right-wing media been able to do anything more than rumormonger about fringe innuendo and conspiracy schlock

The fact that the Clintons have abused their political office to enrich themselves massively is self-evident from their net worth and their control of the Clinton foundation. The fact that two smart lawyers controlling billions of dollars, with tons of connections and power, and with access to FBI and CIA files have been able to weasel out of being held legally responsible is hardly responsible.

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[quantaman]

http://www.whatreallyhappened....

Scroll down to "body count"

Perhaps some of this is circumstantial, perhaps some is accidental. Perhaps. But perhaps some percentage of this really is what it seems (to me) to add up to.

In other words they don't have any evidence but if they put all of their non-evidence together in one place it looks kinda troubling.

Re:Clintons have killed tons of people

[Curunir_wolf]

You mean the Kenneth Starr that recently had to resign from Baylor due to a sex assault scandal? You mean the guy whose chief prosecutor in the case, Miquel Rodriguez, quit the Starr investigation, claiming that Starr’s staff was engaging in a cover-up of Foster’s death? That Kenneth Starr?

Re:Clintons have killed tons of people

[Curunir_wolf]

His chief prosecutor in the case, Miquel Rodriguez, quit the Starr investigation, claiming that Starr’s staff was engaging in a cover-up of Foster’s death

Re:Clintons have killed tons of people

[rtb61]

Hint, hint, kind of stupid to professional suicide someone if you don't get away with. Sure plenty of amateurs get caught and most certainly the Clinton Clowns would have got caught if they attempted to do is personally, hence insider professionals were likely involved and using the government trained skills, quite simply got away with it as you would expect professionals to do (the reason why it was investigated 'to death' is it made no sense, except as the individual being suicided). Now a crushed throat training accident and two bullets in the back suicide 'er' robbery, in short order, added to the rest of the list, real organised crime stuff.

Re:Clintons have killed tons of people

[quenda]

just like in that extraordinary film.

Film? I don't think they had films in the 12th century. Henry II was not a Hollywood sequel.

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[geantvert]

I hate that when someone tries to obfuscate the debate with facts.

Re:Clintons have killed tons of people

[serbanp]

I was just assuming it's just good script writing, but it seems to predate the movie by a couple (hundred) years, although it's not certain that these were the King's words...

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[Mashiki]

Snopes is as trustworthy as Politico after their chief investigative reporter sends their clinton articles to the DNC for revision. They can't even get basic things correct, and when it's something to the contrary to their viewpoint they still label it as fake. Even when their own links prove otherwise.

Re:Clintons have killed tons of people

[Mashiki]

they have a word ofr it now.

Now? It was a word when my old man was going to to the unversity of kansas and university of riverside in the 1970's. This stuff has been going on with the Clinton's since the 1970's You don't accumulate this level of speculation just by chance.

Re:Clintons have killed tons of people

[Rei]

Seth Rich kin to Wikileaks: Stop the murder conspiracy theories

The family of slain Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich has a message to the Wikileaks crowd: Stop with the conspiracy theories.

After Wikileaks founder Julian Assange implied Rich was the source of the recent Democratic National Convention leak — and offered $20,000 for info on Rich’s murder — the grieving family slammed him for trying to “politicize this horrible tragedy.”

“The family welcomes any and all information that could lead to the identification of the individuals responsible, and certainly welcomes contributions that could lead to new avenues of investigation,” Rich family spokesman Brad Bauman said in a statement to Business Insider Wednesday.

“That said, some are attempting to politicize this horrible tragedy, and in their attempts to do so, are actually causing more harm than good and impeding on the ability for law enforcement to properly do their job.”

He urged the public to “refrain from pushing unproven and harmful theories about Seth's murder.”

Rich, 27, was shot and killed while walking to his Washington, D.C. apartment last month, and his killing remains unsolved.

Assange suggested this week, without evidence, that Rich played a role in leaking emails that showed DNC officials disparaging the presidential campaign of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. The leak led to resignations for several DNC leaders.

“Whistleblowers go to significant efforts to get us material and often very significant risks. As a 27 year-old, works for the DNC, was shot in the back, murdered just a few weeks ago for unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in Washington,” Assange told Dutch TV station Nieuwsuur.

“I’m suggesting that our sources take risks and they become concerned to see things occurring like that.”

Wikileaks then offered a $20,000 reward for information on Rich’s killer.

Assange is the only public figure to claim there is a link between the leak and Rich’s death — even though he said in July he had no idea who the hacker was.

A hacker named Guccifer 2.0 claimed responsibility, but the source of the breach has not been determined. Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton blamed Russian hackers, and Republican nominee Donald Trump then asked those hackers to steal Clinton’s emails.

Re:Clintons have killed tons of people

[jandersen]

Hmm, right. We are getting desperate now, that Mr Trump's narcissistic self-image is beginning to crack. But keep it coming - the wilder the accusations, the better, to be honest.

Re:Clintons have killed tons of people

[colinwb]

More from that Wikipedia page:
... Multiple gunshot suicides are rare, but possible. In one study of 138 gunshot suicides, 5 (3.6%) involved two shots to the head, the first of which missed the brain. A suicide with 4 gunshots to the head has been reported. ...
which is a useful statistic.

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[Mycroft-X]

But 20,000 suicides a year is only 7 per 100,000 people. So if the Clintons are closely tied to, say, 10,000 people, then over 30 years one would expect 21 of those to commit suicide assuming their "close ties" represent a random sample of the US population and not, say, a circle of successful, well positioned political players. It appears that being a successful, well positioned political player associated with the Clinton's skews the distribution somewhat in favor of offing oneself. Can't say I blame them.

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[Anonymous Coward]

Notice how all evidence that disproves the theory is actually proof of how deep the conspiracy runs.

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[Maritz]

Whatreallyhappened is a crank site. That guy is a fucking mentalist. Ever see how angry he gets about the big bang theory? Not the show. The fucking cosmic event. So essentially yeah - fuck your messenger.

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[Maritz]

You don't prove a negative, bud. You make a claim, you back it the fuck up. The evidence is... lacking.

Re:Clintons have killed tons of people

[Maritz]

That would be the same whatreallyhappened.com that thinks all of modern cosmology is a big conspiracy. Yeah.

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[tburkhol]

The fact that the Clintons have abused their political office to enrich themselves massively is self-evident from their net worth and their control of the Clinton foundation.

Essentially every member of congress makes an absolute shit ton of money during their first term. Speaking fees, legal stock market trading on confidential information, there's all kinds of things congress has decided to allow themselves because they "don't amount to corruption," in a quid-pro-quo sense. Not saying it's good; just saying it's normal.

But such claims of graft or unethical behavior are usually brought up by one party because they think their candidate is less tainted. In this case, the Clintons have been in public office for 30 years; they and their foundation have been subject to public disclosure of their financial records for much of that time. The Trumps have made their money by selling their name and managing mob-controlled construction projects and has kept his finances strictly private. DJT, in particular, has made a special point of emphasizing that he doesn't do anything unless he gets paid. How is he going to get paid as President?

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[AmiMoJo]

Oh Mashiki, how many times are you going to fall for this?

Let's take your Reddit link, because it's the most hilarious. It cites the Daily Beast article as the source of its "proof", when that is in fact the very thing that Snopes is debunking. And if you do the most basic research into the claims made in that article, they are obviously false. For example, they talk about a member of "LatinAction", which if you search for it doesn't seem to exist. No-one else has been able to confirm the claims made by the Daily Beast, and in fact some of the students have said directly that they were inaccurate.

"LET US BE CLEAR: We are not scared of the chalk. We are not mad about being politically challenged. We are rightfully angry because we also exercise our first amendment right to freedom of speech and there are people on this campus, and in this country, who as a result choose to threaten us and twist the truth to protect their own bigotry."

Okay, one more, because you might learn something from this one.

The Ethics Alarms article is very obviously misleading you. For example, it claims that "Notice that the TRUE and FALSE sections donâ(TM)t match the claim. Thatâ(TM)s because Snopes is playing the logical fallacy games of moving the goalposts and using straw men." That's only because of the way they edited the quote from Snopes.com, if you follow the link they provide it is extremely clear that they are addressing the exact claims made and what Ethics Alarms is claiming is a "straw man" is just a short summary of those claims.

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[KozmoStevnNaut]

Proof?

Re:Clintons have killed tons of people

[dywolf]

of course I cant show you this list.
and also please ignore the fact there is no actual evidence of it, because if there were there would be no hesitation to imprison the guilty.

but the list most definitely exists.
cause AC says so.

Re:Clintons have killed tons of people

[hlavac]

Yep. Suicide. They shoot themselves. Repeatedly. In the back.

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[CaptainLard]

I'm ... going to need a slightly more reputable source to believe it.

How about a +5 informative comment that cites said source as "slightly more reputable" for ya! I mean just look, +5! That's as reputable as we can possibly get! Thanks ./, for letting us know which conspiracy theories we should believe (pretty sure it's all of them).

Re:Clintons have killed tons of people

[CaptainLard]

I'd prefer the format to be a "binders full of victims". Thanks.

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[khallow]

I've looked through some of these lists and the ties are merely asserted. At that point, you could be speaking of a vast pool of people (far bigger than 10k people) whom the Clintons are "closely tied to".

Re:Clintons have killed tons of people

[dreamchaser]

Or like Vince Foster, who 'shot himself' execution style in his apartment then put his body in a car, drove it to the park, and dumped it there.

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[Mashiki]

How many times do you think that the media isn't lying to your face, and you're going to continue down the path where you ignore something even when it's jammed right in there and your face is ground into it?

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[meta-monkey]

Oh please. Snopes does this all the time to mislead people. They create a strawman of the actual story so they can label it "mostly false" and then in the print acknowledge the actual argument so they can pretend to be credible. Case in point, the Philando Castile shooting.

Castile was shot by a police officer in July. His girlfriend then made a video of the aftermath and put it up on facebook in which she claims they were stopped for a busted taillight and the officer flipped out and shot Castile for no reason other than the racist cop was scared of black people. The media ran with the girlfriend's story without question. This drew national attention and was one of the incidents cited by the man who shot and killed 5 Dallas police officers later in the week as one of the motivations for his actions.

Her story sounded fishy, and conservative media, which doesn't believe that racist cops are gunning people down for no reason investigated and found that, in fact, Castile was pulled over because he matched the description of an armed robber from a convenience store heist a few days before. And this is the claim made in the article snopes declared false:

Castile and Ms. Diamond Reynolds (Facebook video uploader) were pulled over by police because Castile matched a BOLO Alert for an armed robbery suspect from four days prior.

What does snopes pick as the claim?

Claim: Philando Castile was wanted for armed robbery when he was killed by police officers.

Which they then labeled "MOSTLY FALSE."

No. No one ever said the cops were out looking specifically for Castile. Just that he was pulled over because he matched the description (and he did). So, reality is the cop did not freak out and murder a random black man. He had a reasonable suspicion he was dealing with an armed robber. It would have been great if the situation had ended a different way, but if the officer was wary of the man and shot it was "because possible armed robber" and not "because black." To this day we do not know if Castile was the robber or not. I looked and couldn't find any new information about that aspect of the investigation.

Why didn't snopes choose this as the claim:

Claim: Philando Castile was stopped on suspicion of armed robbery when he was killed by police officers.

That's the actual claim from conservative media, and could have been labeled "TRUE."

But, snopes has their bias to push, so of course they can't do that. Would have been nice, though. Maybe if the media had run with "Man pulled over on suspicion of armed robbery shot" instead of "Racist cop murders black man for no reason" the Dallas shooter might not have been so mad, and not murdered all those cops?

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[AmiMoJo]

They said it was mostly false, and then (2nd and 3rd paragraphs) explained why:

WHAT'S TRUE: Police who pulled over and killed Philando Castile reported they thought he might have resembled a suspect in an armed robbery case.

WHAT'S FALSE: Philando Castile was not "wanted" on an armed robbery charge or a "suspect" in such a case at the time he was killed.

It's right at the top, in bold, extremely prominent, in green and red text. The claim they are debunking is from Conservative Treehouse, and is headlined: "Confirmed â" Philando Castile Was an Armed Robbery Suspect â" False Media Narrative Now Driving Cop Killingsâ¦"

Their claim is correct, he was not a suspect, he resembled a description given of a suspect. However, this headline seems to have little to do with the outrage. If anything heightened it, it was probably the Medical Examiner's office declaring the killing to be a homicide.

Re:Clintons have killed tons of people

[Alomex]

So now we have a conspiracy to kill Vince Foster that not only includes Bill and Hillary, but also a Republican prosecutor. This is just like the moon landing, where for it to be true requires our sworn enemies at the time (i.e. the Russians) to go along with it. I mean it anything is possible, but you just lowered the probabilities of either of these events being true by orders of magnitude.

A conspiracy of confederates I can see, a conspiracy that includes your enemies is out there in la-la land.

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[shaitand]

Given that many (most?) murders go unsolved it isn't particularly meaningful that the evidence is lacking. Especially when talking about professional killers combined with extremely powerful political forces that can simply apply pressure to have any unruley police drop the "ridiculous" matter.

Not that police would. As a rule police assume the most obvious conclusion they can't rule out is the correct one. That's why DNA testing after the fact has exonerated so many people on death row.

You are right, you can't prove a negative but in the event this positive is true the lack of evidence we find is what we'd expect to see.

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[meta-monkey]

You understand snopes picks what goes in the "claim" box, right? They could have picked the more descriptive claims from the same article from Conservative Treehouse. The important issue is the motivation for pulling Castile over, which is not what the media was reporting (broken taillight). Instead they chose to play semantic games (whether someone pulled over on suspicion of armed robbery is an "armed robbery suspect" or not).

Snopes' goal in that article was not to set the record straight regarding the massive misconception about the nature of the stop that permeated the mainstream media and inflamed racial tensions across the nation. Their goal was to preserve that false narrative by choosing one framing of the counter narrative over the even more correct framing so they could call the counter narrative "MOSTLY FALSE" via semantics.

Do you think snopes is doing a service there, debunking false narratives? Why didn't they pick as the story to debunk "Castile shot after being pulled over for broken taillight" as the claim, which they could have labeled "FALSE," and then informed everyone why he was actually pulled over (matched description of armed robber). Isn't that the real false narrative that could use a debunking?

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[JaiWing]

you know, resembled. the suspect in the robbery was black, Castile was black... what more do you need?

Re:Clintons have killed tons of people

[Curunir_wolf]

What makes you think that establishment Republicans and establishment Democrats are "enemies"?

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[shaitand]

"Their claim is correct, he was not a suspect, he resembled a description given of a suspect."

Strawman. He didn't merely resemble the robber, he was pulled over because he resembled the robber. The officers who pulled him over therefore suspected he was an armed robber due to matching description, one who is suspected is a suspect. This is just playing on the difference between an official police suspect (a designation that would come later) and the common use of the term.

Re:Clintons have killed tons of people

[Alomex]

Reality.

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[meta-monkey]

Have you looked at the pictures? Same build, similar long hair, same little scraggly chin beard. There's a little more there than skin color, don't you think?

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[shaitand]

Non-evidence can in some cases be a form of evidence. Just to pick a random example, a location where someone died wiped clean of forensic evidence.

Someone as politically connected and powerful as the Clintons can apply pressure to drop "ridiculous" conspiracy theory investigations. Other than on TV police aren't generally inclined to look beyond the obvious in the first place. Typical investigations do NOT get CSI treatment, the crime scenes are not typically properly contained, especially if the police believe it is an apparent suicide. And of course the Clintons would be using professional killers who know what they are about. The simple fact is that we can't draw conclusions either way with any certainty given the evidence we have, on one hand you can't conclude guilt with no evidence and on the other no evidence is exactly what you'd expect to find if they are guilty.

There is a strong correlation between being on the bad side of the Clintons and death of unnatural causes and it exceeds what is statistically normal but correlation does not equal causation.

As an aside, the content of those leaked emails showed Hillary Clinton engaged in collusion more damaging than anything Nixon ever got caught doing and nobody is denying the content. Oh but hey look a bird... err Russian. The source doesn't matter if the message itself is uncontested. We are supposed to elect the new Nixon out of spite for the Russians allegedly interfering?

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[gslj]

Please, check out the Snopes page on this. (http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/bodycount.asp). I'd like to point out that a version of this page has been debunking a version of this "body count list" since 1998! Many of the names on the list are misspelled (which tells you something), many have "links" to the Clintons that are ludicrously thin or entirely absent, and the last paragraph of the page is something that never gets brought up by the believers:

One final question to ask yourself before falling for any Clinton Body Count list: If the Chief Executive was having people bumped off left, right, and center, why aren't Monica Lewinsky and Linda Tripp on this list? At the time of Mary Mahoney's death — a death this list hints was ordered by Clinton — neither Tripp nor Lewinsky were the high-profile household names they now are; they were complete unknowns. It would be another six months before information about them would explode into the news. If the President were in the habit of having those dangerous to his presidency put in the ground, why didn't he order these deaths?

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[Enigma2175]

Here is a nice fact for you:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik...

"Responding to homicide allegations, an official of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology acknowledged that doctors initially were puzzled by a circular wound on the top of Brown's head when his remains were recovered at the crash scene. The forensic pathologist then consulted with others and took extensive X-rays. As a result of these consultations and full-body X-rays, we absolutely ruled out anything beyond a blunt-force injury to the head."

Not sure what you are saying here. Wouldn't you expect the cause of death for people who crashed a plane into a mountain to be blunt force trauma?

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[meta-monkey]

Other than being black, how else did he match the description?

Same long hair, same thin build, same scraggly chin beard.

Photo of Castile (warning, graphic).

Because you can't really go around just murdering people who vaguely resemble some description of a suspect. You can't go around just murdering all the black men in a neighborhood because one black man robbed a store.

Of course not. But you also don't get to fill the airwaves with false narratives that racist cops are gunning down black people for no other reason than they're black. When you do this it inflames racial tensions, causes riots, and this case was among those cited by the Dallas shooter as prompting his rampage.

Was the officer right to shoot Castile? I don't know, we need to see the results of the investigation, hear the officer's side of the story, see the dashcams. We still may never know. But we do know the officer's wary or hostile attitude towards Castile was because of suspicion of armed robbery, not because of his race. Kind of changes the narrative, doesn't it?

Ultimately though my point was to show snopes' bias and/or uselessness. Regarding this case, there are two narratives:

1. Castile was pulled over for a broken taillight and shot because the racist officer was scared of black people. This is widely reported narrative in the mainstream media, and the vast majority of people who have passing familiarity with the case will tell you this is what happened. This is also false.

2. Castile was pulled over because the matched the description of an armed robbery suspect. This is true.

Why doesn't snopes choose to debunk narrative 1 there, the widely reported, absolutely false narrative? No, instead they choose to play semantic games with the #2 narrative, stating it as "Castile was wanted for armed robbery," which no one ever said and then labeling that "mostly false?"

Why didn't snopes write an article about the media claim that Castile was pulled over for a broken tail light, label that false, and give us the correct story, that Castile was pulled over because he matched the description of an armed robber?

Re:Clintons have killed tons of people

[gnu-sucks]

So there may be some stories in that list that are not accurate or are exaggerated. I appreciate your investigating some of this.

My thoughts are, if maybe a handful out of these actually have some substance, then this is worth looking at.

Next time I won't pick the first result on a google search... But I still find it relevant.

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[shaitand]

"It would be another six months before information about them would explode into the news. If the President were in the habit of having those dangerous to his presidency put in the ground, why didn't he order these deaths?"

Because he didn't know they were going to be a problem until after they came forward and there were too many eyes on them? Because Hillary was doing the offing and didn't know about them? This isn't exactly iron clad logic here, having missed a couple targets isn't proof you didn't hit the other 50 you shot at. That's a pretty good record actually.

I'm not actually saying I'm a believer of this list (although some grain of truth in it wouldn't suprise me) but I am a firm believer in the corruption of the Clintons. After all, whether this guy is the source of the leak and they off'd him or not. Hillary Clinton got every advantage Nixon dreamed of getting through wiretapping through direct and malicious collusion. Pointing at the Russians, over the top patriotism, etc. Remember the enemy in 1984? They were always at war but they'd flip who was the enemy and who was the ally every couple decades and rewrite history. The D and R sides of the ruling party have done that once already, it looks like they are switching back on us. When people start to see through your bullshit and rally it's time to toss things up in the air so they are so confused they don't know what to do right?

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[shaitand]

"Essentially every member of congress makes an absolute shit ton of money during their first term [ballotpedia.org]. ... But such claims of graft or unethical behavior are usually brought up by one party because they think their candidate is less tainted."

And yet somehow Bernie Sanders is not wealthy and in the senate no less.

Re:Clintons have killed tons of people

[lsatenstein]

I would put an Assange surrogote on the list. Assange has lost popularity, belief (credibility) and most of all, one recognizes him as a rancorous person. He holds grudges. Thank Gd I don't care if he lives or dies. He has added nothing of importance to the world's societies.

Re:Clintons have killed tons of people

[micahraleigh]

"... without evidence ..."

Whoa, whoa ... hang on.

In Riches case he was reportedly killed by a robber, who left him with all of his materially valuable possessions (including his wallet). Several people close to the killings of the DNC officials have expressed that there deaths were very strange. I thought I heard on the radio yesterday Rich's parents have expressed as much.

People get shot and killed everyday ... but we're talking about a group of people in the DNC who were all killed around the time the DNC leaks happened. This isn't enough to throw someone in jail, but that doesn't mean OJ is innocent of murder. What it does mean is this all needs to be closely investigated.

I know there are a lot of MoveOn folks that are going to ask, 'Do we have to have the tax payers PAY to investigate every suspicious death linked to the Clintons?' Absolutely. No reservations about that.

Also, in this case voters are also the jurors. There might not be enough evidence to indite a suspect, but that doesn't mean they should be elected president. And there are well over 40+ suspicious deaths of people who were at least acquaintences or working partners of the Clintons.

Re:Clintons have killed tons of people

[micahraleigh]

Ok, so let's say we just do what you say and assume based on your naked assertions that this list is hogwash and that you really are a conservative (I don't believe either claim, btw).

How do you explain all these DNC officials who died right when the DNC leaks happened, many of them under mysterious circumstances? A "robber" allegedly killed Rich, but why weren't his valuables taken? Etc.

Re:Clintons have killed tons of people

[david_thornley]

My sister-in-law was in a group of ten high school girls who kept in touch with each other as they got older. She's in her early fifties, and is either one of the two survivors or the only one. The high school was a nice one in a pleasant suburb, and there's no particular reason why any of the girls should have died early. Are you saying my sister-in-law is therefore suspicious?

Re:Clintons have killed tons of people

[micahraleigh]

Remember: a democrat president pursued a criminal investigation against his own party's presidential candidate.

If you're talking about events with low probabilities, we're well past that point.

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[david_thornley]

Let's look at what Snopes labels as What's True: "Police who pulled over and killed Philando Castile reported they thought he might have resembled a suspect in an armed robbery case." The Snopes article discusses claims from "The Conservative Treehouse", pointing out that Castile was not a suspect, there is no credible evidence tying him to the robbery, and that he did have a concealed-carry permit. It emphasizes that there is no real evidence that Castile was involved in the robbery or was carrying illegally when stopped.

In short, Snopes seems to be telling the truth, and refuted claims from a specific source, which you haven't bothered to link to or provide evidence. Any implication that he was stopped on suspicion of armed robbery suggests that Castile was in fact a suspect.

You also seem awfully callous. The fact is that Castile resembled an armed robber, and apparently was legally carrying a weapon. That does not, repeat NOT, justify his being shot. The media coverage I remember is that of an innocent man who was trying to cooperate being shot and killed. Perhaps if the appropriate police had come up with some way to deal with people who are legally armed there would have been no media issue.

Re:Clintons have killed tons of people

[Ol Olsoc]

That would be the same whatreallyhappened.com that thinks all of modern cosmology is a big conspiracy. Yeah.

Do not oppose the kooks of Slashdot. They will demand your longform birth certificate and proof that you aren't the person behind the chemtrails or HAARP.

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[pastafazou]

Snopes declaration doesn't carry much weight. Take for example their analysis of the death of Mary Mahoney. She was an intern at the white house. It was announced by Mike Isikoff that a former intern was coming forward to testify about being sexually harassed by Bill Clinton. Three days later, Mary Mahoney and two coworkers were gunned down at the Starbucks where they worked. The police investigation determined that it was a "botched robbery". However, Mary was shot 5 times, including 1 shot to the back of the head. Nothing was actually taken from the Starbucks. Yet snopes declares this murder to be "false". Why? The person ultimately arrested claimed that Mary tried wrestling the gun from him. Here's more details about it.

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[david_thornley]

In other words, since the Clintons made a lot of money on speaking fees, they've obviously abused their political office? The fact that they have weaseled out of accusations that don't have actual evidence behind them isn't real impressive either. Bill got in legal trouble over a lawsuit that didn't actually allege he broke the law, so I'd think they're not nearly as slick as some people claim.

Re:Clintons have killed tons of people

[Ol Olsoc]

There's a list, it's over 50 people.

Being a Conservative Republican myself since Regan.. This list is hog wash born in the darkest corner of Arkansas. The Clinton's are many nasty things, but they are NOT stupid enough to be out ordering hits on their detractors. I don't put it past some of their supporters, but Bill and Hill wouldn't do something as stupid as you suggest.

So can we PLEASE STOP with this tripe?

No, they can't Stop. Because batshit crazy is the New normal for your party. I've always been registered independent, but voted pretty solid Republican until the kooks took over the party. This has been drilled into them by their echo chamber and visceral hatred until the final stage has been reached. A creation that has leapfrogged the extreme right to enable the conspiracy theories to become mainstream Republican dogma.

I truly fear for the future of a party that used to be able to depend on my vote, but is now as likely to get it as me voting for Putin for President of the US.

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[pastafazou]

Snopes offers no direct proof that any of these deaths are NOT suspicious. They merely offer up circumstantial evidence to dispute the circumstantial evidence that links the deaths to the Clintons. Do you not find it suspicious that so many people with knowledge of Bill's extra-marital sexual activities wind up dead?

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[meta-monkey]

Any implication that he was stopped on suspicion of armed robbery suggests that Castile was in fact a suspect.

If you match the description of a robbery suspect and I stop you to see if you are the robbery suspect, aren't you a suspect until I rule you out? This is just a semantic game, when what really matters is why Castile was stopped.

We've got two media narratives out there about Castile's shooting:

1. The widely reported mainstream media narrative that Castile was stopped for a broken taillight.

2. The conservative media narrative that Castile was stopped because he matched the description of an armed robber.

You agree that narrative 1, the MSM narrative, is objectively false, correct? And #2, the conservative media narrative, is objectively true, correct?

Isn't snopes' mission supposed to be the debunking of false claims? Well, narrative 1 up there is the widely reported, absolutely false claim. Why didn't snopes fact check that claim, declare it false, and then tell the real story?

Instead they twisted claim 2, to say that the claim was that Castile was "wanted" for armed robbery. This is a claim no one ever made. No one claimed there was an APB out for Castile's arrest, or anyone was looking for Castile himself. Just that Castile was pulled over, in the officer's own words on the police scanner before pulling him over, because he matched the description of the suspect, which he did (similar hair, build, chin beard, and yes, race).

Tell me, why did Snopes choose a twisted version of narrative 2 to "debunk" instead of debunking the widely held and objectively false narrative #1?

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[pastafazou]

I didn't realize Putin was running for the position of POTUS....

Re:Clintons have killed tons of people

[pastafazou]

Two bullet holes in his chest...that's not suicide. As for what connection he had to the Clintons, he was scheduled for a meeting with Bill that afternoon....

Re:Clintons have killed tons of people

[Ol Olsoc]

So a quick trip to Wikipedia.... and multiple gunshot suicide is actually a thing. And not just "guy rigged up two guns", but actual "dude took 3 shots in the chest to kill himself" multiple gunshot suicide.

For certain. Too many people seem to have the Television concept of murder or suicide. one shot, and immediate death. And of course, if you do it Bud Dwyer style, it probably will be immediate. But lots of peopleshoot themselves, and don't die until they bleed to. Which takes a little while plenty of time to nil yourself again.

But the biggest question of all for the kooks is how thise people can be so clever to kill so many people yet use such whacked and suspicious methods that just so happen to make them look very, very suspicious but otherwise have managed to kill 50 people by now. And not one of their paid assassins they use to dispatch anyone that agrees with them has ever came forth. Such a combination of skill, dumbfuckery and incredible conspiratorial luck has never been seen before.

Anyhow, the kooks should get back to proving the moon landings never happened, or thatSomething is wrong with the Earth's core. Booms, sounds, massive bird deaths. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Thank gawd that a brave whistleblower stood up to the corrupt Government to let us know? Wake up America, the end is nigh!

For more of the truth being hidden from us https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Awww, what the heck here is the conspiracy theory to end all conspiracies. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[Grim Beefer]

So...basically if Snopes doesn't go out of their way to have a conservative bias...then they automatically have a liberal one? Think about what you're saying. Snopes is supposed to come to some kind of consensus from the "conservative media" - before - publishing an article, and make sure to print things that represent this broad point of view. You lay out what they should have printed instead, which conveniently ignores the factually inaccurate information laid out by "Conservative Treehouse".

So, Snopes wasn't supposed to be investigating false claims made by individuals, they were supposed to be fact-checking the broad, consensus based, conclusions of the right-wing media, instead. Or what? What you're claiming Snopes should do is BLATANTLY driven by political bias, as it would automatically eliminate undesirable sources like Conservative Treehouse, and ironically, a hypocritical example of exactly the type of thing you're attempting to criticize Snopes for in the first place - which is to show bias.

You're essentially trying to claim conservatives shouldn't be held to standards for what they say, alone, but should be judged, instead, by the broader claims of their peers. To actually hold someone accountable for things they have said is somehow, paradoxically, "misleading", because it's not their individual thoughts that matter, but what the greater group thinks. Yeah, pretty scary shit.

Meanwhile, I can find multiple stories, right now, on the "What's New" page of Snopes which contain damaging things to say about Democrats, including Hillary.

You go as far to call the act of Snopes rebuking a factually incorrect website a misleading "strawman", which is utterly and fundamentally a misuse of those words. You're not making a "strawman" argument if you're fact checking what someone has said. That's not what a "strawman" is.

You see...the part crucially missing from your argument is the non-existent paragraph at the end of the article where Snopes says "Oh yeah, by the way, most conservatives think this way...vote Hillary". If anyone makes judgement calls about another conservative based on the actions of conservative treehouse, that's on them, as Snopes, obviously, didn't advocate this.

Have you considered that maybe it's "reality" and those pesky "facts", and not Snopes, that's making some conservatives look bad? Snopes didn't make up "Conservative Treehouse", after all.

Re:Clintons have killed tons of people

[uncqual]

Perhaps he wanted to make sure it worked. It's kind of a bummer to walk around the rest of your life with only half your brain blown out through the front of your head, it's best to make sure you got it all.

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[meta-monkey]

You go as far to call the act of Snopes rebuking a factually incorrect website a misleading "strawman", which is utterly and fundamentally a misuse of those words. You're not making a "strawman" argument if you're fact checking what someone has said. That's not what a "strawman" is.

Is not a straw man misstating someone's argument so you can attack the weak argument they didn't make?

Conservative Treehouse's claim: Castile was stopped because he matched the description of an armed robber.

Snopes' statement of CTH's claim: "Philando Castile was wanted for armed robbery when he was killed by police officers."

Snopes then declares this claim "mostly false" and then goes on to say that yes, Castile was stopped because the matched the description of the armed robber. Which is what CTH had actually claimed.

How is that not a straw man? They took CTH's true, strong argument, replaced it with a weak argument CTH never made, then declared that weak argument false. That's the definition of a straw man argument.

Why do they do this?

Better question, why don't they correct the widely reported, mainstream media false narrative that Castile was stopped for a broken taillight? Wouldn't that have been a nice public service? Maybe could have helped calm some racial tensions if people knew there were extenuating circumstances in the altercation and that it wasn't racially motivated?

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[Grim Beefer]

Why should they have to jump through hoops to pick a way to frame something in a way that supports your conservative agenda?

So...if Snopes wanted to investigate the statements made by Conservative Treehouse, how, EXACTLY, were they supposed to do that according to you?

You even use the term "more correct framing". Snopes has no obligation to "correctly" frame things so that it suits your right-wing political goals. You understand that when you're calling for things to be "framed correctly", that you're doing that from a BIASED political point of view, correct? They factually reported on something that had a limited and specific scope, that did not leave the bounds of the website in question. That's all they did. There was nothing "incorrect" about their framing.

All of this bullshit about "false narratives" is coming straight out of your Ronald Reagan themed crystal ball. Nothing they said was "false". If you're telling the truth, and not being misleading in scope, you can't be guilty of providing a "false narrative".

They didn't make any other statements about other conservatives, or use misleading language to imply that this was an issue beyond "Conservative Treehouse", unless you think it's Snopes' fault that the website put "conservative" in their own name.

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[ooloorie]

Essentially every member of congress makes an absolute shit ton of money during their first term [ballotpedia.org]. Speaking fees, legal stock market trading on confidential information, there's all kinds of things congress has decided to allow themselves because they "don't amount to corruption," in a quid-pro-quo sense. Not saying it's good; just saying it's normal.

A net worth of $120 million and control of a foundation worth billions, all acquired during active government employment, isn't "normal" even for Congress. The Clintons are in a category all of their own when it comes to political corruption. And this is particularly noteworthy given that Hillary is running on a platform of "limiting money in politics", which would continue to let her amass the kinds of fortunes she has amassed while silencing her critics.

But such claims of graft or unethical behavior are usually brought up by one party because they think their candidate is less tainted

So what? What does that have to do with anything?

The Trumps have made their money by selling their name and managing mob-controlled construction projects and has kept his finances strictly private.

Again, so what? Neither being hassled by the mob nor being a celebrity amount to political corruption or are indicative of a propensity for political corruption. I mean, there are plenty of things wrong with Trump, but a track record of turning public office into personal gain isn't one of them.

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[ooloorie]

In other words, since the Clintons made a lot of money on speaking fees, they've obviously abused their political office?

Correct.

The fact that they have weaseled out of accusations that don't have actual evidence behind them isn't real impressive either. Bill got in legal trouble over a lawsuit that didn't actually allege he broke the law, so I'd think they're not nearly as slick as some people claim.

Are you kidding? If Bill or Hillary had been ordinary citizens, they'd be rotting in jail given the evidence we have. That's true for Bill's lies and cover-ups of his sexual escapades, and Hillary's use of her E-mail server alone. The evidence on those is crystal clear.

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[meta-monkey]

Did you read the snopes article? They state:

"Claim: Philando Castile was wanted for armed robbery when he was killed by police officers."

Did Conservative Treehouse ever claim Philando Castile was wanted for armed robbery?

No. They didn't. CTH claimed Castile was stopped because he matched the description of an armed robber, which is true.

So...if Snopes wanted to investigate the statements made by Conservative Treehouse, how, EXACTLY, were they supposed to do that according to you?

They should have said:

"Claim: Castile and Ms. Diamond Reynolds (Facebook video uploader) were pulled over by police because Castile matched a BOLO Alert for an armed robbery suspect."

Which is what CTH actually claimed. And that's true, so they should have marked it "True."

Do you understand what I'm saying now? Snopes intentionally changes someone else's argument to something false, so they can mark it "false." THAT is bias. What I want them to do is...not change the argument. Just report what the claim actually is, and then mark that true or false.

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[Zephyn]

So they're a moron for linking a website and mentioning a very popular theory?

#manypeoplearesaying

Re:Clintons have killed tons of people

[Sir_Eptishous]

Being a Conservative Republican myself since Regan..

Donald Regan was Secretary of the Treasury for the first Reagan administration, and Chief of staff for the first two years of the second Reagan administration.

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[Grim Beefer]

That wasn't Conservative Treehouse's claim, and you know it. The exact headline was...

"Confirmed – Philando Castile Was an Armed Robbery Suspect – False Media Narrative Now Driving Cop Killings"

source

They claimed he was a "suspect", which was NOT true. You can't argue with the facts, I'm sorry. There's a HUGE difference between BEING a suspect, and matching the DESCRIPTION of a suspect. They are not interchangeable concepts. One is an escalation of the other. "Suspect" is a term that implies established evidence against a person in question has been definitively gathered. It has a very strict legal meaning, which involve things like Miranda rights, and you are NOT a suspect in a crime for merely being detained. This was obviously not the case for the shooting victim, and that's what Snopes was pointing out. He was never a suspect. Conservative Treehouse didn't know the difference, and got called out for it. Now, you're defending that same dumb mistake.

It doesn't matter how Conservative Treehouse qualified their headline in the actual story, the headline was a still a blatant lie. Snopes, in no way whatsoever, misstated Conservative Treehouse's words. They blatantly said that he was an "Armed Robbery Suspect" in plain fucking english. You don't get to pick and choose, after the fact, which facts are supposed to matter, and which ones don't when you speak.

So, yes, it's entirely appropriate to call you out for claiming Snopes made a "strawman" argument. They did not. Everything they said is factually accurate, unlike the Conservative Treehouse article. Quit defending stupidity.

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[meta-monkey]

You're just an idiot playing semantic games.

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[Grim Beefer]

I already replied to your above post, so we're going to have some deju vu here.

Basically, you're not accurately representing what Conservative Treehouse said. They claimed the victim was a SUSPECT in a crime, which -yes- would support the argument that he was "wanted" for said crime. That's what a suspect IS - a person wanted for a crime. It's a legal term, with a legal meaning.

Snopes called Conservative Treehouse out for using the terms "suspect" and "matches the description of s suspect" interchangeably, and rightfully so.

If you have to tell someone at one point in your life that you were a "suspect" in a criminal investigation, or that you "matched the description of s suspect" in a criminal investigation, those words imply VERY different meanings.

Nothing that Snopes has said is factually inaccurate. They didn't change anything.

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[Grim Beefer]

This is an issue about semantics, I'll agree, but I don't see why that's a bad thing. You're not going to find a topic that depends more on semantics than the law. "Semantics" implies that there is an issue about the meaning of a word, which is the absolute core of this issue. If you don't know what a word, like "suspect", actually means, in the legal sense, don't use it in a banner fucking headline involving law enforcement officers.

Similarly, don't cry foul when you get called out for it because YOU were ignorant.

Re:Clintons have killed tons of people

[bongey]

He did mostly likely did commit suicide from shame of breaking the law for the Clintons over whitewater. Search warrant granted 7/20/93, vince foster commits suicide 7/20/93, search warrent excuted on 7/21/93 (documents removed on 7/20/93) http://www.judicialwatch.org/w... . Investigation into him just stopped because well he was dead. Doesn't help the Clinton's did some really shady shit in removing documents from his office after he died. Doesn't help their case either when one of the prosecutors on Starr's team resigned in protest because the whole investigation was botched. http://www.wnd.com/2016/02/vin...

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[bobbied]

I'm not willing to believe that the Clintons are killers. Not because they have moral scruples. Because murders are just too high profile and easy to understand.

Exactly this. They are as untrustworthy as you can imagine anyone to be, but they are intelligent sorts who know full well what the punishment is for which crime, both in the court of law and in the court of public opinion.

They are influence peddlers of unprecedented skill and cunning working at the international level. They've turned a governorship into a presidency and the presidency into some *real* money. Why they want to mess this up with Hillary running for office? I guess they figure they can parlay a sitting and an ex president into some serious money, and might actually be able to get away with murder then.

Re:Clintons have killed tons of people

[bobbied]

Hater's got to hate and you have been drinking the Kool-Aid of hate son.

:Like I tell the nut jobs in my party, Try to step back from the partisan rhetoric and actually make your own reasoned arguments. The other side generally isn't full of spite, stupid or just saying stuff to be hateful. Deep down they mean well, even if they don't agree with your ideas or policy choices. That doesn't make them demons worthy of contempt, but people who have valid perspectives that differ from yours.

As it stands, politics has become a blood sport, where to win elections you divide and demonize your opponents. Recognize it for what it is sir, and don't fall for it.

Re:Clintons have killed tons of people

[bobbied]

Ok, so let's say we just do what you say and assume based on your naked assertions that this list is hogwash and that you really are a conservative (I don't believe either claim, btw). How do you explain all these DNC officials who died right when the DNC leaks happened, many of them under mysterious circumstances? A "robber" allegedly killed Rich, but why weren't his valuables taken? Etc.

Unhappy coincidence seems to answer your question.

Look, I'm not saying these folks where not murdered, that's for the police to answer. Nor am I saying some left wing nut job didn't order a hit or pull the trigger on these, I'm ONLY saying Hillary or Bill are not stupid enough to be caught anywhere near something like that. Making up some conspiracy theory that puts the Clinton's in the middle of somebody's murder is a bit beyond reason. There is ZERO evidence at this point. Now if you find the murder weapon with Hillary's finger prints on it in the river, call me. Until then, knock it off. All you are doing is making the lefties laugh at you and loading their guns with "you guys are nuts" ammo.

Re:Clintons have killed tons of people

[bobbied]

Yeah, it is nutty tinfoil hat stuff.

However, it is interesting that they came up with someone who committed suicide by shooting himself in the chest. Twice.

Pussies. In Russia people commit suicide by shooting themselves in the head... Twice.

Real men play Russian Roulette with an automatic and 2 out of 15 rounds in the magazine..

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[david_thornley]

Okay, I know your ability with logic, if anyone who makes money on speaker fees have obviously abused political office.

Ordinary citizens who were accused of what the Clintons have done with the same level of evidence would have no legal problems, unless someone sued for actions that don't actually constitute sexual harassment legally. Someone who did something like Hillary did with the email server might lose a security clearance and/or get fired, but jail would not be in the picture. If you disagree, please find an example of someone who has done what one of the Clintons has, without exacerbating circumstances that don't exist in the Clintons' cases, and show the jail time.

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[david_thornley]

Snopes found a certain article, and took it apart piece by piece. They went into details of what happened, and appear to have reached the same conclusions that you did. Snopes did not claim that the pull-over was from a broken tail light, and the only explanation they gave was that Castile resembled a robbery suspect. I find it very odd that you think Snopes was deficient in not debunking every false claim made, when they provide a clear picture of what happened and why we know this.

The important point in this case is that nobody has supported a claim that Castile did anything wrong, and he wound up shot to death, not why he was initially pulled over.

Re:Clintons have killed tons of people

[Ol Olsoc]

Hater's got to hate and you have been drinking the Kool-Aid of hate son.

You gotta provide more than just a declaration. Explain how I hate. Show what I have written is indicative of my koolaid drinking.

I am not a member of the political party that has nominated a birther, a person who would disrespect a Gold star mother, and a person who just suggested the old second amendment solution to his opponent, and today called the present occupant and the Democrat's candidate's the founder of ISIS. That sounds like codified, accepted, and voted upon by his political party, and party blessed prepresentative, and one who shares - or more importantly - represents their core values

Unless of course, you find that me pointing out all of the above is hatred. Pointing it out isn't hatred, not pointing it out might just be more sharing, or at leaast keeping one's mouth sut until they come for him. This is your party bobbied, not mine. There are plenty enough kooks on the other side. It's not quite so officially endorsed however, and I ain't one of them either. Care to dance?

Re:Clintons have killed tons of people

[geminidomino]

How's the Slashdot demographic looking these days? Is it even likely we've got more than a handful old enough to remember the spelling bee gaffe?

Re:Clintons have killed tons of people

[bobbied]

You drinking the lie that somehow the Republican party is represented by such tripe and that they cannot help it because they are somehow less intelligent than you. The distain is clear from your writings. "They cannot help themselves" you say, Really? They are like lambs to the slaughter in your eyes?

Hate has a way of marginalizing those groups they don't like for what ever reason. The color of their skin, their religious beliefs and now political affiliation of late has become a way to focus one's frustration, turn it into hate. Oh they are too stupid, to weak minded, or how ever you wish to say it, to understand the truth like me.... Surely you hear yourself? Don't you see the historical parallels here?

So why do you have such obvious distain? I could assume you just are out to hate because that's what you are... Or because you've been indoctrinated into believing folks are worthy of such treatment by you... Which shall I choose to believe about you? Hmmm...

Re:Clintons have killed tons of people

[Ol Olsoc]

You drinking the lie that somehow the Republican party is represented by such tripe and that they cannot help it because they are somehow less intelligent than you.

Actually, I'm much more of an observer. You're just engendering the Koolaid pejoratives because I'm making you uncomfortable.

Out of 17 Presidential candidates in the 2016 race, Trump received 13,300,472 votes in the primary voting, His closest competitor was Ted Cruz, with 7,637,262 votes. This was a record number of votes, Surpassing both Romney and Bush 2.

Out of the 1,237 delegates needed to win, and 2,472 delegates total trump had a total of 1543, an overwhelming majority.

Out of the 50 states plus D of C there were only 12 that Trump did not win.

That is not just winning - it is overwhelmingly winning, with a record being set in the process.

Now since here we are in 2016 with conspiracy kooks claiming that we now have 50 people killed by the Clintons, allow us to touch on conspiracy, being germane to the topic.

Trump is a birther., and still claims it: http://www.politico.com/story/...

Trump has "suggested" that Hillary had Vincent Foster killed. https://www.theguardian.com/us...

Obama is a muslim

Rafael Cruz was involved in the JFK assassination,

He watched as Muslims celebrated in New Jesey when 9-11 happened.

He has literally dozens of conspiracy theories, and I "heard people talking" is no excuse. Its his way of saying "Not sayin', just sayin'. Sayin' is sayin', and if you can't say, don't say. He's sayin'

Donald Trump won the primaries overwhelmingly, setting a record in the process, and his campaign appearances have people cheering wildly for him in rapt attention. We can both watch them. Yet he does not represent the thoughts and minds of the party that nominated him to this position?

Well now, that is an interesting position. I'm really enjoyin' the dance here.

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[silverdirk]

I used tobelieve the body count rumor too, but then found this: http://www.snopes.com/politics...

If you ignore the partisan rant at the start of the article, youll find that they document the deaths pretty well, and only 2 of the 50 are actually "suspicious deaths related to the Clintons", and both had other probable theories, and no actual theory involving the Clintons.

That is unrelated to these new suspicious DNC events, but I like to debunk the "50 deaths" myth when I see it mentioned.

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[meta-monkey]

The important point in this case is that nobody has supported a claim that Castile did anything wrong, and he wound up shot to death, not why he was initially pulled over.

The important point is that the major media story was that Castile was pulled over for a broken taillight (or no reason at all) and then the officer was so scared about black people that he shot him. This fits into the "racist cops are murdering black people" narrative, and made people very, very angry. So angry this is one of the two cases that was cited by the Dallas shooter during his rampage. And I can understand that..."racist cops murdering blacks" shocks the conscience. But if the truth had been reported, that the officer was wary of Castile not because of his skin color but because he had reason to believe he was an armed robber (a very dangerous person) then that causes a very different emotional reaction. People might want to hold off until we get the officer's side of the story and the results of the investigation before they start murdering random cops.

Our mainstream media in this country is trying to spark a race war by inflaming racial tensions between cops and blacks using false narratives. Snopes chooses a nitpick a conservative story trying to correct the broad theme of the media's false narrative, instead of helping dismantle the widely reported false narrative. One should not trust snopes for objectivity.

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[meta-monkey]

Just because someone matches the description of an armed robber DOES NOT give the police the right to shoot them.

Because that's exactly what I said, yes. I want Judge Dredd on the streets now.

Or perhaps you fail reading comprehension.

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[ooloorie]

Okay, I know your ability with logic, if anyone who makes money on speaker fees have obviously abused political office.

No, I didn't say "if anyone". You said that "since the Clintons made a lot of money on speaking fees, they've obviously abused their political office", and I agreed. For the Clintons and their particular circumstance, the audiences they spoke to, the topics they spoke about, and the kinds of fees they received, it is clear that they have abused their political offices for personal gain. And it isn't just speaker fees either, it's influence peddling and other offenses.

If you disagree, please find an example of someone who has done what one of the Clintons has, without exacerbating circumstances that don't exist in the Clintons' cases, and show the jail time.

Bill Clinton lied under oath and obstructed justice, offenses that ordinary people frequently go to jail for. Politicians and government officials are frequently shielded from legal consequences of their actions because of separation of powers; instead of the judiciary judging the executive, the judiciary prefers leaving decisions up to voters. That is a perfectly reasonable thing to do in many cases. But it means that you cannot reason as you do: "he/she wasn't convicted, therefore he/she isn't guilty"; the judiciary defers to us as voters, so we need to look at the facts ourselves and make our own decisions at the ballot box.

I don't think either Hillary or Bill should go to jail. What I do think is that voters should make sure they never hold public office. The Clintons are the most egregious examples of how money corrupts politics in a long time. That not only means that Hillary is an utter hypocrite when she runs on a platform of getting money out of politics, it also means that she is utterly unsuitable for the job of POTUS.

Re:Clintons have killed tons of people

[pastafazou]

And here's another: http://www.infowars.com/friend...

Re:Clintons have killed tons of people

[micahraleigh]

OK, I'm starting to believe you might be a conservative.

You could argue a person walking around work with an axe dripping a red fluid is circumstantial (maybe there was an employee who left with a lock, and the custodian needed to apply some red sharpening lapper to break it open). Most juries would call that evidence.

Rush Limbaugh once asked Ted Koppel how many people he knows who died under mysterious circumstances. His answer was none. Most people haven't known anyone like that. If you knew 1 person, you could make the case all by itself that you are an outlier (i.e. your count is above the noise). Over 50 people and we're not talking about a coincidence anymore.

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[micahraleigh]

Snopes to me is like wikipedia. When the subject is something non controversial (the boiling point of water, Tertullian, global population tallies) it can be fairly reliable. Any subject where opinions vary person skew noticeably (in that case toward those who have no reservation about revert warring to be heard). YMMV

As I read snopes more often I decided the person who does it has theist sympathies and leans toward the Democratic party. And sometimes the list out all the evidence toward something and then just speciously say little reason to disagree and then calls it gray or false.

I get immediately suspicious about anyone who tries to be a referee in these things because they always, always disguise their opinion as unassailable objectivity. I don't need anyone to chew my food for me.

Re:Clintons have killed tons of people

[bobbied]

I knew somebody who was murdered... She was killed by her husband with a baseball bat who was trying to cover up his affair (and get out of his marriage apparently). He might have gotten away with it had he not disposed of the bat, gloves and the valuables he "stole" in the dumpster at work, or had the garbage truck come before the police.. I knew two people who killed themselves by shooting themselves in the head (one with a high powered deer rifle) too. They may not be mysterious circumstances now, but at the time, they where kind of perplexing.

Re:Clintons have killed tons of people

[JustBoo]

Being a Conservative Republican myself since Regan.. [...]

You are a liar. That's what you are. You have not now, nor have you ever been a "Conservative Republican." You are a Good Democrat who Lies constantly and thinks people actually believe you. Again, a Democrat. You don't even know how to spell the Presidents name... because you are a lair. ~

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[Uberbah]

Have you looked at the pictures? Same build, similar long hair, same little scraggly chin beard. There's a little more there than skin color, don't you think?

No. There isn't. Cops aren't going to have a clue what his "build" in a .05 second glance through the window of a car. And if you listened to yourself for two seconds:

Castile was pulled over because he matched the description of an armed robber [kare11.com] from a convenience store heist a few days before.

A few days before? There's 3.5 million people in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metro area. As has been pointed out to you before, there's a huge gulf between being a suspect and "resembling" one. Combine those two things, and the result is you are making pathetic excuses for pathetic trigger happy cops.

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[JustBoo]

I used tobelieve the body count rumor too, but then found this: http://www.snopes.com/politics...

Dear Mr. "I Used To Be, But Now I'm Not" Shill. You appear to not know that no one trustworthy uses snopes anymore for validation. It's become a laughing-stock of a joke now. The only people who use it are clueless. Sorry.

It was purchased by an evil rich old far left progressive couple who bought it for the express purpose of turning it into a liberal lying haven of lies. And they succeeded. No one trusts snopes anymore. Using it, in fact, invalidates any point one is trying to make.

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[JustBoo]

Snopes has declared all of this False. http://www.snopes.com/politics...

"Clinton was acquainted with some people who died — that's about all one can make of this list."

You appear to not know that no one trustworthy uses snopes anymore for validation. It's become a laughing-stock of a joke now. The only people who use it are clueless. Sorry.

It was purchased by an evil rich old far left progressive couple who bought it for the express purpose of turning it into a liberal lying haven of lies. And they succeeded. No one trusts snopes anymore. Using it, in fact, invalidates any point one is trying to make.

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[silverdirk]

I double-dare you to refute the points in the article I linked. It is backed up with source material. The original email is not.

Re: Clintons have killed tons of people

[ananamouse]

It is a fact that Bill Clinton, then governor of Arkansas and battling GHWBush and Perot in the Presidential election, executed a man who was so severely retarded that he left part of his last meal 'for later.' After that execution and subsequently Bill being elected I gained more respect for the practice of necromancy.

Re:Clintons have killed tons of people

[Cytotoxic]

Ok, so apparently there's this site that caters to people who want to commit suicide. I guess, I didn't read much. But google pulled it up when I put in "suicide by gunshot to the back of the head" to help with your question.

Shooting yourself in the back of the head is one of the recommended methods.

Man, the internet is a weird place.

Re:Clintons have killed tons of people

[bobbied]

And you are making confident assertions about things you have no proof of.... First the Clintons and now me... Tinfoil hat getting too tight there buddy?

Does anybody really doubt it

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anybody really doubt that this man was assassinated by the DNC/Clintons/etc.? Days after a huge scandal? Double tapped in the back and nothing taken? Does that sound like robbery to you?

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[LynnwoodRooster]

Well, it wasn't a robbery since nothing was taken...

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[PopeRatzo]

Does anybody really doubt that this man was assassinated by the DNC/Clintons/etc.?

Yes. Snopes does.

http://www.snopes.com/seth-con...

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[Anonymous Coward]

when 40 people associated with you suddenly "commit suicide" that's not something that happens all the time.

Re: Does anybody really doubt it

[Anonymous Coward]

They probably found electrical burns on his nuts and that his fingernails were pulled out and assumed this was simply how he liked to party.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. Anyone not wearing tinfoil over their entire body does not believe this.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[LynnwoodRooster]

I dunno, if I had to listen to Hillary! drone on and on about needing more middle class taxes, I'd seriously consider suicide...

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[Stenchwarrior]

Finally, a rational person...

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[Anonymous Coward]

The Clintons are "associated with" *thousands* of people. Bill was the f'ing president and Governor of Arkansas. Hillary has been politically active for decades. This is a 6 degrees problem and the evidence doesn't suggest that there's anything more than that.

Re: Does anybody really doubt it

[Type44Q]

I'm just surprised they're not claiming it was suicide and that they gave him a burial at sea...

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[geek]

Nice, thank you. Except that the next move will be to discredit Snopes in some way, citing how their neighbor's boyfriend's uncle knows a guy that works for Snopes and says they take hush-money from the DNC all the time.

Not really necessary. Snopes has discredited themselves so many times now that they can't be taken seriously.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[DRJlaw]

Does anybody really doubt that this man was assassinated by the DNC/Clintons/etc.? Days after a huge scandal? Double tapped in the back and nothing taken? Does that sound like robbery to you?

Days after a huge scandal? Was July 10th days after July 22nd in your universe? Because it wasn't in mine.

Even if you were somehow referring to the June 12th interview, it would take an unheard of efficiency for the DNC/Clintons/etc. to track this man down simply on the basis of an interview where Assange claimed to have "emails related to Hillary Clinton which are pending publication."

Anyone who could pull that off would deserve the Presidency. I'd look forward to years and years of the U.S.'s external security problems being eliminated weeks before they could actually materialize, rather than morphing into post hoc debacles run by the Keystone cops.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[Captain Splendid]

Bummer. No links. Imma have to doubt you, then.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[msauve]

"tinfoil over their entire body"

Stannic Tinfinger? Sounds like a 007 villain.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[Bing Tsher E]

Those dirty Ruskies!

None Dare Call It Treason

Who would have thought the Clinton campaign would embrace the birchers...

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[mbkennel]

It doesn't sound like a robbery. And it doesn't sound like something the Clintons would do.

It does sound like something Putin's men would do. Putin is clearly running the old KGB playbooks and interfering in US elections they way they used to interfere in Europe, but in the modern way.

Pressure Rich for dirt, and then ice him when he starts getting nervous and talks to FBI.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[mbkennel]

Yes, people are murdered all the time.

But strangers are murdered, without robbery, infrequently. Strangers, not in criminal street or drug gangs and not being arrested by police, are murdered much less
frequently than that. No witnesses, no leads, no explanations? A pro?

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[Applehu Akbar]

+1 Funny.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[HiThere]

When I've looked things up on Snopes I haven't been very convinced by their analysis. I didn't check this one, since I don't know enough to decide whether their evaluation is flawed, biased, accurate, or what. The times that I did check, though, have made me reluctant to trust them as more than twice as accurate as "some random guy posting on the web", and considerably less accurate than WikiPedia...which I hardly trust at all on anything controversial.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[HiThere]

OK. Now I've read the Snopes claim. They basically say that "conspiracy nuts" believe that the DNC is involved and the Police believe robbery. That's probably true, at least if you modify it to "the Police claim to believe it was robbery". It's not anything to base an opinion on. It certainly doesn't show that it wasn't a political murder...a quite difficult thing to prove, unless you do it by proving that it was something else.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[Darinbob]

Wikipedia is a great source of information if you do or don't now about a subject. A small percentage of it is biased of course, but the vast majority is pretty solid. Of course no one ever goes to Wikipedia to learn the "facts" about Ruby Ridge, duh. The only people that thinks Snopes is discredited are conspiracy theorists.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[elrous0]

Yeah, leakers who embarrass uber-powerful political figures get gunned down all the time in affluent neighborhoods by robbers who don't take their cellphones or wallets. I see it every day on the local news.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[HiThere]

An interesting conjecture, and not unreasonable given the inconclusive evidence. Were I to believe it a Democrat inspired political murder, I still wouldn't believe that Hillary would know anything about it, or even have approved of it after the fact. There are lots of people who are committed Democrats who are more likely to have done this...including various mobsters. (You don't think that just because someone's a mobster he doesn't have strong political commitments do you? You can find both Democrats and Republicans among them. I rather doubt that you can find any Greens, but that's only because the US Green party doesn't wield political power.)

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[Anonymous Coward]

Well then, you shouldnt have any problem putting together a similar list for trump, bernie, gary johnson or jill stein

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[Stenchwarrior]

I wish more people followed basic rules of logic the way you just did. So many goddamn emotions flying around with all this Clinton/Trump shit that it's clouding peoples' better judgement, I guess.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[RobotRunAmok]

The established science is that people get murdered all the time for money or out of passion. Why was this guy Seth, a big-time deep-data jockey for the DNC, offed, in your opinion?

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[PopeRatzo]

Haha dopes.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[Grim Beefer]

It sure does make some kind of conspiratorial sense, I guess...but why would you do something like this? What possible benefit would the Clinton campaign gain through murder that wouldn't be MASSIVELY offset by the risk of actually murdering someone?

Murdering someone for political purposes seems like the worst possible thing you could do right now as a candidate, for any reason. Why? Was he going to "leak" even more? Surely, if so, he had things already in place to accomplish this, in the case of his untimely demise.

In other words, the motive is extremely unclear.

Meanwhile, however, Assange has a double-whammy opportunity here, as a known Clinton hater. He can both insinuate that Clinton might be a fucking murderer AND protect the real identity of whoever he has on the inside, by taking advantage of an unfortunate coincidence.

Until we see some proof that the murder victim actually was the leaker in question, I'm going to go with Occam's razor and pick the latter as the most probable explanation, here.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[chill]

So one motive down, dozens of other possible motives remain and professional assassin is not high in statistical probability.

When you hear hooves, you should think horses and not stampeding okapi. Occam's Razor and all that.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[Anonymous Coward]

Wikipedia is a great source of information if you do or don't now about a subject.

Perhaps you don't "now" enough about any subject to understand what that quote meant. The meaning is that both sites seem fine to someone not well-versed in a specific field of knowledge. Of those that are, the sites are full of errors and occasionally blatant lies.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[Grim Beefer]

I have to double reply to this, sorry.

It's gets even harder and harder to accept that this was some kind of "assassination" unless you think the Clintons are the stupidest people on earth. If you were trying to "disappear" someone...wouldn't you...you know...make it "look like an accident"?

Why would you outright murder them - an act SURE to open a criminal investigation, instead of making it look like a suicide, accident, etc.?

When coupled with what, exactly, their motive would have been in the first place, this just doesn't make any practical sense whatsoever. There's no way Clinton is stupid enough to kill someone, before an election, out of "revenge".

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[coldsalmon]

Washington DC has a relatively high murder rate. Not close to St. Louis or Detroit, but 4 times higher than New York City, and slightly higher than Chicago. There are also a lot of government employees living in Washington DC since it is the capital of the USA. So chances are that some government employees will be murdered every year.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[RobotRunAmok]

BAD LUCK?!?! What, a guy is walking down the street at 4am when a gun, pointed at his head accidentally went off behind him at close range? What, did the poor fool accidentally wander into somebody' else's gangland shooting? THAT kind of bad luck? What kind of bad luck are you talking about?

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[ZipK]

Jesus Christ on a cracker.

Everything tastes great when it sits on a Ritz. Mmmmm. Good cracker. Good cracker. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[MightyMartian]

Bungled robberies resulting in unintentional homicides are not THAT uncommon, and that would be the default position of an investigator unless someone could produce evidence to demonstrate that the murderer had intent to kill. If such evidence exists, by all means provide it.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[MightyMartian]

Ever heard of a bungled robbery? Unintentional homicide in the commission of another felony isn't exactly that rare.

But that doesn't fit with the conspiracy theory you and your ilk want to to propagate.

Want me to believe your story, provide actual evidence. Unevidenced conspiracy theories, innuendo and wishful thinking are not evidence, no matter how many times you repeat the claim.

Re: Does anybody really doubt it

[MightyMartian]

My prediction: No matter what is reported, fevered minds will claim it fits into their conspiracy.

Re: Does anybody really doubt it

[ChrisMaple]

If he had a flash drive full of Hillary's emails and was out on the street with them, then he was about to use the drive to expose Hillary. Trump would have nothing to gain by killing him.
Do you think before you post?

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[MightyMartian]

Clearly those were practice runs! Had to make sure the gun would fire, the dark trench coat was the right hue of menacing, and to make sure the Hillary Clinton-shaped neuro-controller/double-sized butt plug would hold!

Remember, to a conspiracy theory, there is no such thing as evidence counter to a claim. Everything, even nothing at all, is evidence of the conspiracy.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[WhiplashII]

A bungled robbery NEVER results in a double tap to the back.

In a bungled robbery, the gun goes off while the victim and perp face each other most often, and there is not a second shot to confirm death. That's the whole point, the perp panics and forgets to take the stuff - he doesn't calmly put another round through the heart.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[MightyMartian]

Do you have some statistics to back up your claim? It sounds to me like you're willing to rationalize this any way you can to make your conspiracy true.

Provide me one actual piece of evidence linking this to Clinton. Go on, I openly challenge you. I don't want innuendo, I don't want assertions. I want you to provide evidence, actual tangible real evidence.

Do you have it or not? Yes or no will do.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[MightyMartian]

Oh, and by the way, where does your "double tap to the back of the head" actually come from? In the article it says he was shot several times from behind and was still conscious when found. While it's theoretically possible to have multiple gun shot wounds to your head and still remain conscious for a while, if your description of an assassination is true, then either it's the worst assassin ever, or some other set of circumstances.

I'm thinking your "double tap" is just your idea of a necessary flourish to try to underscore what you know is a rather tortured line of logic.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[ChrisMaple]

Democrats control the executive branch, which means they control the CIA, FBI, NSA, Secret Service, D.C. police, Army Intelligence, etc..If they already suspected this guy as a leaker, verifying it with those resources would be relatively easy.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[Black Parrot]

Does anybody really doubt that this man was assassinated by the DNC/Clintons/etc.?

Uh, yes. After at least 25 years of continual accusations and conspiracy theories told about the Clintons and investigated by their enemies, who for some reason never can produce any actual evidence, anyone who believes the latest new story is an idiot. It's like believing that the 50th 419 scammer is real, even though the first 49 took advantage of you.

Or maybe Hillary is the Queen of the Lizardfolk, with an effective IQ of 1679.6, who habitually commits perfect crimes and leaks them to her enemies so she can laugh at their inability to prove anything.

Please, give it a rest unless/until someone comes up with some actual evidence.

p.s. - Whatever happened to guccifer2 ?

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[Black Parrot]

Holy shit, you're on Slashdot, and you dare say something that fucking stupid? Jesus Christ on a cracker.

Now that you mention it, Hillary killed him too. And pinned it on some guy who supposedly hanged himself.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[ChrisMaple]

There's no way Clinton was stupid enough to refuse to beef up security in Benghazi. But she did refuse. Hillary isn't an evil mastermind, she's just evil.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[ChrisMaple]

During what time in the last 25 years has there not been a recent Clinton scandal?

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[110010001000]

Exactly. If you wanted to assassinate someone, you would make it look like a robbery.

Re: Does anybody really doubt it

[jdunn14]

Based on the assorted crap those agencies have been caught doing I'm not sure you can really say anyone controls them very well.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[Kohath]

Why not? When were the Clintons ever held accountable for anything? Did they ever not get away with it?

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[dasunt]

A bungled robbery NEVER results in a double tap to the back. In a bungled robbery, the gun goes off while the victim and perp face each other most often, and there is not a second shot to confirm death. That's the whole point, the perp panics and forgets to take the stuff - he doesn't calmly put another round through the heart.

Seth Rich was alive and conscious when the police arrived. He died an hour later. Doesn't sound like a shot through the heart to me.

I checked the last two executions by firing squad in Utah - four bullets, not two, admittedly, but that involves aiming at the heart. The most recent was pronounced dead within two minutes. The next recent was dead within four minutes. Note this is death - not unconsciousness. Unconsciousness should happen sooner.

A Straight Dope discussion seems to give several examples of unconsciousness happening within seconds.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[sethstorm]

Or the position of a prosecutor that was made an offer he couldn't refuse - if he didn't want to die the same way.

Re: Does anybody really doubt it

[smelch]

It would be interesting if a serial killer was following the Clinton's around committing all these murders. I hope that kind of stuff does happen. I mean, in the sense that the people are either dead by serial killer or dead by the official explanation, not in the "I wish there was more murder going on" way.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[PopeRatzo]

Snopes is already known to be in the bag for the Clintons, and entirely unreliable when it comes to political matters.

No. There were accusations, but they were also false, according to other, non-Snopes sources.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[theskipper]

Ergo: Kevin Bacon did it. In Arkansas. With guns.

Lots of guns.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[amRadioHed]

It would also be an incredibly incompetent assassin to get in a fight with their victim before killing them when all they had to do was walk up behind them and fire one shot.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[Dutch Gun]

During the height of the cold war, spies didn't actually kill each other, contrary to Hollywood and myths. Putin is a nasty guy, but I just don't see any motivation for him to start offing people like that.

The big problem with all these conspiracy theories is that it only takes one secretly recorded message, or one witness that remains alive, to blow the whole thing wide open. Unless you believe that *everyone* is in on the conspiracy, of course, which makes a great movie plot, but isn't terribly realistic.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[amRadioHed]

This was clearly not done by real professionals as the attacker got into a fight with their victim and the victim was left wounded but alive.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[MightyMartian]

Care to provide the citation for that statistic?

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[MightyMartian]

Either a robbery, or the most idiotic assassin in history.

Assange is just trying to make some fireworks, I wonder what this AC's intention is. So far he has managed to wholly exaggerate the incident. What he claimed was a "double tap to the head" transforms into a "double tap into the back", but all I read is that multiple shots were fired, and the victim died quite a while after the attack. Sounds like a bungled robbery/mugging to me, and not real the work of some masterclass Clinton assassin.

I wonder if the problem here is a combination of too many video games, an active imagination, and a bizarre negative obsession with Democrats.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[Tablizer]

When has she proposed middle-class taxes?

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[ooloorie]

I don't see why you think that political assassinations are "improbable"; look around the world. Why do you think high level politicians run around with secret service and security guards?

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[cats-paw]

right. i can't believe snopes, but i should believe all the CT crazies that erupt on this site whenever something about Clinton shows up.

Got it.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[ooloorie]

Snopes simply says (in so many words) that it is not an established fact that Rich was assassinated, which is true. In fact, nobody knows at this point why Seth Rich was killed. The case is weird, but at this point it is just an unsolved murder.

However, if I ask myself whether Hillary Clinton would order a murder if it served her interests and she thought she could get away with it, I have little doubt that she would. After all, Hillary Clinton clearly has approved drone killings against foreign targets, including the killing of families and children, as part of her job. Do you seriously think that after having ordered the killing of dozens of people, she is going to make fine moral distinctions when it comes to someone threatening her glorious ascension to the presidency?

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[Anonymous Coward]

I dunno man. Do you have a Snopes link for that?

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[quenda]

Yes. Unless the is some evidence that he was a whistle-blower, e.g. Assange actually says it, this is firmly in the conspiracy-theory territory.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[joe_frisch]

If it was a professional hit, I would have expected them to have taken something. Of course maybe they are too clever and that's what they want me to think....

There really is no way to know. A single incident isn't enough for statistics. With multiple incidents, (which are claimed) you have to be very careful about statistics to see if it was likely chance. I don't see an easy way to do those statistics.

What would really help is predictions. Find lists of people that hypothetically the Clintons might want to have killed, then see if they die at a statistically significantly higher rate than an average selection of people.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[Boronx]

A day after Trump openly hints at murdering Clinton, Republicans are once again pushing the Clinton Body Count meme, still with zero evidence.

That's classic Karl Rove tactics. When your own weakness is exposed, attack your opponent on the same terms.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[MillionthMonkey]

I never realized this site was frequented by so many white men over the age of 45 with no college degree. They don't have much to say about stuff like Linux trojans mining cryptocurrency using misconfigured Redis servers, but if a stupid Hillary conspiracy story like this appears, they're all over it like dung beetles.

Hillary couldn't conspire her way out of a paper bag, but these nitwits from the short bus act like she's a criminal mastermind who has witnesses killed every morning for breakfast. I voted for Sanders partially because I didn't feel like defending HRC for the next 8 years from people who swallow every conspiracy theory that's been put out for the past two decades by a news network run by a fat sociopath who demands fellatio from his employees as a condition of appearing on air. (And yes, it will be 8 long years of HRC, not 4, because by 2020 half these idiots will have overdosed on heroin, shot themselves, and been replaced by younger voters who didn't grow up inhaling leaded gasoline exhaust.)

FWIW, a spokesman for the family of this murdered DNC staffer said the following:

The family welcomes any and all information that could lead to the identification of the individuals responsible, and certainly welcomes contributions that could lead to new avenues of investigation. That said, some are attempting to politicize this horrible tragedy, and in their attempts to do so, are actually causing more harm than good and impeding on the ability for law enforcement to properly do their job. For the sake of finding Seth's killer, and for the sake of giving the family the space they need at this terrible time, they are asking for the public to refrain from pushing unproven and harmful theories about Seth's murder.

Good luck with that. The sister of ambassador Chris Stevens has also been asking these people to please STFU already, so naturally she's getting slimed as delusional and complicit.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[Rei]

Assange is just trying to make some fireworks

I love how just recently he was insisting vehemently that he had no idea who the hacker was. ;) Also turned on Snowden the other day, insisting that Snowden's criticism of Wikileaks's curation policy is a betrayal from soneone who "hasn't leaked anything in three years" to try to get a pardon from Obama.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[colinwb]

I've posted in this thread, so I can't moderate this. But it deserves a 5!

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[h33t l4x0r]

Actually, a better way to tell it wasn't Donnie Doucheko, he would be humble-bragging about on Twitter by now.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[drinkypoo]

Either a robbery, or the most idiotic assassin in history.

Get back to us on how idiotic they are when they find the killer.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[dywolf]

Lucky for you, you don't, cause she never did.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[Xyrus]

Does anybody really doubt that this man was assassinated by the DNC/Clintons/etc.? Days after a huge scandal? Double tapped in the back and nothing taken? Does that sound like robbery to you?

No, that sounds like DC to me.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[meta-monkey]

Here's a snopes debunking I just wrote.

What snopes does is create straw men of the claims they're debunking and then declare them false.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[meta-monkey]

But the DNC knew about the leaks at latest back in mid-June. So there's no time travel required.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[PortHaven]

Snopes is not a reliable source for political based issues.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[number6x]

Chicago isn't even close to D.C. Chicago doesn't make the top 100 list of most violent cities. D.C. is number 35.

Media accounts of violence in Chicago are reported with a kind of frenzy that is out of phase with the reality. I don't know if it is because the mayor is so despised, or because Barak Obama might be embarrassed by it. Not really sure why Chicago gets so much hate in the national media over violence, murder and shootings when the truth is there are many more violent cities across the US.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[argStyopa]

Curious that snopes already had THREE threads 'debunking' this before there was even a police report publicly released on the facts.

Not to mention, the Snopes article itself is suffused with as much conjecture, speculation, and 'implied guilt by association' as any anti-Clinton hack blog.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[Cro Magnon]

Or maybe Hillary is the Queen of the Lizardfolk, with an effective IQ of 1679.6, who habitually commits perfect crimes and leaks them to her enemies so she can laugh at their inability to prove anything.

Please, give it a rest unless/until someone comes up with some actual evidence.

That's just crazy! There's no way Hilary's IQ is that high!

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[PopeRatzo]

Curious that snopes already had THREE threads 'debunking' this before there was even a police report publicly released on the facts.

The DC police have been forthcoming with the facts as they have become known starting the day after the killing.

Not to mention, the Snopes article itself is suffused with as much conjecture, speculation, and 'implied guilt by association' as any anti-Clinton hack blog.

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that the entire, "Hillary kilt a Seth Rich on this tree" story has been concocted by a far-right conspiracy blogger who's been pushing the (also debunked) "Clinton Body Bags" story which posits that every time Hillary Clinton is off-camera, she's committing at least two or three murders.

And it's not just Snopes that has debunked all this:

http://urbanlegends.about.com/...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

http://www.motherjones.com/pol...

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[shaitand]

Exactly, there is no evidence here to draw solid conclusions on. It's just suspicious, fails the smell test, and the actors involved have a long history of suspicious smell test failing points in their history alongside many serious and proven incidents of wrongdoing they somehow get away with. It doesn't help that the Clintons are in a position to do just this sort of thing and get away with it.

At some point that long trail of proven and suspect actions does reach a critical mass though and it does become reasonable to withdraw the benefit of the doubt, you won't neccessarily be right but you'll have a higher probability of being right than giving the benefit. The corrupt actions of people aren't an ideal roulette spin with each outcome having an equal chance, the historical outcomes have a direct impact on the probability of the next action when all else is equal. He who ignores history is doomed to repeat it, or in this case to allow bad actors to repeat it.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[shaitand]

"And it doesn't sound like something the Clintons would do."

It sounds exactly like something the Clintons would do.

"It does sound like something Putin's men would do."

Oh, I get it, you think there is a substantial difference. We do have better propoganda and spin on our side, I'll give you that.

Russian involvement in getting the message is neither here nor there. The "evidence" for it amounts to no more than I could accomplish with $5 hopping on a vpn service with an exit point in Russia. Actually Russian IPs encoded in files suggests it certainly was not the Russians, they are better at what they do than that, Russia has some of the finest hackers in the world.

The whole Russia thing was a well targeted distraction from the Hillary DNC collusion and corruption, without it people would realize Nixon just tried to listen to DNC officials, Hillary engaged in collusion with results beyond anything Nixon could have ever dreamed of accomplishing with what he gained listening in. She was caught with her hands in the cookie jar and is distracting you by saying it was the Russians who unlocked the door so you could walk in and catch her.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[shaitand]

"Were I to believe it a Democrat inspired political murder, I still wouldn't believe that Hillary would know anything about it, or even have approved of it after the fact."

Because you assume some ethics on her part or because of practical reasons? This does put heat and suspicion on her but nothing that can be proved and nothing that can't be dismissed as "crazy" and gotten away with politically. Hillary wouldn't neccessarily need to know, in fact for plausible deniability this falls under the "you don't want to know, I'll take of it" category.

It doesn't make a lot of sense as retaliation unless there are others who could hurt her who need to be subdued by watching her get away with murder. Actually it makes more sense as a way of stopping the leak in the boat. Rich may well have had far more damaging information he hadn't leaked yet or that hasn't been released yet and therefore might not yet have been leaked.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[shaitand]

"The big problem with all these conspiracy theories is that it only takes one secretly recorded message, or one witness that remains alive, to blow the whole thing wide open. Unless you believe that *everyone* is in on the conspiracy, of course, which makes a great movie plot, but isn't terribly realistic."

That is the old and oft repeated wisdom and yet over and over again massive conspiracies are proven. Remember when the plot of Enemy of the State was just a crazy conspiracy theory that was entertaining to watch? Remember all those nutjobs who actually believed the CIA actually engaged in mind control experiments and had psychic ops divisions? Remember all that crazy talk about discovering cocaine and setting up countries to produce it and then setting up distribution channels among the negros nobody cared about to fund black ops and illegal arms sales? Oh wait, those crazy nutjobs were absolutely right and the people who didn't believe those things were in fact the ignorant saps.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[shaitand]

"If it was a professional hit, I would have expected them to have taken something. Of course maybe they are too clever and that's what they want me to think...."

Or they heard something and chose to bolt. It was DC after all and the Clintons can easily use political pressure to chart the course of the investigation.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[wired_parrot]

Well, it wasn't a robbery since nothing was taken...

In most cases that robberies go wrong and a shot is fired (typically because the victim resists) nothing is taken. This is because the sound of gunshot will attract attention very quickly. And for a robber, lingering around a homicide is far more dangerous than lingering around the scene of a robbery.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[shaitand]

"So one motive down, dozens of other possible motives remain and professional assassin is not high in statistical probability."

Not high in probability for shootings in general or for shootings of people known by the presumptive next President to be leaking damaging information about them and likely to have more damaging information that may not yet have been leaked?

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[david_thornley]

If you check, you'll find that Bill Clinton was held accountable for things related to his being a jerk to Paula Jones. You'll also find that the FBI director was distinctly not happy with Hillary's handling of her email, and statements relating to it, but it didn't warrant criminal prosecution (and nobody's come up with an example of criminal prosecution for anyone else doing similar things). If you're referring to the endless Benghazi hearings, it seems to me that if she did do something wrong they almost certainly would have caught her at it.

Very simply, people have been throwing baseless accusations at the Clintons for a long time, and it's easy to not be held accountable for something you didn't do and which there's no good evidence you did.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[david_thornley]

Regrettably, Clinton could only allocate security Congress authorized money for, and Congress cut her security budget over her objections. She was dealing with insufficient resources, and couldn't have sufficient security everywhere. It would appear that Congress was evil for refusing to beef up State Department security overall.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[shaitand]

Indeed, unfortunately the numbers still don't work out. Not just the raw number of suicides (even assuming the Clintons are eliminating problems most of that list likely had nothing to do with them), the number of closely connected suicides with extremely unusual and improbable circumstances like shot in the back, in the back of the head, with multiple guns, three times in the chest, etc is far far beyond what is reasonably within probability even with a sample size of thousands of associations.

Re: Does anybody really doubt it

[david_thornley]

Sure, Trump would have something to gain by killing him. He could tell the stupid people he appeals to that Clinton had the guy killed.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[david_thornley]

Sure, since each of Trump, Sanders, Johnson, and Stein has been President of the US, a governor, and been politically active for decades? Who up-moderated you?

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[david_thornley]

The scandal mongers are assiduous and single-minded. The presence of scandal says precisely nothing about whether it's true. The lack of evidence of wrongdoing suggests that the scandal mongers are pulling scandals out of their own asses.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[shaitand]

There is someone there is reasonable cause to believe had strong motive and no other promising leads. Not investigating that as your primary lead until or unless something else is uncovered is neglegence. Of course there is little enough to go on that someone with strong political power in DC and who has already proven to have enough power to beat a federal investigation when enough evidence has been disclosed publically to warrant federal charges has little reason to worry about an investigator doing due dillegence and even with enough heat put on the investigation there won't be anything more than a minimal token investigation so they can say they did it.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[shaitand]

It's unlikely to just be retaliation, either there were others who would have enough reason to suspect what happened to be feared into silence or there was reason to believe this guy knew more than has been leaked so far.

Re: Does anybody really doubt it

[Tablizer]

I want real information, not your personal opinion.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[DRJlaw]

But the DNC knew about the leaks at latest back in mid-June. So there's no time travel required.

Tell me, which Russian hacker group was Seth Rich a part of? All you've shown in that there were multiple, perfectly plausible outside sources for the leaks. How does that tie to a staffer and a need to eliminate him?

Are you suggesting that ClouldStrike identified him to the DNC as a leaker but, despite being very publicly associated with the intrusion forensics, haven't gone to the authorities with that fact?

To believe this, you have to believe that a political organization that can't help but leak information, and a forensics company that should be running for the hills (to a Congressional committee), have the discipline and information security practices in place to keep this quiet. And, by the way, have completely excluded Bernie supporters from the circle of those "in the know."

Righhhhhhhhhhht...

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[meta-monkey]

In your comment you seemed to be making the case that Rich's death couldn't be related to the leak/hack because his death occurred before WikiLeaks made the emails public. All I'm saying is that's irrelevant, because they knew about the breach at least three weeks before the death. Is that not true? There is no rule that one must wait for a betrayal to do public damage before one punishes the betrayer.

As for the rest, I don't know. We have two competing narratives.

1. Russian hackers stole the emails and gave them to WikiLeaks.

2. A DNC staffer, possibly Seth Rich, leaked the emails to WikiLeaks.

There's also (3), the possibility that both things happened.

Assange is clearly trying to hint that it was a leak, from a DNC staffer. This is more in keeping with his M.O., as it's WikiLeaks that deals with documents leaked by whistleblowers and not WikiHacks, that deals with documents stolen by hackers. Has WikiLeaks ever published hacked, rather than leaked documents?

Assuming it isn't option 3, then somebody's lying. Either Assange is misleading us about there being a leaker, or the DNC/CloudStrike is lying about there being Russian hackers.

I'm not sure what Assange's motivation for lying would be. He could just shrug and say "we don't talk about sources." I don't know what he gains by deflecting attention from the Russians.

The DNC's motivation for lying is obvious: for PR purposes, which story would you rather have out, that your organization is so corrupt that a disgusted staffer leaked your dirty laundry, or that you're the victim of hostile foreign government criminal activity that you can try to tie your political opponent to?

I don't know what the truth is, but somebody's lying. Either the DNC's lying, or Assange is lying. Which do you think it is and why?

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[PopeRatzo]

Snopes is for debunking nigerian spam emails or fraudulent fundraising chain emails, not for investigating murders.

Snopes isn't investigating a murder. It's investigating a conspiracy theory.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[LynnwoodRooster]

Many of these tax increases will hit middle class families. The vast majority of the middle class has investments and retirement accounts which will be hit with her taxes. And she promising to raise taxes on businesses - and small businesses would be included which are overwhelmingly middle class owned.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[LynnwoodRooster]

Her statements say otherwise. She's all-in on over $1 trillion in new taxes that will also hit the middle class. Heck, who do you think will get hit with her support of a carbon tax - just "the rich"?

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[bongey]

You mean like the Vietnamese hit squads running around the US, the CIA officers killed around the world and all assassinations carried out by Israeli , none of which have any direct proof ? You are truly an idiot if you don't think a professional hit squad cannot carry out a murder and never get caught. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... (were is all the documentation for the blank starts) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[geminidomino]

Not sure where you got the "back of the head" from - the post you're responding to never used the word "head" anywhere - he did use "heart" though, which can theoretically be reached through the part of the body commonly referred to as "the back."

It doesn't lend your criticism of his logic a lot of credibility when you fumble your own counters so badly.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[geminidomino]

Would you mind giving me some examples, please?

NB: My asking isn't about Clinton or Trump, it's about being a fan of Snopes and wondering if there's a reason I should reassess that position.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[Black Parrot]

You do realize it is really hard to prove criminal activity against a criminal organization that habitually kills informants...

You do realize it is really easy to "prove" anything you want if you're allowed to make up whatever unevidenced "facts" you want.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[shaitand]

Myself and a group of other minors were arrested one night we were hanging out in my storage compartment at an apartment complex with beer. One guy had an unlit joint. Someone heard us laughing in there and called the cops.

The officer knocked and when we didn't answer he barged in, illegally as he had no probable cause. Another officer searched us while the first officer searched the storage room. They found the joint and beer (both through illegal search and seizure). They then took us to the station and questioned all of us without our guardian or attorney present. When we asked for the same they advised we were minors and couldn't assert our rights and said we'd better answer their questions or they would charge us for interferring with their investigation. We were eventually all released that night. Later in the court phase they decided to charge the oldest of us as an adult (something put on the books for extreme cases like minors who commit multiple murder). Everyone else they pinned a single charge on with light penalties. The public defender was common to all of us and arranged it as one big deal based on the information we had told in confidence to her about the details of the night and what belonged to each of us. She asserted we were guilty of the assorted charges and thus couldn't fight them even though we could beat the charges. If my mother backed me up she said she would have the court move to make me a ward of the court with herself as guardian. The older boy who was charged as an adult for six counts of contributing to the deliquency of a minor (one each for marijuana and alchohol for each of us) went to the county jail where he was sexually abused. He can't get a decent job and is psychologically traumatized to this day.

Police misconduct, prosecutorial misconduct, severe ethics violations on the part of my attorney. These are all very serious and severe things, a handful of teenagers closeted up and giggling in a safe room with some beer and reefer not so much.

In another instance I was in the arcade room at a bowling alley with a friend (maybe 13-14). The owner came in and didn't like the look of one of them thinking he was on a list of people who'd been told not to come back and went off to check the name leaving his father behind. He said he was just playing pool and not hurting anyone. The guy snarled and said something about daring to have an attitude with him, slammed him against the wall with an armbar to the throat choking him. Seeing my friend being assaulted I shoved the man off him and said we are leaving and started to walk away. I got to within a few feet of the exit when he tackled me from behind, I went down and cracked my head on the molding where the floor met the wall. He twisted my arm into an arm lock and sent someone to call the police who arrived within a couple minutes.

The cops walked in to see me on the ground angled toward the door, my head bleeding, and the man had me on the ground in the same position except the old man and the son traded places. My "friend" said he hadn't seen anything, denied being assaulted and he said the older owner had gone to check his list then I walked out and he saw me on the floor just like the cops found me. The owners claimed they asked me to leave and I refused. I was arrested for criminal trespassing and the owner was not arrested for anything. Turns out the police have their league games and practice at that bowling alley and the old man (60-70) was a retired cop who plays as part of the league. The moves he used are police training and are designed to over power and hold someone who is stronger/bigger but honestly I was an early teen and the man spends his days handling and throwing bowling balls.

The police report claimed the officer had seen their list and identified his own initials by my name on an earlier entry. It indicated nothing about my "friend" and that I was injured struggling and trying to get away from him. The same public defender, the same refusal to present any defense.

The deal the

Re: Does anybody really doubt it

[shaitand]

"My prediction: No matter what is reported, fevered minds will claim it fits into their conspiracy."

And dense ones will believe what they are told. Have you ever considered the possibility that most things fit into the conspiracies or clarify them because pretty much everyone is negligent, lazy, and/or shady so if you work from that assumption you are right the vast majority of the time?

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[Tablizer]

That's rather indirect. And exceptions are typically put in place for retirement accounts that don't apply to "regular" investors.

And, if capital gains were taxed as regular income, which they should be in my opinion, the tax rate would apply when you "cash in" such that it wouldn't hit retirees very hard because they are usually not getting a steady paycheck. They'll usually be in a low or non-existent tax bracket at that point.

What's an example of her proposed increases that would significantly impact small businesses?

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[LynnwoodRooster]

Here you go. She also wants to stop you from contributing to your 401K or IRAs if they have "too much money" inside them. In other words, if you've been putting away a lot for your retirement, you're going to lose the ability to do so...

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[PMuse]

Well, it wasn't a robbery since nothing was taken...

A. I would expect a robber to be motivated to take the wallet, especially the cash.
B. I would expect a political assassin to be motivated to fake a robbery by taking the cash and/or the wallet, so as to throw off suspicion.

Here, 'nothing' was taken. So, was it an unsuccessful robber or an unsuccessful assassin?

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[Tablizer]

The impact on truly middle class will be small or nothing. Some may affect upper middle class, but her primary tax target is the wealthy.

Anti-tax websites exaggerate or lie about the impact on the middle.

Re:Does anybody really doubt it

[sacrilicious]

I disagree.

Wikileaks is "rogue"...??

[Anonymous Coward]

Says who, exactly??? (Please be precise)

Re:Wikileaks is "rogue"...??

[Anonymous Coward]

People who dislike its content. Probably specifically in the sense that it "shouldn't" be published from a political standpoint.

Add it to the pile. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

The list of dead that one finds in the wake of the Clintons is as long as the number of people who have been ripped off by Trump. Vote independent or seal your fate. Greater good > lesser evil.

Hillary! and guns?

[LynnwoodRooster]

Hillary Clinton, before she was nominated in her run for president, evoked his name during a speech in which she advocated for limiting the availability of guns

When guns are outlawed, only Clinton "persuaders" will have guns. So you better vote correctly or else...

Re:Hillary! and guns?

[Stenchwarrior]

That's an awful lot of adjectives...you sure they mean what you think they mean? I fail to see how trying to shed some rationality on a comment that was anything but, warranted such a response...but alrighty.

Re:Hillary! and guns?

[Nikkos]

"“I know we are a smart enough nation to figure out how you protect responsible gun owners' rights and get guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them,” Mrs. Clinton replied."

Except that if that were true, then Clinton and the left wouldn't be constantly trying to ban a class of scary-looking rifles that are used in less murders than knives or even fists. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-t...

Compare 'rifles' to knives, blunt objects, or fists.

Re:Hillary! and guns?

[Stenchwarrior]

I actually agree with that. I'm a gun enthusiast with 16 years of military service and I have no interest in seeing assault rifles, nor any other type of gun, taken away "just because". But I see very little from her on specific gun types and more on making sure only responsible, mentally healthy people can have access to them. I fail to see how that's unreasonable...

Re: Hillary! and guns?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the crux problem, you chuckle fuck. They believe nobody outside of the elite (who can afford body guards to carry guns for them) should have guns. This is a pillar of the Democratic platform. If they could ban guns they would do it. Full stop. As it is, they're (the political elite on either side) content with whittling ALL of our rights down, in a long term war of attrition.

Of course, you're either being an astutely disingenuous shill and already know this, or your knowledge is incredibly ill-informed.

Re:Hillary! and guns?

[ChrisMaple]

It's unreasonable for two reasons. The first is that for Democrats, any Republican isn't mentally healthy and therefor shouldn't own a gun. The second is that no restriction will ever be enough; having passed one gun ownership restriction law, they'll demand a stricter one, and then another, and then another - until the only people allowed to legally use guns will be their enforcers.

Re:Hillary! and guns?

[dywolf]

who the f mods this trash insightful?

Re:Hillary! and guns?

[Stenchwarrior]

All you're presenting to me are false generalizations and opinions blown out of proportion; they have no basis in reality. Show me where ANY Democrat, let alone HRC, has said they think no Republicans should be allowed to own guns.

Re: Hillary! and guns?

[Stenchwarrior]

More false generalizations. For having such a strong opinion as to what it is "they" want, then you should have no problem citing sources that suggest any Democrat wants to take guns away from responsible citizens who are able to pass a background check.

So, please, inform me correctly if you can.

Re:Hillary! and guns?

[LynnwoodRooster]

Hillary! has explicitly stated the USSC is wrong about the 2nd Amendment. Would that be the DC v Heller decision that says the 2A guarantees a person the right to defend themselves? Or the Chicago v. Miller that says the right is incorporated to the people? Either way, her own words say she believes the 2A should be dramatically scaled back (never mind the most restrictive places tend to have the highest gun murder rates).

Or perhaps...

[Anonymous Coward]

The suspected foreign government who hacked the systems covered their tracks... If you really want to dream up a conspiracy theory that one is much more plausible. Just sayin'

Um

[Ryanrule]

Leak is not a hack mr Russian shill

No way!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just another totally random coincidence that everybody who knows anything about the Clintons ends up dead!
TOTAL. COINCIDENCE.
Besides, the police have already declared that it was a robbery even though the man's keys and wallet weren't taken. Case closed!

Re:No way!

[Tablizer]

another totally random coincidence that everybody who knows anything about the Clintons ends up dead!

I challenge you to show statistically that such deaths are higher than average (rather than people with over-active imaginations connecting dots simply because they have a pen and nothing else to do in mom's basement except watch Fox News).

Re:No way!

[jratcliffe]

Amen. People in politics tend to skew white, male, and middle-aged. Middle-aged white men are also the most likely to commit suicide.

Clinton_body_count++

[liquid_schwartz]

In the 90's people who make excuses for the Clintons [I'm looking at you Snopes] suggested that anyone who knows so many people is bound to have some with questionable suicides. However I don't recall a similar list appearing either during the Bush II or Obama years. Just the Clintons. I guess we'll add that to the long list of amazing coincidences that continually surround the Clintons. For those too young to remember what I'm talking about, there is a long list of Clinton associates dying under questionable circumstances. The most notable was probably Vince Foster but there were others.

Re:Clinton_body_count++

[hondo77]

Bill Clinton couldn't keep his bj with an intern secret but you want us to believe he's kept his involvement in the murder of dozens of people a secret. Because you're a moron.

Re:Clinton_body_count++

[Tablizer]

However I don't recall a similar list appearing either during the Bush II years... [just a] long list of Clinton associates dying under questionable circumstances ...

I'd like to think it was a mere coincidence that a million people died in Iraq rather than from "revelations" about WMD's delivered by Bathroom Jesus to the Great Painter of Poodles and Feet.

Re:Clinton_body_count++

[Darinbob]

There were suicides during Dubya and Obama years by government workers, party staffers, what not. Thousands and thousands of people end up being indirectly attached to any presidency. With roughly 25 suicides per 100,000 people, of course there will be a lot of them that could be tied to Dubya or Obama. You could make a similar list, there will easily have been enough suicides of the relevant type of person. Except that this is the Clinton's schtick with the conspiracy theorists, so they go with different conspiracies with those presidents, so no one is making such a list.

But no one can ever make a conspiracy theorist change their minds. Not worth it to even try. The goal is to prevent more idiots from being sucked into their elaborate fantasy world. There's enough reality to criticize politicians about without making up shit.

Re:Clinton_body_count++

[Kohath]

What secret? Scroll up. Several lists have been posted. How is it a secret if it gets posted over and over? How is it a secret when millions of people will say "yeah, they totally murdered those people"?

Is Juanita Broddrick's story of Bill Clinton raping her a secret?

Personally, I'd say the Clintons are totally innocent of more than half of the crimes people have accused them of.

It will be interesting to hear the next 4.5 years of denials and excuses for incident after incident as this stuff (and worse) continues to coincidentally happen to Clinton associates. Most of the incidents will continue to be "secret".

Re:Clinton_body_count++

[Kohath]

Monica's bj would be a "secret" too, except she kept her stained dress and DNA tests exist. Otherwise she would be just another person on one of the various lists.

Re:Clinton_body_count++

[ChrisMaple]

Bill Clinton has claimed to have had sex with 2,000 women. That number is too high to have them all killed - besides, people like Clinton think that f**king around isn't a bad thing, so they're unlikely to think a risk of publcity is a problem.

The Clinton Crime Family reserves murder for serious threats.

Re:Clinton_body_count++

[quantaman]

In the 90's people who make excuses for the Clintons [I'm looking at you Snopes] suggested that anyone who knows so many people is bound to have some with questionable suicides. However I don't recall a similar list appearing either during the Bush II or Obama years. Just the Clintons. I guess we'll add that to the long list of amazing coincidences that continually surround the Clintons. For those too young to remember what I'm talking about, there is a long list of Clinton associates dying under questionable circumstances. The most notable was probably Vince Foster but there were others.

What about all the rumours that Bush was involved with 9/11?

What about the claims that Obama is a Muslim/Atheist/Keynan/lizard person sent to devour your soul?

Crazy rumours surrounding Presidents are completely normal, you just go fishing until you find a fact that seems unusual and away you go.

Re:Clinton_body_count++

[Ogive17]

Have you ever learned a brand new word then by coincidence you start hearing that word on a weekly basis? Truth is you have always heard that word you're just now paying attention to it.

I see this as something similar. The focus is on the Clintons because of what has happened in the past. Maybe there are some links, maybe there are no links (I honestly don't give a shit, never been a fan of the Clintons). Everything looks suspicious because everyone is paying attention now.

The truth is always somewhere in the middle. 50 people killed to protect the Clinton secrets? That's laughable. Did a couple people fall on the sword for the Clintons? Probably... maybe these people actually did commit crimes and the guilt took over. Clintons probably have no souls so they don't feel guilt.

Re:Clinton_body_count++

[RealMountaineer]

The Clintons have many, many secrets ... we're just getting started

Re:Clinton_body_count++

[hondo77]

How is it a secret if it gets posted over and over?

A bunch of basement-dwellers posting conspiracy theories is nothing. Out of those dozens of murders on those lists, surely one indictment would come out of them unless the lists, and those who believe in them, are morons, yes? Oh, that's right. I forgot that the Clintons have gotten to all law enforcement agencies in the country, because they just love them liberals. Moron.

Re:Debunked ???

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it funny that Snopes managed to debunk this particular murder before a police report was available? In other words, Snopes says in effect that the allegations can't be true even though the facts haven't been established. Isn't that the opposite of proving something?

People who were associated with...

[Camel Pilot]

I wonder if you take some random individual (especially someone whose profession is to interact with people and groups of people) and map all the people they were ever associated with and find a.... gasp!.... number of individuals who met with an untimely demise.

Re:People who were associated with...

[radarskiy]

Must we allow Kevin Bacon to murder again?

Re:People who were associated with...

[ZipK]

Must we allow Kevin Bacon to murder again?

Rimshot!

Russians really hate Hillary

[im_thatoneguy]

Wow, so many Russian troll farm posters around these parts with silly conspiracy theories. Putin must really really hate Hillary Clinton.

Re:Russians really hate Hillary

[elrous0]

Everything's a crazy conspiracy theory until it comes out decades later in declassified documents that it was true. I remember back in the 80's when charges that the CIA was helping South American drug lords import shit-tons of cocaine into the U.S. was just a crazy conspiracy theory too.

I'm far from a tinfoil hat wearing kook. But the fact that this guy was murdered in a decent neighborhood just weeks after he leaked a bunch of sensitive documents about major political figures, by a "robber" who didn't even bother to take his cellphone or wallet, seems more than a little suspicious to me. It strains belief that it was all just a coincidence.

Make no mistake, Edward Snowden would have met the same fate if he hadn't been smart enough to get the fuck out of the country.

Re:Russians really hate Hillary

[ChrisMaple]

Putin regards Clinton as a useful idiot, just as USSR leaders considered US leftists useful idiots for decades.

Re:Russians really hate Hillary

[rtb61]

Now for a slice of reality, the Russian government does not care which one is elected, Trump or Clinton, as they are empty figure heads and the power is with those that control major US multinational corporations, political plants in the CIA/NSA/DOD as well as other government agencies. You really think the Russian intelligence services are as stupid as the typical American voter and believes the elections in America have any real input into the purposeful mismanagement of the country (seriously they are purposefully bankrupting it so they can pillage it in the process, first cities, then states and finally the entire country, mass greed driven idiocy). Seriously this fucked up McCarthyist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism) troll of those opposed to Hillary Clinton must be paid Russian agents, is sickening. So they purged the democrat rolls of Bernie Sanders supporters, what's next purging the country of those opposed to Hillary Clinton because they must be agents of foreign countries (technically I am bwa ha ha), you can really, really see the goldwater gal in these tactics. (admittedly the American voter did get close to controlling their elections with Bernie Sanders and could even nail it, if they can get a Libertarian or Green candidate to wrest control of their politics from the corporations).

The HRC campaign now looks exactly like a Republican campaign, absolutely no difference from previous Republican campaigns, seriously, looks nothing at all like a Democrat campaign from the seventies, prior to the corruption of the Clintons and their corporate supporters, a steaming pile of bullshit. One truly laughable complaint by Clinton against Trump, critiquing Trump for inciting violence, seriously WTF?, is she jealous, the person who purposefully incited violence across the globe killing tens of thousands, concerned Trump is cutting in on her territory with his amateur attempts at inciting violence, when she is a true professional at mass incitement of violence enough to trigger actual wars (yep a true progressive Liberal warrior, uh huh, just like Uncle Tom Obama). HRC now going after international what communist Russian paid agents, what the fuck next, how can they twist Bernie Bros to attack Dr Jill Stein.

Re:Russians really hate Hillary

[MillionthMonkey]

Now for a slice of reality, the Russian government does not care which one is elected, Trump or Clinton, as they are empty figure heads

I don't think you realize how serious this election is. Putin regards the breakup of the Soviet Union as a great tragedy. Only one of those candidates is implying that Russia can invade former USSR states like Estonia unless they cough up money they don't have.

So they purged the democrat rolls of Bernie Sanders supporters

I had no problem when I went to vote for Sanders. Nobody I knew who voted for Sanders (lots of people) was "purged" from the "democrat rolls". And when I eagerly rifled through that DNC dump looking for dirt on Hillary, I came up empty.

One truly laughable complaint by Clinton against Trump, critiquing Trump for inciting violence, seriously WTF?

Yeah, WTF is right... Trump wasn't calling for assassination, just "armed revolt"!

Re:Russians really hate Hillary

[bytesex]

Iran-Contra. That stuff's like, on drugs man. And perpetrated by the most powerful man in the world.

Re:Russians really hate Hillary

[Anonymous Coward]

And of course, the American troll farm posters who are here to discredit anyone who implies otherwise by shaming them with labels and stereotypes instead of addressing their points.

Slashdot: News for spies, stuff that's classified

Re:Russians really hate Hillary

[quenda]

You really think the Russian intelligence services are as stupid as the typical American voter and believes the elections in America have any real input into the purposeful mismanagement of the country

Its not about being stupid. Even Obama seems to have gone into office genuinely believing he could "make a difference". 7 years later, GTMO is still going and Obama is presumably wiser.

Re:Russians really hate Hillary

[Boronx]

Clinton is part of a bi-partisan movement to squeeze Putin hard. I personally think adding the Baltics to Nato and trying to flip Ukraine is going too far, but Clinton is probably gung ho about all of that. Putin would love to see her go down.

Re:Russians really hate Hillary

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with you that it's suspicious but I think the problem here is the suggestion that it must be because Hillary has some kind of kill squad and gave the order or some such. It's that that seems to be straying into the realm of nonsense for no other reason that to play partisan politics over the issue.

It's more likely in my mind that someone working alongside this guy was a zealot for the cause and took the issue into their own hands, entirely without any kind of knowledge or support of Hillary. We've seen how politics can breed extremists, and it's not exactly news that Democrats and Republicans alike have their own fair share of them.

It's like claiming Gabrielle Giffords was shot at the behest of John McCain or something. Nutjobs are more than capable of doing atrocious things without needing to act as a puppet to people like Hillary Clinton. It doesn't need a conspiracy theory, and in fact, it shouldn't have one unless someone can actually prove Hillary was associated to the crime, otherwise any further suggestion is as meaningful as saying it was the will of jesus and the guy was gunned down by holy bullets that morphed from the mere atoms of the air behind him in order to kill him.

It's meaningless to say because people who have known her have died that they've died at her behest, 7 people that knew me have died and I suspect I'm associated to orders of magnitude less people than Hillary, but unfortunately that's what happens to people as they get older and the 7th one was someone I knew at school who thought 120mph in a 30mph zone was somehow a good idea. Turns out it wasn't.

Re:Russians really hate Hillary

[shutdown -p now]

You wanna have some fun, run this through Google Translate:

http://www.mk.ru/politics/2016...

Re:Russians really hate Hillary

[thegarbz]

Why blame the Russians? The Americans have their own flavour of batshit crazy. At least the Russians know they are being watched.

Re:Russians really hate Hillary

[AmiMoJo]

To be fair, I don't think many people would have said Obamacare was possible 8 years ago. He has made some pretty big changes.

Re:Russians really hate Hillary

[dwpro]

And likely there would be armed revolt if the government were to abolish the 2nd amendment, that's not an incitement so much as stating a fact.

Also, if you think Hillary is going to put dirt in an email you severely underestimate the woman.

Re:Russians really hate Hillary

[dywolf]

he just wants ensure his easily manipulated and controlled puppet wins in November.

Re:Russians really hate Hillary

[Bob the Super Hamste]

It isn't just Putin who hates her but then I also hate Trump as well and think that the both of them should be liquefied and spread across farm fields as that much bull shit would fertilize the entire nation.

Re:Russians really hate Hillary

[Anonymous Coward]

The DNC rigging the Dem primary against Sanders was also a crazy conspiracy theory.

Re:Russians really hate Hillary

[Xyrus]

Everything's a crazy conspiracy theory until it comes out decades later in declassified documents that it was true. I remember back in the 80's when charges that the CIA was helping South American drug lords import shit-tons of cocaine into the U.S. was just a crazy conspiracy theory too.

I'm far from a tinfoil hat wearing kook. But the fact that this guy was murdered in a decent neighborhood just weeks after he leaked a bunch of sensitive documents about major political figures, by a "robber" who didn't even bother to take his cellphone or wallet, seems more than a little suspicious to me. It strains belief that it was all just a coincidence.

Make no mistake, Edward Snowden would have met the same fate if he hadn't been smart enough to get the fuck out of the country.

Has the bar for crazy really dropped so low? So let me get this straight. Someone gets murdered in DC, and it's suddenly Clinton's fault?

Let me clue you in. You clearly don't live in this area. There are no "nice" areas that will prevent you from getting shot. Last week we had a case where four people jumped an old lady, shot her in the arm, then stole her shoes. Not her purse. Not her money. Just her shoes.

But clearly it was Trump trying to send a message, right? I mean, she was a black lady and had a pro Hillary sign on her property. #dumbassconspiracy

Re:Russians really hate Hillary

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Putin would love to see her go down.

So would Bill.

Re:Russians really hate Hillary

[meta-monkey]

Is there a single shred of evidence Russian trolls are shilling pro-Trump/anti-Hillary messages? One guy said some old accounts he suspected of being Putin trolls were putting out pro-Trump stuff, but he provided no evidence, no account names, no information on the numbers of accounts or posts, where they were operating, not even a screenshot. It's almost like it was an "accuse the opposition of doing what you're doing" disinfo tactic, since Hillary actually does have an army of shills operating under the name Correct the Record.

Re:Russians really hate Hillary

[meta-monkey]

I remember back in the 80's when charges that the CIA was helping South American drug lords import shit-tons of cocaine into the U.S. was just a crazy conspiracy theory too.

Same thing with government mind control experiments and spying on all your phone calls and email. Oh wait, MKULTRA and PRISM...

These days it seems like the list of crazy conspiracy theories that haven't been proven true is shorter than the list of ones that have...

Re:Russians really hate Hillary

[quenda]

If you believe Obama was ever being genuine you must think Hillary is too.

Why? There is a big gap in your logic there. But I'm sure Hilary was once young and idealistic. Most people were before they became old and jaded.
Its just that in Obama's case we got to see it happening.

Re:Russians really hate Hillary

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you just hashtag a Slashdot post?

I revoke your geek card. Now begone from our sight! Go to the normal people you love so fucking much.

Re:Russians really hate Hillary

[hey!]

Except the ones that turn out to be crazy conspiracy theories... like all the people the Clintons supposedly murdered. Nobody can prove that the Bush Justice Department wasn't in on the coverup -- which of course it would have to be.

We live in the era when people feel entitled to their own facts if their feelings tell them those things are true. Once an attention-whore like Assange achieves notoriety he can dine out for the rest of his life on bullshit.

Re:Russians really hate Hillary

[shaitand]

Most aren't convicting here, just pointing out it smells funny. Especially given that what was leaked put to bed any doubt as to whether or not Hillary Clinton was engaged in collusion and conspiracy to try to rig the election. Seriously, Nixon just tried to wiretap these people, Clinton had them engaged in active collusion against her competition in a race that was running about 50/50. Her media insiders ignoring the numbers and saying over and over again that it was over and there was no chance. I actually sat and watched an interview on CNN where they told Sanders campaign manager they were going to announce Hillary Clinton as the victor before the vote in California... a state with enough delegates to have turned the outcome and ask if they are going to have a problem with that. Across the country diebold voting systems tallies were extremely disconnected from exit polls and the dnc worked to actively disenfranchise voters and succeeded to the tune of blocking millions of votes. To top it off the DNC actively funneled contributions to the DNC directly into Hillaries coffers.

Bottom line, no further evidence is needed to know she is very very dirty. As for crazy, when Enemy of the State came out that was crazy too. Most of it has turned out to be pretty much on point.

Re:Russians really hate Hillary

[shaitand]

"To be fair, I don't think many people would have said Obamacare was possible 8 years ago."

You say that like it's a good thing. Obamacare has funneled billions of dollars to insurance companies both from individuals and tax funds to require health insurance for people who can't actually afford to use it and the insurance companies have spun it around claiming the new requirements which are making them boatloads of cash mean they have to raise rates for everyone.

My former employer provided 100% company paid health insurance. It was a great idea and a great benefit. When the CEO found out one of our staff was going to the VA for care he was baffled. I explained to him that for most people insurance takes a $50,000 bill and turns it into a $10,000 bill, which is a huge reduction but we don't have $10,000.

Re:Russians really hate Hillary

[micahraleigh]

All of these mysterious deaths of DNC officials right when the leak happens and over 40 mysterious deaths of people close to the Clintons, and you feel like the unidentified murderers need to be defended?

Are you a lawyer or what exactly?

Re:Russians really hate Hillary

[david_thornley]

What evidence I can find shows that Putin considers Trump a useful idiot, and is possibly intervening in the election to try to defeat Clinton. The evidence isn't all that convincing, but there really is no evidence that Putin considers Clinton useful.

Re:Russians really hate Hillary

[Radiophobic]

Has the bar for crazy really dropped so low?

Have you been watching the election coverage? It has been lowered right about to the point where wingnuts are considered normal. I really miss the days when the worst thing you could say about conservatives was that they are boring and greedy.

Re:Russians really hate Hillary

[david_thornley]

There's no evidence that Clinton is interested in abolishing the 2nd, which has been trashed by previous administrations (most notably, I think, the Reagan administration).

Apparently, if you find nothing wrong in Clinton's emails, that's because Clinton is too smart to put wrongdoing in an email, and that's evidence that she's doing wrong?

Re:Russians really hate Hillary

[david_thornley]

Obama made quite a few differences. He has made health insurance much more available, and health care much more affordable, in general. He has reduced the deficit massively, and the US economy is in quite good shape. You're picking one specific issue that Congress absolutely refused to let him fix. Although I don't agree with him on everything (particularly the TPP), he's generally done a good job.

Re:Russians really hate Hillary

[Ol Olsoc]

Everything's a crazy conspiracy theory until it comes out decades later in declassified documents that it was true.

Wow! a +5 insightful for a person who just said every single conspiracy theory is 100 percent true.

The kooks have taken over slashdot!

Now quickly, an intruder, Mod me down to -1 Troll.

Re:Russians really hate Hillary

[Ol Olsoc]

Iran-Contra. That stuff's like, on drugs man. And perpetrated by the most powerful man in the world.

Hillary? That's the amazing thing about the Clintons. They can spread their corruption long before they were even in power. Almost like one presidential candidate's blaming the current occupant for the death of that muslim soldier in Iraq, when he wasn't even in office.

Re:Russians really hate Hillary

[dwpro]

I agree with you that Clinton isn't likely looking to abolish 2nd, though no doubt gun control is something she's spoken about frequently and eviscerated Sanders on his gun control record despite his moderate progressive position. She's definitely not a big 2nd amendment supporter though.

I think there's ample evidence Hillary is doing wrong, but she's a seasoned politician that's been through the ringer and so it'd be quite amateur if she said something damning in email correspondence with DNC.

None of this is mean to be an endorsement of Trump, I'm far removed from either camp.

Re:Russians really hate Hillary

[beastofburdon]

Yea, that's right it was a lone nutjob, over 60 different times, and somehow not a single one of them were ever caught.

Re:Russians really hate Hillary

[Bob the Super Hamste]

You might be right on that one. To be sure I still say we liquefy them and to be sure we safely store them in the nuclear waste casks that can survive a rocket powered train smashing into them.

Re:Russians really hate Hillary

[bongey]

Triple Sheep points for you . The far left wing Russian studies expert Stephen Cohen(professor Princeton,NYU) expert agrees with Trump mostly and completely disassembles your talking points. You are blindly following propaganda of the democratic party , aka the "not biased" media. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
CNN is great at the end "We've had this conversation. Thank you for your time." Code for the person speaking in his earpiece, "abort, abort".

Re:Russians really hate Hillary

[david_thornley]

I haven't seen ample evidence that Hillary is doing seriously wrong things that holds up under examination.

Re:Russians really hate Hillary

[quenda]

He has made health insurance much more available, and health care much more affordable, in general.

It seems to have take a massive chunk of his energies to achieve very modest reforms that should have been easy, but the establishment opposed even the most obvious reforms. Health expenditure is still 17% of GDP.

 

He has reduced the deficit massively,

He has? People are too quick to blame/credit the leader for economic factors. How are the USs major trading partners doing over the same period? What would Clinton or Romney have done any differently? The GFC was many administrations in the making. What financial reforms have been put in place since?

Obama is intelligent, articulate, hard-working and has noble goals. But he is just one guy, and the presidency is not as powerful as we think, at least not for domestic matters. Sure the president can fuck the country up by starting expensive wars, he can block legislation, but sadly he can only do a little to fix things.

Re:Russians really hate Hillary

[shaitand]

Okay, I'll just sit over here and work from the assumption that all else being equal people who have the means and the motive to do a thing and get away with it have a better than 50% chance of being guilty out of the gate and most of the ones who aren't guilty are innocent for bad reasons like failing to recognize they were in that position, fear, etc. You work from the assumption that the world is filled with flowers, candy, rainbows, and people are basically good at their own expense.

By all means, tell yourself that I'm the idiot.

Re:Russians really hate Hillary

[elrous0]

Wow! a +5 insightful for a person who just said every single conspiracy theory is 100 percent true.

Nope not all of them. Just a lot more of them than any of us would like to think.

Re:Russians really hate Hillary

[Uberbah]

Wow! a +5 insightful for a person who just said every single conspiracy theory is 100 percent true.

Straw man. And all you wankers that try to shut down conversation by crying "CT! CT!" should get a room to fully jerk that circle. When a government lies to you, spends billions to spy on you, and is willing to kidnap and torture people to death from around the world.....that government has lost any benefit of the doubt.

Re:Russians really hate Hillary

[Uberbah]

Also, if you think Hillary is going to put dirt in an email you severely underestimate the woman.

The same woman who went on camera, multiple times, to tell a completely bullshit story that her plane had taken sniper fire? The same woman who excoriated the Bush Administration for using private email servers, only to do the same for herself when she became SOS? Hillary is both brazen and incompetent.

Re:Russians really hate Hillary

[Ol Olsoc]

Wow! a +5 insightful for a person who just said every single conspiracy theory is 100 percent true.

Straw man.

You use that term I do not think it means what you think it means.

It sure doesn't mean being wowed when repeating what a person wrote.

But we perhaps get sidetracked.

And all you wankers that try to shut down conversation by crying "CT! CT!" should get a room to fully jerk that circle.

That would not be me. I find conspiracy theories and their adherents to be fascinating, and often quite funny. So please don't stop!

Conspiracy theories and especially their adherents are related to Schizophrenic speech patterns, and the "word salad" that sometimes happens. In the case of schizophrenia, while fascinating, it isn't funny. But paranoids are not psychotic, so we can have fun with ya.

It usually starts out as a cause and effect thing. but instead of gathering evidence and discarding the concept you are working on if the evidence doesn't fit, the paranoid discards evidence that doesn't fit, and bends other evidence to fit the theory. In the end it goes full circular, with blaming the people or system that are supposedly behind the conspiracy, then when confronted and possibly cornered with their half-facts, they resort to the Can't you just see that these people are doing this? Aren't you listening to all I said?

When a government lies to you, spends billions to spy on you, and is willing to kidnap and torture people to death from around the world.....that government has lost any benefit of the doubt.

Aaannnd there you go!

Can't you just see that the government is evil and has done bad things mean that there really is perpetual motion, that we really didn't land on the moon, that the earth's core is doing something wrong, that humans are too stupid to do things, so Ancient aliens! That a man and a woman have managed to murder 50 some people now and the only people standing in their way are conspiracy theorists. That aliens have come to earth to cut out cow's assholes. That the holocaust was faked. The current occupant controls the weather.The earth is flat and Zetetic Astronomy is the real truth.The earth is hollow, Hitler is still going strong at over 125 years old. The moon is a hologram. The government is putting toxic chemicals in jet engine fuel to create chemtrails. Second theory is that the chmtrails are there to use as a projector screen to stage a fake alien invasion in order to declare martial law. Princess Diana was killed by British special forces. Ted Cruz's father was involved in the Kennedy assassination, and a dozen other Kennedy theories, and all must be correct, right? AIDS was created by the CIA to kill gay people. Flight 800 was shot down by the US on purpose. School shootings are faked and never happened, school shootings are faked and were done by the CIA. The "face on Mars" proves that there is life on Mars. George Bush cause Katrina to blunt criticism. The present occupant caused the oil rig disaster in the Gulf of Mexico for the same reason. Vaccines cause autism. Coca-Cola created New Coke purposely to create demand for Coke Classic. All verifiable theories, and there are more.

NO Muchacho! Do not stop. You and your ilk feed my lulz, and I would be truly sad of you all stopped. I want you all to come up with more and more conspiracies, and the wilder the better. Now get back to work!

We know one of two things is true

[radarskiy]

1. Julian Assange will out a source if it will get him press attention, or
2. The dead guy was not the actual source and the DNC would have no motive to take retribution, so Julian Assange will lie about a source if it will get him press attention.

Since when can only the police

[rsilvergun]

present facts?

I grew up in a shit town

[rsilvergun]

and went to a shit school. I know of several people who committed suicide. My brother, who was in a band (read:drugs,sex,rock n roll) knows even more. It's more common than people like to acknowledge (sorta like unwanted children).

But keep pushin' that nonsense. If nothing else it's a great /. troll.

Re:I grew up in a shit town

[Bing Tsher E]

Your anecdotes have no relevance here.

Sex, drugs, rock-n-roll?

Maybe some of those people died from Autoerotic Asphixiation. It's common for the family to ascribe it to suicide when a family member checks out that way.

Re:I grew up in a shit town

[Anonymous Coward]

Did they have incriminating evidence on prominent political figures? Did they leave suicide notes that relatives claimed were obviously forged? Did they shoot themselves twice, with two different guns and leave no prints on the weaponNo? Oh well then, never mind. You might have had a point if they did.

Re:I grew up in a shit town

[liquid_schwartz]

You're either ignoring or missing two points:

1) Why didn't a similar list appear either during the Obama or Bush II years? Or for that matter why not during previous presidents terms?

2) Your friends in the band didn't have dealings with key people who might have wanted information to stay private. Musicians who take drugs are prone to dying early. Professionals with careers not so much.

It hasn't even been truly investigated yet...

[Xenographic]

The Snopes story confirms that he was shot for essentially no reason. We might know more if we had info from his girlfriend or the ambulance team, but nobody has made any public statements. I understand that it's way too early to go around pinning it on somebody, but it's hard to say it's "debunked" when basically no investigation has actually been done yet.

Re:It hasn't even been truly investigated yet...

[PopeRatzo]

but nobody has made any public statements.

The DC police department have made a public statement. They said nothing about the killing indicates any connection to the dead guy's work or political involvement.

Re:It hasn't even been truly investigated yet...

[Darinbob]

True, but you can debunk the allegations that he was on his way to meet with the FBI over testimony against Clinton.

That's how conspiracy theories work. You take a tiny bit of fact, like a news story. Then you tie it to something else with little to no solid links, implying that the two events are related. Because the tiny bit of fact was the origin this causes conspiracy theorists to latch onto it. If the new story has a mysterious part to it, such as "why was this guy killed?" then it's easy to just make up something as present it as a possible solution to the puzzle, such as "Hillary must have done it, it's the sort of thing she's done before." Then mess up the facts, add some exaggeration, misdirect the reader, etc, as in "Top DNC Official Murdered" instead of "DNC staff member killed."

Then of course, it's "whatdoesitmean.com" which is full of the most outrageous and outlandish stories that almost no one could believe (and yet a few people still manage to believe that Obama wanted to nuke Charleston). Even if that web site says that the sky is blue, I'd still look out my window to make sure.

Re:It hasn't even been truly investigated yet...

[Dan East]

True, but you can debunk the allegations that he was on his way to meet with the FBI over testimony against Clinton.

The problem is Snopes did not debunk that. How did Snopes prove he didn't get a fake contact from someone claiming to be the FBI and wanting to talk about what he leaked? According to a third-hand report (his dad said that his girlfriend said that Seth said) that Snopes quotes, he said "he was just about home". He could have just said that meaning he would be home soon. That didn't literally mean he was on his way home. And what was he on the way home from? Maybe meeting with a phantom FBI agent who didn't show, and he was followed and killed when he was at a nice secluded location in a known high-crime area? Snopes hasn't debunked a thing.

Obviously the police know *where* he was. The shots were heard and he was found there. Was that indeed "almost home" relative to where he lived? Was it directly between wherever he left from (did he leave his girlfriend's or do they live together?) and his home? Or was he just out somewhere random? The police know all these things, and have not released that information, and his father didn't provide it either.

Anyone know what Assange's game is?

[rsilvergun]

This isn't whistle blowing anymore. For one thing a whistle blower _never_ reveals a source. Even if they're dead the sources family might be targeted. He's after Hilary. I can't say he doesn't have good reason ( she's part of the administration that arranged the false rape allegations ). I'm just not sure what he'll get out of this. Trump (and more importantly Mike Pence who's going to be the real president) aren't exactly favorable to Assange.

Re:Anyone know what Assange's game is?

[Okian Warrior]

This isn't whistle blowing anymore. For one thing a whistle blower _never_ reveals a source.

Julian didn't reveal the source either, and he stated as much in the interview.

You're listening to what the *press* said Julian said. That's a completely different thing.

(viz: what the press reports that Donald Trump says, versus what he *actually* said.)

Re:Anyone know what Assange's game is?

[ChrisMaple]

This meme about Republican presidents being puppets (Bush of Cheney, Trump of Pence) is old, boring and stupid. The Vice President has almost no power, and Trump would never have chosen someone who could intimidate him.

Re:Anyone know what Assange's game is?

[quantaman]

This isn't whistle blowing anymore. For one thing a whistle blower _never_ reveals a source. Even if they're dead the sources family might be targeted. He's after Hilary. I can't say he doesn't have good reason ( she's part of the administration that arranged the false rape allegations ). I'm just not sure what he'll get out of this. Trump (and more importantly Mike Pence who's going to be the real president) aren't exactly favorable to Assange.

Four possibilities.

a) It makes Assange look that much more cool and badass. It's been pretty obvious since the start that one of Assange's big motives is lots of press time and notoriety for Assange. Being a potential target of assassins makes him look cool and badass.

b) He's a Trumpian and/or hates Hillary. Hard to test but sometimes people are motivated by personal politics.

c) He wants to distract from the fact that the Russian government gave him the leaks.

d) He's tired of living in the Ecuadorian embassy and by attacking Clinton he's hoping the Russians will let him claim asylum with Snowden.

Re:Anyone know what Assange's game is?

[Cro Magnon]

I'm reasonably sure that the Old Bush wasn't a puppet of his VP.

Re:Poor Poor Julian

[Anonymous Coward]

If the Republicans had picked anyone other than the complete basket case they now have to float as their candidate for POTUS, poor Julian might have been able to wreak his terrible revenge for his perceived martyrdom. As it is, nobody is even listening now.

No shit.

The Republican Party is so fucking incompetent that, in the year Democrats nominate the absolute worst possible candidate, they go one better. Actually, one worse.

And they wound up in this pickle because the Republican Party powers-that-be don't stand for ANYTHING other than getting reelected - thus enticing Republican primary voters to pick the most NON "Washington Republican" they could find.

Democrats get control of both the House and the Senate - and they hammer through Obamacare, using every trick in the book to get it done. Democrat voters love that.

Republicans get control of both the House and Senate, and they approve "only half (until next time around!)" of the increased government spending Democrats want. That doesn't go over well with Republican voters. Reverse everything, and Democrats would pass one bill to fund things like welfare, social security, and government pension payments, along with the entire military and intelligence agencies - and also gut Obamacare. Then DARE the President to veto it.

Democrat lawmakers fight for what they and their constituents believe.

Washington Republicans? Not at all. They "play fight".

Re:Debunked

[sexconker]

Snopes would have "debunked" all the stories about the NSA spying on us a few years ago.

Fits with past comments

[AHuxley]

The news about another nation having the skills to get into a computer network, stay undetected, able to remove bulk plain text data but then have details about methods used got discovered was strange.
Why would such a method be caught now with a such weak tool set when every other part of the data extraction was undiscoverable?
The early hint to that was it was not another nation:
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07...
""Perhaps one day the source or sources will step forward and that might be an interesting moment some people may have egg on their faces."
This seems more like a classic Watergate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... insider walk out than any nation with amazing skills to get into a network that then lacked any ability cover its way out of a US network.
Nsa Whistleblower: Agency Has All Of Clinton’s Deleted Emails (31 Jul 2016)
http://www.breitbart.com/jerus...
".... surmised that the hack of the DNC could have been coordinated by someone inside the U.S. intelligence community angry over ..."
" .... directly out of Gamma reporting. "

Third option

[Okian Warrior]

1. Julian Assange will out a source if it will get him press attention, or
2. The dead guy was not the actual source and the DNC would have no motive to take retribution, so Julian Assange will lie about a source if it will get him press attention.

3. If you murder a Wikileaks source, Julian Assange will go after you with everything he's got, releasing the information at the worst possible moment, in the most damaging possible way, and offer rewards for the capture of the murderer.

In other words, it's a message to those who would murder wikileaks informants.

And in other news, Assange has stated that there are more Hillary Clinton revelations to come. The biggest stash yet, he says.

He has stated that he has proof that Clinton had a hand in arming ISIS.

I'm running out of popcorn - need to go out and buy some more!

Re:Third option

[Captain Splendid]

He has stated that he has proof that Clinton had a hand in arming ISIS.

Fuck me, that's a nothingburger. Name me one administration that hasn't sold weapons all over the middle east. This isn't a Hillary or Democrat problem, it's an American problem.

Re:Third option

[Anonymous Coward]

The Trump Administration hasn't.

You are welcome for your answer. Now if we could just convince him to run for president and mention that. lol

Re:Third option

[Bing Tsher E]

So they're the same dirty fuckers as when Bush was president, and we can expect more of the same going onward into the future.

It must be nice to have such a good understanding of who you support politically.

Re:Third option

[Captain Splendid]

I'm not a yank, this is all betting positions for me.

Re:Third option

[meta-monkey]

Yeah but we don't usually know they're terrorists when we're arming them. It's usually more of a "we gave stuff to people fighting a common enemy, and then later they turned around and used it on us" kind of thing.

Plus, shouldn't she have learned from experience? I mean, I can forgive arming the mujaheddin in the 80s who turned into the Taliban in the 90s. That sort of thing hadn't really happened to us before. But by 2012, shouldn't we expect our leaders to know better?

Re:Third option

[Cro Magnon]

The Trump Administration hasn't.

You are welcome for your answer. Now if we could just convince him to run for president and mention that. lol

That only proves that Trump isn't a sharp a businessman as he claims to be. :-P

Re:Third option

[phorm]

Oh, well then we should just let it slide, I suppose.

Re:Third option

[Captain Splendid]

Please don't. Speaking as a non-American, it doesn't matter who's president, your post-WW2 foreign policy is fucking horrible. It's just that singling out one candidate or one party on this is disingenuous at best.

Re:Third option

[Bing Tsher E]

Who you support politically has nothing to do with whether you can vote for them or not. I could be an opponent or proponent of Brexit, even thought I live in the US.

But if it's as craven a matter as what you will bet on, so be it.

Re:Poor Poor Julian

[Bing Tsher E]

Believe me, if the old lady gets elected, you need to be ready for four or, heaven forbid, eight more years of this stuff. The rattle of skeletons in the Clinton closet will not be going away.

The Right Wing sort of thrives in an opposition status. And the anti-Globalism movement isn't going to be tamped back into obedience. Large segments of the Left and the Right can't stand Hillary Clinton and who she represents*.

(*not the American public)

Re:Debunked

[Bing Tsher E]

Sadly, it seems Snopes is squandering away any credibility they once had. One might as well consult a website like Salon.com for factual non-biased information.

Yet more proof Wikileaks is trash.

[JosephDoeden]

He implies something and then won't confirm or deny it? Cmon.. how stupid does he think people are? This is scam artist 101 stuff here. The question is why are there so many supporters still for this guy after he's hyped up sensitive data leaks and made wild overblown speculations.Assange is a for profit tabloid CEO hiding behind a guise of social justice and I'm sure his response is .. I'm just giving the people what they want. Yeah.. sure you are. You're getting rich without having to have a real job, that's what you're doing. Assange has shown multiple times he is not responsible enough to be in the role he is and it makes me think Wikileaks itself is also just some kind of for profit scam. I don't believe anything out of his mouth anymore, before I was just skeptical. Now I know he is a for profit liar.

Re:Debunked?

[Dan East]

Until now, I have always found Snopes a reliable source of information. After having read what they had to say about Seth Rich, I do not understand how they can patently claim a "FALSE" status to this rumor. They offer no evidence at all to the contrary. Their claim that just because he was young, was part of the DNC since just 2014, and "only" developed a system to help voters find voting locations, means that he could not have been the source of the leak or killed to cover it up. If he had access to their systems to some degree, and was a developer capable of implementing a site of this scale for national consumption, then he most certainly could have obtained the emails if that particular server was interconnected in some way to the systems he had access to. That part actually fits to me, because that is where most leaks come from - not from a head honcho (as if the only person capable in Snope's eyes of causing such a leak was the main guy over the DNC email servers themselves). Usually it is someone ancillary on the fringes that has just enough access (or the ability to get the more privileged access relatively easily due to security vulnerabilities) that is responsible for these kinds of leaks. Look at Snowden.

Their arguments are really illogical. For example:

According to Joel Rich, Seth was on the phone with his girlfriend when the shooting started, and Rich indicated to his girlfriend that he was nearly home and not headed out for an FBI meeting implausibly scheduled in the middle of the night on a Saturday:

Rich said Seth was talking to his girlfriend on the phone outside when the incident happened.

“Asked him if he was home yet and he said just about, and then she heard some noise, he said he had to call her back — I don't know when that conversation ended but at 4:18 two shots were fired,” said Rich.

What about that proves he wasn't set up with a fake FBI meeting? Maybe he went to the meeting location, no one was there, and he was going home and was ambushed? And this... "Asked him if he was home yet and he said just about" that doesn't mean he was headed home. He could have simply been reassuring her that he would be home soon, and didn't literally mean he was going home that instant and was just about there.

And then there's the bit where the debunker said "an FBI meeting implausibly scheduled in the middle of the night on a Saturday". What?? If it wasn't a *real* FBI meeting, as the conspiracy theory states, then why not in the middle of the night? Maybe the FBI doesn't really do business in the middle of the night on the weekend (although they probably do), but most people would certainly think cloak and dagger affairs like that do happen at those times. So if he was tricked into meeting, what does that have to do with the plausibility of whether or not the FBI really does meet people at 4 AM on a Saturday? The goal would have been to get him alone so he could be killed without witnesses.

I don't believe this theory is true, and I don't believe it was disproved. However to see Snopes claiming in black and white that it was debunked, with no actual evidence to back it up, has really knocked my respect for them down several notches.

If there's something I missed that they presented as actual evidence that the theory is false, then please tell, because I didn't see it.

Assange Implies It's A Slow News Day

[davmoo]

I see several comments where people ask something like "What's Assange's game plan?" His game plan should be obvious to anyone. His plan is to say anything it takes to get his name in the news so he can somehow dream that he is still relevant and play the martyr.

How Clintonian of you to say the C word.

[sethstorm]

How about not using the tired 20+ year old excuse that has been used by the media to smear people on all matters Clinton?

Besides, there's plenty of motive for the Clintons to signal their usual suspects to take the guy (never mind the rest) out.

Re:Debunked ???

[JThundley]

Isn't it funny that Snopes managed to debunk this particular murder before a police report was available?

They make a good point when they state:

Police reported that Rich was conscious and breathing at the time of the shooting. Had he any information about his murder having been a set-up, he likely would have conveyed such to attending officer before he died of his wounds shortly thereafter.

Taken [Re:Does anybody really doubt it]

[Tablizer]

How can anyone verify "nothing was taken"? The guy whose stuff it was is dead.

Suppose hypothetically Mr. Rich owned a hula-dancer lamp that was his favorite, and the robber took it?

Mr. Rich is no longer around to say, "Hey, where's my favorite hula dancer lamp?"

Re:Taken [Re:Does anybody really doubt it]

[shaitand]

Or a thumb drive with much more serious evidence on it.

Given Snopes' left-leaning bias, that's moot.

[sethstorm]

In addition to the Seth Rich article being written a bit too soon, the Snopes writers have a lot of explaining to do about their own bias.

Re:Given Snopes' left-leaning bias, that's moot.

[david_thornley]

Left-leaning bias? Snopes does their best to be objective, and provides support for what they say. If you want me to believe they've got a significant bias, you can come up with specific examples that I can research. Otherwise, you could as easily be saying that you're unhappy because the world doesn't fit your ideological bias (which, regrettably, is very common with Republicans nowadays).

And doing a pretty good job, too...

[Okian Warrior]

I see several comments where people ask something like "What's Assange's game plan?" His game plan should be obvious to anyone. His plan is to say anything it takes to get his name in the news so he can somehow dream that he is still relevant and play the martyr.

And doing a pretty good job, it seems.

That's the media, not Clinton, Trump, Or Assange

[sethstorm]

Blame the media, which has largely remained in DNC control for decades.

Re:Hello CTR shill.

[Stenchwarrior]

Pray tell, then...exactly what is your basis for jumping on the Clinton hate wagon? Is it because she's a Democrat and you're not? She has opinions you don't agree with? I'm genuinely curious.

The MSM doesn't count.

[sethstorm]

I'm ... going to need a slightly more reputable source to believe it.

Then believe whatever lies that the conventional media feed you on the Clinton matter.

Re:Debunked ???

[EvilSS]

Police reported that Rich was conscious and breathing at the time of the shooting.

Well duh, I imagine most shooting victims are alive and breathing when they are shot!

In all seriousness though, he was shot in the back. He likely didn't know anything about the person who shot him, no matter what their motive was, if they didn't approach him after the shooting to rob him.

So tired of cloak and dagger conspiracy theories

[norweeg]

couldn't possibly be Assange's grudge and potential motive to cozy up with Russia for some sweet, sweet, Snoden-style asylum motivating him to wait to lie and disclose his "source" in an attempt to undermine Clinton. Clearly it was some sort of conspiracy despite a complete lack of evidence

I did check the qoute

[rsilvergun]

Here it is:

"Whistle-blowers go to significant efforts to get us material and often very significant risks," Assange said. "As a 27-year-old, works for the DNC, was shot in the back, murdered just a few weeks ago for unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in Washington."

He's strongly implying that the deceased man gave him information and that he was killed in retaliation. It's impossible for any reasonable person to conclude anything else when the quote is taken in context. Saying anything else is just being dishonest.

The same is true for Donald's comment about Second Amendment Solutions. He was suggesting (in jest?) someone should assassinate Hilary if she wins. If you're not American and lack the proper context then you might have missed that. But there isn't a man or woman alive in the United States who didn't get his message loud and clear.

The press is reporting exactly what both Assange and Donald said and meant. I'm sorry if that makes you uncomfortable but it doesn't change facts. Hell, it makes me _very_ uncomfortable. There is no way in hell either man should be saying things like this for a variety of reasons. Donald's just a blow hard and an a-hole. I still don't what Assange is up to. Maybe he's given up on making the world a better place and wants it to burn...

Re:I did check the qoute

[Dr. Spork]

I think once the source is dead, the duty to protect the source becomes a lot less important. But it seems Assange now holds key evidence to what must be an on-going murder trial. He really should turn that over to the police and make an appropriately scrubbed version available to the public. If he cares about justice for this sources, this is what he will do. If his source really was murdered for leaking, and the perpetrators get away with it because Assange withheld key evidence, that adds to the danger of all the future whistleblowers. But if Assange contributes to catching the murderers, that should deter would-be murderers of future whistleblowerrs.

Re:I did check the qoute

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

Here it is: "Whistle-blowers go to significant efforts to get us material and often very significant risks," Assange said. "As a 27-year-old, works for the DNC, was shot in the back, murdered just a few weeks ago for unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in Washington." He's strongly implying that the deceased man gave him information and that he was killed in retaliation. It's impossible for any reasonable person to conclude anything else when the quote is taken in context. Saying anything else is just being dishonest.

Well, as I don't trust Assange at all, I'm not ruling out the possibility that Rich actually had nothing to do with Wikileaks and his unfortunately death is simply a convenient way to pin the leaks on a dead guy so that the people who might care to figure who leaked the information give up on finding the real source.

The same is true for Donald's comment about Second Amendment Solutions. He was suggesting (in jest?) someone should assassinate Hilary if she wins. If you're not American and lack the proper context then you might have missed that. But there isn't a man or woman alive in the United States who didn't get his message loud and clear. .

There apparently are men at least who are alive in the US who didn't get the message. I know that Trump likes to say vague and inflammatory things all the time and this statement to me seems to mean that he's suggesting people assassinate Hillary, but it's not conclusive that's what he meant. Now at the time right after he said it he could have said something like this - "Now that I hear what I just said, I want to be clear that I mean that if you value your 2nd amendment rights you need to vote against Hillary Clinton. I'm not at all suggesting that anybody shoot her." People would laugh and cheer. But that's not what he said. In fact he has yet to state that's what he meant, although Rudy Gilliani, Sean Hannity and a Trump spokesman have already said that they know for an absolute fact that Trump was not suggesting assassination. I can also say that if Hillary had said this about Trump that the right wing nutters would completely have lost their minds over it and insisted that the only possible way to take that was that she wanted Trump assassinated and she needs to go to jail for that. I can say that I think that to most Americans who are not Republican wing nuts that they interpreted this as a vague call to shoot Hillary, sure.

Re:Debunked ???

[JThundley]

Well he could probably tell if the person just ran or tried to enter his house or something. You're right though, it also could have been a hitman and not Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.

Assange as a cautionary tale

[shanen]

Hard to describe this situation succinctly, but I'll take a shot at it...

Assange has some good principles, but he is more fanatical about them than most people. The combination wound up putting him in a leadership position, but it was not because he was well balanced and an all-around nice fellow. Actually, I think he was a little bit crazy from the git-go, almost surely including a touch of paranoia, but subsequent events have proven that his paranoia was well justified. He has real enemies, powerful enemies, and they would like to put him away and they have been putting lots of pressure on him for many years. He has effectively been imprisoned for a mix of lèse majesté and kicking rich bastards in the wallet, and they still want to lock him up in much nastier and darker places. Forever.

It is not surprising that he is getting nuttier. In this case, I think he is just being opportunistic and exploiting a kind of birthday paradox. In any group of 75 randomly selected people, the odds are 99.9% that two of them share a birthday, and in any large organization with lots of employees (such as the DNC), there's a high chance that at least a few of them will die suspiciously. If this guy was an important source for Assange, then producing the proof might be useful as a prod to the investigators, because it would establish a possible motive, but just hinting around is only destroying Assange's own credibility. He's looking like a revenge-seeking rumormonger, which must be making his real enemies exceedingly happy.

In a sense, the sad story of Assange is serving his enemies simply by deterrence. His life has been ruined, and there are no signs of improvement going forward. Revealing state secrets is a bad idea, and trying to help other people who want to reveal state secrets may be even worse, depending on how you perceive the situation that Assange has been suspended in. Not as bad as getting waterboarded, but certainly not good. The same thing applies to revealing non-state secrets involving powerful people, but I'm not sure how much Assange has been involved that kind of thing.

Was or is Assange also a sexual deviant? I don't think it matters. Plenty of worse deviants out there, and that is not why they are after Assange. Let's not confuse him with Roger Ailes or Bill Cosby, eh?

Re:Assange as a cautionary tale

[MightyMartian]

I agree that Assange has always been a bit of a nut, and certainly the occupation he ultimately chose requires the belief that you should always attribute to malice that which can usually be attributed to incompetence. As to sexual issues, he was a superstar, a rock star among his peers and followers, with an almost cult-like status. Guys like that always end up in bed, often with multiple partners. Whether he was framed or not I have no idea. My firm belief was that if the US saw him as that big a threat, they would have found a bit more effective way than finding to Swedish women to frame him for rape. And really, the CIA's track record on destroying people isn't that great. If it was, Fidel Castro would have been six feet under half a century ago.

At this point, his exile to a minor embassy has probably driven him completely over the edge. He clearly believed his first data dump was going to destroy Clinton, who he obviously views as one of the principle reasons for his misfortunes. And maybe it might have worked to some extent, except the Republicans picked the one candidate whose knack for stealing the spotlight with outrageous, bizarre and infamous antics outweighs even Assange's ability to dominate a news cycle. In the end he's a footnote, at best. He'll barely be mentioned when the scholars sit down to write about the Clinton presidency.

Perhaps, in four years, if the Republicans manage to pick a sane candidate that won't piss off every demographic a candidate now needs to win the Presidency, some of this might stick, but my feeling is that save for the Birthers and other conspiracy nuts, who will need to transfer their obsessions to the next Democratic President, no one else will give a flying shit about any of it. Assange's days as a media darling are done, and really were done the minute Edward Snowden hightailed it out of Dodge. Assange is a has-been.

Re:Assange as a cautionary tale

[shanen]

Several good points, but I think you are focusing too much on the personalities and their associated human flaws. The bigger picture is whether or not we can retain any freedom without privacy. Oversimplifying, but I would say the answer is no because of the imbalance of resources. Each individual without privacy can always be targeted for destruction or manipulation to destruction.

Maybe the humorous version would help? Most religions insist on an omniscient god with some consistent principles. If so, such a god has no freedom. If the god has no power of action, the notion of freedom is moot, but with any active capability the god would always be compelled to act in a single way in accord with the principles, and that single way would be perfectly clear and unified by the perfect knowledge. One choice is not a choice.

Re:That's the media, not Clinton, Trump, Or Assang

[MightyMartian]

"Blame the media" is just the way partisans blame voters. It's just plain laziness.

That's what you call a Two-Fer!

[SuperKendall]

Hillary Clinton, before she was nominated in her run for president, evoked his name during a speech in which she advocated for limiting the availability of guns.

Wow, not only was she able to kill the source of the leak to set an example of what happens when you cross the Clintons, she was ALSO able to use it to promote stronger gun-control! That's really getting two for the price of one.

Quite high

[SuperKendall]

professional assassin is not high in statistical probability.

Once bitten, twice shy as it were.

Re:Poor Poor Julian

[MightyMartian]

Which means what exactly? If Trump delivers Clinton Congress, or at least the Senate, and a majority of Americans, no matter how reluctantly, support her bid, then what you have is the usual cranks making the usual noises and achieving what they usually achieve, which is nothing at all except a spot on 5 o'clock news for the latest shit-and-squat on the front lawn of city hall, or yet another tired Breitbart article or Limbaugh invective.

If you want to actually change something, you have to win elections. One-fingered saluting yourself into irrelevance is not only counterproductive, but possibly a sign of intense stupidity.

What? No "it's a trap" theories?

[rbrander]

Assange IS this story, and his name comes up here surprisingly seldom. Here's a game plan for you: Trump is an extreme case of conspiracy theorist; it wasn't just birtherism, he believes in a lot of them. A Clinton-murder conspiracy has got to be catnip to him right now, desperate as he is. So Assange is floating one: and if Trump bits, Assange plays him a bit, leads him on, his statements get more extreme...and Assange pulls out the rug.

Re:What? No "it's a trap" theories?

[amRadioHed]

That makes sense, except for the fact that Assange hates Hillary and will do anything to screw her campaign.

Re:What? No "it's a trap" theories?

[rbrander]

Ah, but does he hate Trump more? That's the problem for Clinton-haters this fall.

Re:What? No "it's a trap" theories?

[amRadioHed]

I doubt he really cares at all about Trump. He's not American.

Re:What? No "it's a trap" theories?

[Anonymous Coward]

And he'd know something about screwing people who don't want it.

Re:What? No "it's a trap" theories?

[meta-monkey]

What does Assange have against Trump?

Re:What? No "it's a trap" theories?

[bongey]

Says the person who believes in the Russian conspiracy against Clinton. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Three reasons not to vote for Trump

[MillionthMonkey]

• "Why can't we use nuclear weapons?
• "Why can't we use nuclear weapons?"
• "If we have them, why can't we use them?"

Re:Three reasons not to vote for Trump

[MillionthMonkey]

If you don't believe a "third hand account from a third rate journalist", you can watch Trump talk about nuclear weapons himself.

Trump is not "just like Hitler"- he could never accomplish what Hitler did. He's more of a spitting image of Mussolini.

Not when the DNC leaks implicate the media.

[sethstorm]

The media is to blame when they were at the beck and call of the DNC, especially when it came to killing stories.

Re:Not when the DNC leaks implicate the media.

[MightyMartian]

There isn't just one media. There are several news organizations out there, both American and international. The idea that they are all in the DNC's pocket is absurd. Beyond that, Trump was even picking fights with a Fox news journalist, so if there's anyone to blame for negative media perceptions of Donald Trump, it's Donald Trump. But really, like I said, it's just laziness, or perhaps wishful thinking on your part. I imagine you find the idea that voters could find someone like Hillary Clinton a more attractive candidate to vote for than a candidate like Donald Trump to be some sort of unbelievable scenario. I would imagine if you want to look for the fault in that feeling, you could start by turning off the TV, walking into the bathroom, looking into the mirror and asking yourself why you feel must lash out at other people and ultimately at the other candidate, rather than accepting that the candidate you would like to be out front is a complete fucking lunatic who can't keep on message for more than a few minutes, and seems to need to say one complete outrageous thing per day.

But hey, I get it. You have an infantile mind, and like all children, you don't have the maturity to honestly assess either the situation outside your head, or the situation inside your head. So blame the media. I'm sure it will you keep going for years to come, and will prevent for any kind of analysis of yourself or those of around you of similar ideological bent. Maybe you can even be like the guy elsewhere on this topic that declares that Seth Rich was assassinated on Clinton's orders with a "double tap to the head", when in fact, the poor bastard was multiple times in the back and lived nearly an hour after a bungled robbery. Please keep concocting idiot conspiracies great and small, that'll show 'em whose smart, eh?

Re:"trustworthy"

[ChrisMaple]

Of Allende, many years ago:

Eet is muy tragico! Our beloved President is dead, victim of a self-inflicted air strike. Also, he shot himself 27 times in the back with a machine gun from thirty feet away, pausing only once to reload.

Trump

[speedplane]

It's been almost 24 hours before the Donald has said anything insane and he is due. This is perfect for his famously ambiguous suggestions: "She's a very powerful women, and bad things happen when people cross her, that poor DNC staffer got shot twice in the back."

Nice smear, but can you refute him?

[sethstorm]

Try refuting him instead of smearing the messenger.

Getting away with murder is generally reviled.

[sethstorm]

It's one thing to actually Not Do It, it's another when lots of people in very compromising positions get killed in coincidental ways.

That's not a Republican thing, or a Democrat thing.

Re:Getting away with murder is generally reviled.

[david_thornley]

That's not a Republican or Democrat thing, it's a conspiracy theorist thing.

Personally, I think it's not because Clinton is a Democrat, but more that she lacks Y chromosomes, and is one of the uppitiest women in US history. Of course, it might be that she's a very competent Democrat, so the Swift boaters and other liars target her. It's hard to tell.

ITT: A fuckton of apologists for Clinton

[sethstorm]

Apparently no-suspect murders, no-loss "robberies", and multishot "suicides" of politically linked officials are too commonplace for some Slashdotters.

Not so much with Trump

[rsilvergun]

and I'd argue Bush / Cheney either, but several of Trumps staffers have been quietly telling folks that it's OK if Trump wins because his VP will run the show. John Kasich spilled the beans when he turned Trump down for Veep (he's hoping to run in 2020 against Hilary). Basically a vote for Trump is a vote for Pence. If you like Pence, go for it, but don't kid yourself that you're gonna get a Trump presidency in anything but name.

Add Assange to List

[labnet]

Maybe the DNC can add Assange to that list soon.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/...

Fourth Option

[godrik]

1. Julian Assange will out a source if it will get him press attention, or
2. The dead guy was not the actual source and the DNC would have no motive to take retribution, so Julian Assange will lie about a source if it will get him press attention.

3. If you murder a Wikileaks source, Julian Assange will go after you with everything he's got, releasing the information at the worst possible moment, in the most damaging possible way, and offer rewards for the capture of the murderer.

4. The guy was not the leak, but using an actual robbery makes everyone believe the leak is gone.

It's probably not abject wankery.

[Uberbah]

This isn't whistle blowing anymore. For one thing a whistle blower _never_ reveals a source

Hint: the whistelblower DGAF if he's already dead, slick. Next excuse to throw Assange under the bus?

Arkansas Hillbillies

[istartedi]

Come listen to a story 'bout a man named Bill.
A poor mountaineer who really liked to kill.
Then one day when he was shootin' at some dude
Up from the ground came a bubblin' crude.
A goil, that is. Black souled. Texas Teeth.
Well the first thing you know old Bill's a millionaire
Kin folk said, "Bill, move away from there".
They said Washington is the place you ought to be
So he packed up his things, along with Hillary
Drowning pools, gloomy bars... banjo solo...

Re:More Truthful

[Uberbah]

I would never trust Julian. He's a huge narcissist.

I live the smell of pure projection in the morning..smells like ad-hoc western exceptionalist wankery.

The killer will get jack rubyed so it's best to go

[Joe_Dragon]

The killer will get jack rubyed so it's best to go on the run and maybe even seek asylum. But this person may be long dead.

Re:So you defend a murderer (HRC) running for POTU

[Gojira Shipi-Taro]

Oh fuck straight off. Do you defend a fascist demagogue proto hitler running for POTUS? I'm guessing you do.

Re:Debunked?

[quantaman]

Until now, I have always found Snopes a reliable source of information. After having read what they had to say about Seth Rich, I do not understand how they can patently claim a "FALSE" status to this rumor. They offer no evidence at all to the contrary.

The rumour cites a bunch of facts, almost none of which have any corroboration (ie what happened to this captured hit team) and many of which actually contradict known facts.

I might as well say he was assassinated by a Donald Trump operative to throw the DNC's voter outreach operation into disarray, there's just as much evidence to back that rumour as this one. Every indication is this is just something cooked up on the internet, since the rumour presents it as fairly established fact I don't mind them marking it false.

The only thing that gives me pause is Assange, though Assange has been getting weirdly trollish the past few months and his statements are far from a "I think this was our source who got killed". Far more likely it's some combination of wanting to be part of the news cycle and wanting to distract from the common theory that his source is the Russian government.

It's also a complete BS statement

[Sycraft-fu]

Either claim the guy or don't, but don't imply. It is the kind of statement someone would make who was trying to get people to think he has more power/influence would make. I mean if the guy really is your source you do one of two things:

1) Keep shut up about it. You decide that you want to protect his family, friends, information, whatever. So you say nothing and deny everything. You try to convince your adversaries that this guy was just another guy, someone you had no involvement with.

2) Publicly and unequivocally state the guy was your source. You decide it is more important that it now be known. Maybe you feel there is no threat to anyone else, maybe you want to honor his work, maybe you feel it will help bring the people who killed him to justice. Whatever the case you make it very clear that yes, this person was your source and probably even identify some of the information that was theirs.

There is just no way that some kind of half-assed insinuation helps you if he really was a source. It doesn't do any good in terms of verification, but still could be used by an adversary as enough of a conformation to then go after others.

However it makes a lot of sense if he wasn't a source and you are a full of shit attention whore. You get to make news, get people thinking "well it could have been his guy!" but then if it comes out he wasn't, you can deny everything saying "Well I never claimed he was a source, just that his murder was for unknown reasons!"

To me, it seems that Assanage will say pretty much anything these days to get himself in the spotlight and hence this wishywashy crap. He needs to knock it off. If the guy was a source, come out and claim it in unequivocal terms, or just say nothing. Don't insinuate.

Re:And your proof that Trump ever said that????

[MillionthMonkey]

So a liberal on MSNBC claims he heard somebody say Trump asked these questions

Joe Scarborough is a liberal??? He was one of Trump's biggest proponents early on in his campaign. He only recently reversed course in May.

Re:The killer will get jack rubyed so it's best to

[BlueStrat]

The killer will get jack rubyed...

But who jack ruby's the jack rubys?

Is it rubys all the way down?

Strat

Slashdot poll.

[seoras]

All this finger pointing at politicians, nonsense, just nonsense. Politicians are just puppets on a string.
We should do a slashdot poll with 2 options.
Question "Was Seth Rich kill by a mugger or by the government wanting to send a message to any more would be wikileakers?"
Answers "Yes" & "No". (ok, maybe "cowboy neal did it", too)
It's the US security bureaucrat's who will be behind this.
The faceless men in the shadows who love the power they wield and fear the light maybe turn on them by one of their minions.

The first reasonable comment and it is so down

[vityok]

Someone had to say this, and thank you very much for making the first reasonable comment under this article.

Assange was exposed as a tool of Russian intelligence services pretty much long ago, not to mention his work for the Russian propaganda network RT (and one can assume he worked there not for free).

So far, what we know about the leaks is that the latest timestamp in the leaked e-mails more or less corresponds to the moment when CrowdStrike purged Russian APTs from the DNC network (May 25 and May 29 corresp). Wikileaks published the dump on June 22, this poor guy was murdered on July 10.

Now we have to suppress our critical thinking and just take a Russian tool who has worked on Russian propaganda network for his word?

Where is your proof Mr. Assange? Please give us any evidence that Seth Rich was your source.

Thanks

Re:Debunked?

[Anonymous Coward]

Snopes is just another part of the Tribalist US public discourse now.
The whole internet is infected by it.

Why is this even here?

[EndlessNameless]

Can we have tech news please?

This isn't even news at all. Assange didn't make an outright allegation, and the police don't seem to take him seriously.

I want to read about the cool new NAND in development or the security implications of quantum computing, not get sideswiped by unsubstantiated conspiracy claims and political diatribes.

There are plenty of pro and con sites for every political issue. That ground is covered very thoroughly without Slashdot sticking its nose into it.

So why do we care about his opinion

[teknosapien]

Face it he's a rapist in that cant leave an embassy do to the possibility of being extradited to face charges.
Secondly he's not even a US citizen, he is however a threat to US national security.
I put him in the same league as Putin, an outsider that wants to see the US crumble

Ya....I read that....

[PortHaven]

Snopes kind of convinced me that it sure was a lot of lot of lot of coincidence. You know, when this many people slated to testify or involved in investigations related to a mobster - no one thinks it is coincidence.

Re:And your proof that Trump ever said that????

[meta-monkey]

Joe Scarborough is a liberal???

Joe Scarborough is a neocon. Basically a RINO. You don't get to keep a job on MSNBC if you're some blood and soil paleocon.

He was one of Trump's biggest proponents early on in his campaign.

No he wasn't. He said over and over again he did not support Trump, and was voting for Jeb, and then Kasich. The only thing Joe did was take Trump seriously as a legitimate candidate instead of condemning and laughing at him like everyone else on cable news did. Which was smart, because Trump was a legitimate candidate, and won the nomination. But only in liberal fantasy land is "not shitting on Trump" = being "one of Trump's biggest proponents."

Re:And your proof that Trump ever said that????

[MillionthMonkey]

the faster it spreads, the more likely it is a lie.

Where "it" is always a video of Trump directly inserting his foot in his mouth. I guess these are false flag attacks using a hired actor with his hair dyed orange to make Trump look bad, right?

God is clearly trying to tell you something

[tanstaaf1]

Obviously it would be "nuts" for either Hillary or the DNC to take revenge. So neither happened. Obviously it would be stupid for Hillary to have knowingly used a personal email server for government emails, so she couldn't have done that, either. Nor the erasures, of course -- that would be criminal if it were done by just anyone. I mean, Nixon was impeached and dragged through televised, bipartisan coals for erasing 13 minutes of PERSONAL tape recordings, and Hillary would have known that and she isn't stupid. So she obviously didn't do any such things on purpose! Now making all that money the first (and apparently ONLY) time she decided to try her hand and futures trading....that was just "luck". Anyway, once we rule out tinfoil-hat possibilities for all the strange, strange events which have surrounded Hillary the only thing a reasonable person can conclude is that Hillary is "SPECIAL" in God's eyes. That means you either have to vote for her because God wants you to. Or avoid her like the plague because God wants you to. I mean - it was quite a coincidence for all these awful things to "happen" to poor Hillary. But God could have kept them secret -- but instead he arranged for you to find out about them. So it's in your hands now. God has spoken.

Re:God is clearly trying to tell you something

[tanstaaf1]

Almost forgot: The purported $200 Million the Clintons have miraculously received during and after "serving" the public....and the much larger amounts "given" to their "charity". Well, obviously these two are all about doing God's work. It isn't their fault if some of the people who gifted them were gifted by "God" in return! It's all God's work. Just move along and vote. The important thing this time around is that God wants a woman who doesn't know how to keep track of emails to be President; just as he wanted a black con last go around.

Credibility

[bobbutts]

Not sure what happened, but I have specific distrust for what gets modded up lately on this site.

Let's play a game

[gslj]

OK, some of the people here on Slashdot think that Hillary Clinton is a multiple murderer. Without (ahem!) a smoking gun. However, you're bright guys. Two goals are posited for the murders: defend the reputations of the Clintons and make sure that Hillary is elected President. So let's make a different list, a list of people who would be the best targets to ensure those goals. Now, Monica Lewinsky would have been on that list, back before that whole scandal broke out, but she's still going. I propose that Donald Trump himself should be on the list. Maybe we could even take out his vice-presidential running mate at the same time. It's certainly possible. Think of how most of the South Korean cabinet got wiped out: The Rangoon Bombing.

With a Dead Pool created, we can make predictions. If those people start dropping off, maybe we've got something there. But I doubt it. I gave up on this kind of evidence way back when, despite all the evidence, I found out that Paul McCartney isn't dead.

-Gareth

Re:So you defend a murderer (HRC) running for POTU

[shaitand]

"Oh fuck straight off. Do you defend a fascist demagogue proto hitler running for POTUS? I'm guessing you do."

That is such a good description of the nominee of both sides of the ruling party (R and D) that I don't even know which you mean.

Re:Reality

[pastafazou]

Apparently you don't have a firm grasp of it...

Re:Hello CTR shill.

[shaitand]

The woman just had the director of the FBI aquite her of wrongdoing following an investigation in which enough evidence came to light publically to prove her wrongdoing and with a speech in which he outlined wrongdoing before stating the opposite conclusion. She was just proven to be involving in a conspiracy with the DNC both to funnel funds to her campaign and to rig the nomination. At the convention the delegates whose job it was to represent the interests of voters they represent who were proven to have been duped and cast their vote for the other candidate were openly told by every speaker to stfu and fall in line, the message was even being repeated over and over again by the mainstream media to the public. She is even busting out the typical 80's R side f33r the evil Russians argument.

The evil and corrupt dictator we are supposed to fear Trump will be if elected Hillary is already proven to be and she isn't even in office yet, she just already has that much power without the Presidency added to it. I think it is fair to say the vast majority of the intelligent people in this nation don't want either one of them. The usual lesser of two evils argument wears pretty thin when both options are so blatantly evil.

Nice Clintonian answer.

[sethstorm]

...conspiracy...

The universal excuse for explaining all maladies Clinton does not make it any more true.

Re:Nice Clintonian answer.

[david_thornley]

Incessant accusations that turn out to be baseless don't make any bad things said about Clinton any more true. I see reason to suspect a conspiracy, but it could as easily be a large number of liars acting in concert without coordination.

The author.

[sethstorm]

Their background is specific enough.

Try this conspiracy on for size...

[niaxilin]

1) Russia hacks emails server(s).
2) Russia chooses a staffer with just enough server access to be a plausible leak.
3) Russia delivers emails to Snowden posing to be said staffer.
4) Russia kills staffer.
5) Clinton looks bad for emails, and bad for the murder.

Has Russia ever killed individuals on foreign soil before?

Think that settles it

[quax]

As of now it's perfectly appropriate to abbreviate his name using the first three letters.

Wikileaks should have never allowed itself to become a one man show.

How Clintonian of you - suck it mods.

[sethstorm]

Correcting The Record much?

You do defend a murderer (HRC) running for POTUS.

[sethstorm]

No thank you, but having a Clintonian murderer in office is not acceptable in civilized society.

Might pass for Illinois or Arkansas though.

Re:BUSHES have killed tons of people

[AutodidactLabrat]

Total bullshit as you can see assumiing you aren't brain dead
or desperate to get out of the Equadorian Embassy without doing life plus 99 for espionage.

ITT: Fucktons of modbombing apologists for Clinton

[sethstorm]

Looks like people want to white-knight m'Lady just to protect The Narrative.

Apparently no-suspect murders, no-loss "robberies", and multishot "suicides" of politically linked officials are too commonplace for some Slashdotters.

Re:BUSHES have killed tons of people

[JustBoo]

Total bullshit as you can see assumiing you aren't brain dead

You appear to not know that no one uses snopes anymore for validation. It's become a laughing-stock of a joke now. The only people who use it are clueless. Sorry.

It was purchased by an evil rich old far left progressive couple who bought it for the express purpose of turning it into a liberal lying haven of lies. And they succeeded. No one trusts snopes anymore.

Re:Poor Poor Julian

[Bing Tsher E]

Politics is a game, and the most craven will be the most successful at it.

Re:You do defend a murderer (HRC) running for POTU

[Reziac]

I once saw a very long list... many could be explained as coincidental deaths, but some required, ah, willing suspension of disbelief.

'Course, could be they're just trying to live up to the Kennedy legacy.

Re:BUSHES have killed tons of people

[AutodidactLabrat]

Sorry fool, but as of now EVERYONE not right wing insane like Drudge dismisses any claim vetted and found false by Snopes.
NY Times, St. Petersberg Times, L.A. Times, CNN, ABC EVERYONE will cite Snopes as a reliable debunker

Re:BUSHES have killed tons of people

[JustBoo]

Sorry fool, but as of now EVERYONE not right wing insane like Drudge dismisses any claim vetted and found false by Snopes. NY Times, St. Petersberg Times, L.A. Times, CNN, ABC EVERYONE will cite Snopes as a reliable debunker

Thank you for the validation. You just proved my point completely. Well, except for the reliable part. Enjoy.

Re:BUSHES have killed tons of people

[AutodidactLabrat]

Ahh, so the only RELIABLE sources are those who told you about the Hillary murder of Vince Foster, discredited by every Republican in Congress THREE TIMES?
Seriously, get help. Licensed to prescribe strong drugs help.

Dead people with too common of a thread do.

[sethstorm]

People don't just die naturally or accidentally for having too much knowledge about their employer. Never mind that the reflexive excuses seem to come out when people dare question what happened.