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 doesnāt have a cellar).
Red State Translation: Sorry, not sorry.
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.
Damage done. Thatās the whole point. Push it out into circulation with a āwink wink, nudge nudgeā statement trying to pre-empt any accusations and then pretend youāve āremovedā it from the intertubes by removing it from your site. Itās no different than when Trump/GOPers spew racist nonsense they then pretend to walk back. Itās very literally calculated to send the message that āIām with you, my racist tinfoil hatted conspiracy-addled base, and donāt you worry your empty little heads about the walk-back lies I now have to tell to save faceā¦ā
Richās poor family. To see his death dragged through excrement again. Can they sue for pain and anguish?
Damage done.
You are correct.
WikiLeaksā Julian Assange⦠have specifically peddled the Mueller-Rich fabrication.
Well, if you canāt beat them troll them is Assangeās new strategy.
āDonāt confuse me with the facts, my mind is made up!ā
or
āYouāre entitled to your own opinions. Youāre not entitled to your own facts.ā
The rape of Seth Richās corpse continues by the Republican Death Cult.
They tried suing before, namely Fox News, but the suit was dismissed.
Cucks. /S
Much prefer the name 'RedStain.comā. 
Clearly, RedState got a call from the Deep State.
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?
Elizabeth Vaughan, typical crackers older white person. The nutters are heavily concentrated in the older Caucasian demo
Oh⦠sorry. Weāll just āunringā that bell.
All good now.
There is a fine line between opinion and outright lies.
