Seymour Hersh - Seth Rich Was Wikileaks Contact

Your war mongering. neocon/ banking/defence contractor party bus runs down both aisles

 

Well even if Chomsky, McGovern, and the rest of the letter signatories are not officially part of the slobbering, obstructionist, obnoxious, Hollywood media geeks known as 'RESIST,' they might as well be. Seymore Hersh, and the rest of the 'Professional Left,' 'Net Roots, Ed Snowden, and Assange are so ineffectual since Bernie Sanders got screwed out of winning the primary by the DNC if all they can do is stand there agape, with their mouths hanging open, while 'RESIST,' poisons the well of news media and general discourse in this country, while these fake, agitprop, Soros, Move.org, agitators yell 'F-bomb Trump' and try to sabotage peace negotiations, Chomsky, McGovern, Hersh, Greenwald are next to useless anyway. And, while I sympathize with voters who believed in Sanders and were disheartened, to allow the mindless rage of people like Michael Moore, Maxine Waters, and Bill Maher, dominate the Party, and destroy America with Hollywood hate speech is unconscionable.


I mean - look at these God awful Twitter rants by Hollywood - it's 3/4 of the actors guild

what a disgrace !


Hollywood Melts over Trump-Putin Summit:
‘Arrest’ this ‘Treasonous’ ‘Urine Lapper’



https://www.breitbart.com/big-holly...n-summit-arrest-this-treasonous-urine-lapper/



PS.

Does anyone in the Democratic Party have the resolve to tell Moveon.org and associated astroturf networks to knock it off with the canned slogans, and mock protests already ? Being obstructionist for the sake of obstruction is no way to lead Michael Moore, and acting obnoxious like a Supreme Court nominee is the end of civilization as we know it, is being a dishonest broker discediting all protestors who came before you, and those who will come after. ' RESIST' has been so overtly trivializing the very nature, purpose, and meaning of 'civil disobediance' before the Pres. was even inaugurated, the key word here is 'civil,' protests are supposed to be "peaceable assembly" otherwise it's self- defeating as MLK would say, right ?





...

 

Except of course unlessssssssss, seymour hersh was just trying to become relevant again. In which case your beliefs are safe and sound even if based on a ruse and lies.

 

Well, this would go a long way to explain why the DNC would not allow a forensic examination of their server.

 

I don't do Twitter. It's bad enough reading ignorant statements by ignorant humans on the internet. One can become overloaded listening to ignorance on display.

 

Of course, as it turns out, he runs a website dedicated to publish secret, sensitive information. So to say he has not had the opportunity os absurd, and I am shocked that a rational adult would attempt to parlay this goofy talking point into anything at all.

 

It seems to me that you just don't get the essential drift of this issue. Perhaps it's because you don't want to? In any event, he publicly offered to prove this to US authorities and they (along with the US media) ignored the offer. They're not interested in seeing his proof (or that of others who have made similar offers).

The conclusion is that the investigation is picking and choosing the evidence it wants. That, in turn, suggests that they have a pre-determined narrative and that the evidence they select has to fit that narrative.

 

I don't know how old you are, but surely you are familiar with the old Russian KGB playbook that Putin is still using?
But by all means fall for his claims of innocence.

BTW, the only way to "prove" he didn't do it would be to prove somebody else did. What's the bets its Hillary?

 

Because they have overwhelming evidence to the contrary and don't take him seriously. That didn't take a lot of brain power to puzzle out.

 

That's nonsensical. If the preondernace of the evidence says something, then the word of a liar has no effect on that.

What is clear is that it is you who is picking and choosing. You believe the empty, unsupported boast if assange, and reject the overwhelming, unanmous consensus of our intelligence community. That speaks directly to YOUR motives.

 

I'm old, trust me.

But yet again: they don't want to see the proofs which would contradict the narrative they are following. That mustn't be allowed to happen.

 

Let me repeat again. An impartial investigator looks at all evidence, bar none. This is the tenet of law enforcement; you look at all the evidence before you reach a conclusion. When an investigator refuses to look at contradictory evidence, it is because he is following an agenda that has a pre-chosen conclusion.

I agree that this shouldn't take a lot of brain power to figure out. But here we are. Again.

 

I appreciate you don't clearly understand the concept of investigation. I've been over and over it but it doesn't appear to be absorbed.

An impartial professional investigator looks at ALL the evidence, especially that which is contradictory. When they don't do this it is because they have an agenda.

And yes, I most certainly do not trust the intelligence community. I don't trust faceless politically placed bureaucrats, politicians and the media. All are known to repeatedly lie for a living.

The question you need to ask yourself, is why YOU believe them?

 

And just like ours, empire builders, and aspirants for elevation into the ranks of the elite.

 

I see what you are saying, Putin can deliver proof of the negative in this regard. Does he also walk on water in his spare time?

 

Obviously you are conflating "seeing" with myopia. The latter is the condition where you can't plainly see what is there before your face.

Putin doesn't come into the equation. It is Murray, Assange and Dot Com who have offered proof.

 

But what you are not getting is that Assange is a fugitive. Schiff would interview him, were he in US custody.

 

What am I not egetting?

Yes, he's a fugitive, I've only mentioned this approx. 4 times in this thread already.

He is wanted for bail jumping. It's a misdemeanour. His lawyer thinks that, at most, this would incur a 3 month prison sentence, but also thinks the judge is likely to just let him go in lieu of time already served.

 

But does it really matter one way or another - he exposed corruption and incompetence in high places, so why the **** do you denigrate and hate him for doing that? It's truly bizarre . . . unless you're one of those in high places??

 

Seth Rich is US's Dr Kelly, yes they killed him.

 

And they have the bare-faced audacity and breath-taking hypocrisy to accuse Putin of disposing of 'awkward customers' by murdering them?

 

What good are these celebs on the Left if they don't call out warmongers in their own Democrat Party - like Hillary - and make them accountable for their massive war crimes?

Julian Assange, Chomsky might as well be as phony and two faced as Alec Baldwin !

Your long term and short term memory is failing you Jeannette.

They gave NYT Judith Miller a Pulitzer ... of Iraq/ WMD fame ... for protecting Dick Cheney ?

...................................
"Times reporters Judith Miller and Michael Gordon wrote a lurid (and now discredited) tale about aluminum tubes and other things that gave credence to Cheney’s warning. That very morning, Cheney popped up on Meet the Press and cited the Times story as further evidence of Saddam’s nuclear obsession"

https://www.counterpunch.org/2004/0...-and-the-myth-of-the-iraq-connection-to-9-11/

....................................​

More important, you run and hid AGAIN when I asked you directly why you arbitrarily picked 250,000 dead in Syria figure, over others claiming there was a half million 500,000 dead after 7 years of the Obama, Hillary WH regime change attempt on Syria and Assad.

Jeannette you then endorsed the signatories on the astroturf Lefts letter, (Chomsky, McGovern) but I'll ask you AGAIN ... what good are these so called "Award winning" commentators (like Robert Parry) if his reporting fails to call out warmongers in his own Democrat Party?

Post something written by any of these "Award winning" or Pulitzer people and show me where Julian Assange, Chomsky, McGovern, Glenn Greenwald, Snowden, Seymore Hersh, or Robert Parry says Pres. Obama, Hillary are massive war criminals and they needed to be impeached and removed from office?


Perhaps you missed Michel Chossudovsky, December 13, 2010 from GlobalResearch ?

"What this examination of the WikiLeaks project also suggests is that the mechanics of New World Order propaganda, particularly with regard to its military agenda, has become increasingly sophisticated."

"In the case of WikiLeaks, the facts are contained in a data bank; many of those facts, particularly those pertaining to foreign governments serve US foreign policy interests. "

https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_wikileaks29.htm



see also from GlobalResearch:

by Julie Lévesque, December 20, 2010



"WikiLeaks is now being used by the authorities, particularly in the US, to promote the cyber warfare narrative, which could dramatically change the Internet and suppress the freedom of expression WikiLeaks claims to defend."

https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_wikileaks28.htm​

 

No.

What that tells us is that Michael Moore, his first allegiance is to The State and The Party.

Not the Constitution, nor The Bill of Rights - when Pres. Trump has his personal papers seized
at Cohens office by the Deep State. Michael Moore would rather the criminal CIA ruled the Capitol in Washington DC

Michael Moore and his ilk 'The Party' (i.e.) ... Hillary, John Brennan, the FBI, CIA can break the laws of the land without reprisal, so long as it serves his own personal whim, 2 minutes hate agenda ... impeachment, etc.


Michael Moore thinks he can - just like Bush - flush the Constitution, or The Bill of Rights right down the toilet Michael Moore thinks his own personal ego is more important than the rights of others, no matter who or what it damages.




(even Fox News won't defend Constitutional Rights)

embedded "news anchor" now at Fox, John Roberts

is loyal to his Deep State paymasters to the end of time:

John Roberts (ex-CNN/CBS News) translation: CIA defends its own

aka 'the Deep State'

John Roberts Defends CNN After
Trump Refuses Question from ‘Fake News’

Roberts went on to defend NBC News correspondents Kristen Welker, who Trump called “dishonest” during the same press conference for asking about his contentious relationship with NATO allies. “She is honest as the day is long,” Robert said of Welker. “For the President to call her dishonest is unfair.”

“I also used to work at CNN,” he added. “There are some fine journalists who work there and risk their lives to report on stories around the world. To issue a blanket condemnation of the network as ‘fake news’ is also unfair.”


https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-n...n-after-trump-refuses-question-from-fake-news
...