Discussion: RedState Takes Down Seth Rich-Mueller Conspiracy Post

The only reason to take down the piece is to cover up what really happened, folks… Rich was murdered in the cellar of Comet Ping Pong… (Spare me your fact-based b.s. about how the building doesn’t have a cellar).

18 Likes

18 Likes

Red State Translation: Sorry, not sorry.

10 Likes
16 Likes

I read the comments they had at redstate, and every single one agreed that it was a valid speculation… although it might be difficult to tell because you get banned for the slightest criticism of the writer or trump.

4 Likes

Damage done. That’s the whole point. Push it out into circulation with a ā€œwink wink, nudge nudgeā€ statement trying to pre-empt any accusations and then pretend you’ve ā€œremovedā€ it from the intertubes by removing it from your site. It’s no different than when Trump/GOPers spew racist nonsense they then pretend to walk back. It’s very literally calculated to send the message that ā€œI’m with you, my racist tinfoil hatted conspiracy-addled base, and don’t you worry your empty little heads about the walk-back lies I now have to tell to save faceā€¦ā€

22 Likes

Rich’s poor family. To see his death dragged through excrement again. Can they sue for pain and anguish?

11 Likes

Damage done.

You are correct.

7 Likes

WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange… have specifically peddled the Mueller-Rich fabrication.

Well, if you can’t beat them troll them is Assange’s new strategy.

4 Likes

ā€œDon’t confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up!ā€

or

ā€œYou’re entitled to your own opinions. You’re not entitled to your own facts.ā€

6 Likes

The rape of Seth Rich’s corpse continues by the Republican Death Cult.

14 Likes

They tried suing before, namely Fox News, but the suit was dismissed.

4 Likes

Cucks. /S

1 Like

Much prefer the name 'RedStain.com’. :smirk:

3 Likes

Clearly, RedState got a call from the Deep State.

2 Likes

This is the only explanation I can think of that gels with the facts.

Has anyone working as an editor or publisher ever published an article they felt obligated to disavow up-front? Any serious press would simply refuse to publish it until and unless no such disclaimer was warranted. And any serious journalist would be so offended and ashamed they would immediately revise the work to remove the stain.

So, which explanation is simpler: that both the journalist and the editors are serious pros and had coincidental, major lapses in judgment? or that this was conspiracy-mongering that received more push-back than anticipated?

7 Likes

Elizabeth Vaughan, typical crackers older white person. The nutters are heavily concentrated in the older Caucasian demo

2 Likes

Oh… sorry. We’ll just ā€˜unring’ that bell.

All good now.

2 Likes

There is a fine line between opinion and outright lies.