In the annals of unintentionally hilarious statements from corporate entities, this quote could be the gold standard.
4 Likes
This might be the BuzzFeed article that is considered a debunking. It seems pretty debunkish to me, although not so much proving or disproving any link between the late Mr. Rich and WikiLeaks, but showing that there is no evidence to think the purported link is there.
The detective is apparently saying that the idea of forensic evidence on the computer came from the FOX reporter.
Edited to add:
Then, at the end of the article, there’s this evidence of Mr. Wheeler incompetence:
1 Like
It’s one fucked-up “retraction.” Not only done quietly and contrary to Hannity still repeating it, they even just re-cast the article on the website, at least for a while - retitling it to be about how Rich’s parents were upset about the accusations, while keeping the content. Eventually they just removed the story from the website, with no link to the retraction.
…is probably more accurate.
The family has a really good case for suing the shit out of that sleazy, lying douchebag of a PI - he violated their contract and professional ethics as well as engaging in defamation on their dime (not to mention displaying a high degree of incompetence).
1 Like
Out of respect for the dead, can Sean Hannity please hurry up and molest some co-workers?
2 Likes
“It’s not like I have a Steve Bannon teddy bear,” he said. “I’ve never eaten a meal with the guy.”
Double eeeeugh.
2 Likes
Worse, better media outlets will continue talking about it, which is all he and Fox want. It’s Benghazi all over again. I’d prefer ignoring him and the network that supports his lunacy (or boycotting those who sponsor them). Time would be much better spent focusing on the real problems he’s trying so hard to distract us from noticing.
1 Like
Yes.
Inside the New Strategy Group Where Right-Wing Activists and Journalists Coordinate Messaging July 25, 2013, David Corn, Mother Jones
2 Likes
Fox News spends weeks complaining about how we shouldn’t listen to anonymous sources leaking damaging info on Trump. . . then they base a news story on anonymous sources (or I guess, they cite two people-- Wheeler and Kim Dotcom-- who in turn cite anonymous sources.)
Except their anonymous sources seem to be figments of the imagination. Wheeler was citing Fox news, who in turn was citing him, and Kim Dotcom’s end of it is great-- he claims he was in contact with someone trying to provide info to wikileaks, and he “just knows” it was Seth Rich, because. . . well, he just knows.
3 Likes
And so it begins.
I hope not. Benghazi was always just a shibboleth; I’ve never seen any evidence that events there ever changed a single person’s attitude or vote. There was no reasoning, no logic, no curiosity or inquiry involved - one’s stance on Benghazi was just a declaration of allegiance, a flying of the team flag, a wearing of the team jacket, and no more. It was never evidence-driven.
But maybe you are right. Certainly, today, I can predict what a person thinks about Russian involvement in DNC leaks, with nearly 100% accuracy, simply by knowing their politics. And this Seth Rich thing seems intimately linked to all that.
Kim Dotcom got some 'splaining to do.
1 Like
It’s the same tactic Stern et al used after the FCC regulations changed in the early 2000s. Claim you are being silenced and never actually get silenced. Instead bring in the outrage bucks.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
