WikiLeak Reveals SETH RICH ( DNC) MURDER Linked to HILLARY CLINTON

[Sidelle]

Holy-fucking-BOMBSHELL... :eek:

https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/36082#efmAGSAH-

[AzzarTheGod]

Not said in reference to Seth Rich.

Next.

[R Flair]

Ya, but it does establish precedent and it also reveals that, contrary to this phony "everything is Russia" narrative they keep peddling, leakers are actually the problem.

[AzzarTheGod]

Ya, but it does establish precedent and it also reveals that, contrary to this phony "everything is Russia" narrative they keep peddling, leakers are actually the problem.

Fair enough.

[Csihar]

I am so sorry about this but English is only but second language. This may explain why I am not seeing anything about murder. From the context, especially the bolded part, it doesn't sound like murder at all. "suspected leaker whether or not we have any real basis for it.".

Sounds very odd to even mention having basis for something or not when it comes to murdering someone. Makes a lot more sense if they're talking about non-lethal consequences for someone.

Again though, I don't comprehend English all that good :(

[Ahldagor]

Ya, but it does establish precedent and it also reveals that, contrary to this phony "everything is Russia" narrative they keep peddling, leakers are actually the problem.

No it doesn't. The emails describe concern for what to do to limit the potential of a leak during the campaign, hiring prlcesses for the campaign, Hilary's meetings, and some strategizing on dealing with the press. They're not all there I'd say tho'. Jumping subjects a lot in it. Not a lengthy read.

[Xaanka]

e: better explanation vv


BUILD THE WALL MAGA DRAIN THE SWAMP
_|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|
___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|__
_|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|
___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|__
_|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|
___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|__
_|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|
___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|__
_|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|
___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|__
_|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|
___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|__
_|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|
___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|__
_|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|
___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|__
_|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|
___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|___|__

[maskedmelon]

I am so sorry about this but English is only but second language. This may explain why I am not seeing anything about murder. From the context, especially the bolded part, it doesn't sound like murder at all. "suspected leaker whether or not we have any real basis for it.".

Sounds very odd to even mention having basis for something or not when it comes to murdering someone. Makes a lot more sense if they're talking about non-lethal consequences for someone.

Again though, I don't comprehend English all that good :(

The email suggests that the one who wrote it (John Podesta) may have conspired to murder ("make an example of") the "suspected leaker." It's not suggesting that the suspected leaked was a murderer. It is suggesting he may have been murdered by the one who wrote the email.

[Csihar]

^^
I get that that is the interpretation :D

I just don't get that information out of the e-mail. Of course it's easy to make it fit the narrative. DNC suspected of murdering leakers? Someone mentions making an example of leakers? BAM!

The way it's worded, actually says something else to me.

"We should kill that guy we suspect as a leaker whether or not we have any real basis for it".... that just doesn't gel in my ears (eyes?).

[Xaanka]

^^
"We should kill that guy we suspect as a leaker whether or not we have any real basis for it".... that just doesn't gel in my ears (eyes?).

that's literally what the email says. except switch "kill" for "teach a lesson" which is american english slang for killing or roughing up someone.

also he died not too long after this.

[Csihar]

Maybe I made the mistake of making a joke about my English. It's just fine.


Xaanka, it does not mention Seth Rich. Seth Rich was killed this year. The e-mails of concern were 1 year and 5 months before.

It doesn't say teach a lesson, it's says 'make an example of'. I am aware of what teaching someone a lesson means. It's not an obscure phrase and I don't live under a bridge covered by the arctic ice fields.

I find that the phrasing of the sentence in question:

"I'm definitely for making an example of a suspected leaker whether or not we have any real basis for it"

actually becomes very odd once you take it to be about murder.

Example 1: "I'm definitely for making an example of a suspected leaker".

Ignoring the fact I personally require a little more proof, even if it's just circumstantial, the sentence does not become odd if you take it to be about killing.

"I'm definitely for killing a suspected leaker". Perfectly comfortable wording.

Now add that little extra to the end [[[[[[ THE POINT OF MY POST IS HERE ]]]]]:

"I'm definitely for killing a suspected leaker whether or not we have any real basis for it".

That does not make sense any more.

"Gosh, Robby I'm cool with murdering and stuff but only if we have a real basis!" "But John of course! We're all about that! First we check if we have a real basis for killing, to make sure it's a moral killing, and only then do we proceed".

[Pokesan]

seems real similar to that time GWB covered sunday bloody sunday

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iu40Awn7qr4

[Xaanka]

"I'm definitely for killing a suspected leaker whether or not we have any real basis for it".

That does not make sense any more.

"Gosh, Robby I'm cool with murdering and stuff but only if we have a real basis!" "But John of course! We're all about that! First we check if we have a real basis for killing, to make sure it's a moral killing, and only then do we proceed".

It makes plenty of sense

"We are going to kill this guy who we think might be a leaker, even if he isn't a leaker"
all they're saying is that they're going to kill the guy anyway, whether he is a leaker or not, just in case.

[Csihar]

Bright light up in there.

[entruil]

"I'm definitely for making an example of a suspected leaker whether or not we have any real basis for it"


"I'm definitely for killing a suspected leaker whether or not we have any real basis for it".

"Gosh, Robby I'm cool with murdering and stuff but only if we have a real basis!" "But John of course! We're all about that! First we check if we have a real basis for killing, to make sure it's a moral killing, and only then do we proceed".

pretty much exactly whats up... gambino family morals exposed... gambino cause they can't stfu about it... lmao

[AzzarTheGod]

that's literally what the email says. except switch "kill" for "teach a lesson" which is american english slang for killing or roughing up someone.

also he died not too long after this.

Drain the swamp is probably the single greatest unofficial campaign slogan of any presidential campaign ever.

"I'm a Dole Man" song doesn't come close.

Should Trump have made "Drain the swamp" the official slogan from day 1? I guess he couldn't because we hadn't established the corruption yet.

[Trungep99]

Ya, but it does establish precedent and it also reveals that, contrary to this phony "everything is Russia" narrative they keep peddling, leakers are actually the problem.

If Russia is hacking data in our country then that means their can be future threats to American data, so it is concerns for generalized safety to our countries records

[Ahldagor]

If Russia is hacking data in our country then that means their can be future threats to American data, so it is concerns for generalized safety to our countries records

We all hack eachother. New field of the game.

[R Flair]

If Russia is hacking data in our country then that means their can be future threats to American data, so it is concerns for generalized safety to our countries records

There's actually no evidence that any of the leaks came from Russia, contrary to the bs hitlary is spouting about 17 agencies confirming it. Only two of those agencies have addressed it, and both said it looks like something Russia would do, but they are uncertain of whether it actually was.

I don't doubt for a second that russia is hacking the US every single day, but it's far more likely that leaks came from insiders astonished at the dnc corruption than hacks of a foreign power.