Comments by "Spring Bloom" (@springbloom5940) on "Yes, Everyone Is Lying About The DNC Server Scandal. w/John Kiriakou" video.

  1. Nah, clearly death by misadventure. He slipped on a banana peel and fell on some bullets that were just lying around. Duh, literally no one disputes that he was murdered.
    2
  2. +Lynne Barnes Im sure that every time you see a cop, you stop them and ask if they can look in your pockets. Because you have nothing to hide. A) EVERYONE has something to hide and B) people with 'nothing to hide' are the most rightfully adamant about hiding everything. Its my FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHT to hide.
    2
  3. +Will Ganness While thats a valid point, I would think its the first thing they wouldve said, when accused of withholding evidence? The FBI said they were denied access, not that there were no physical assets of interest. If there were no physical server to examine, I would've expected that to be their immediate defense.
    2
  4. +RedXIV While there is no direct evidence Rich was the leaker, your assertion that he had no access to DNC emails, is at best hopeless naive; among the many, many issues with the DNC server fiasco, is that their security was practically nonexistent. However, your 'Russian stooge' remark, tips your hand and leads me to suspect that you are not naive, but dishonest. But just for argument's sake, suppose he wasnt the leaker, but someone thought he was? Podesta thought there was a leak and suggested making an example of it. Suppose he was or wasnt the the leak and Podesta, Hillary, etc., knew nothing about it, but some idealistic Hillary sycophant took it upon themselves to deal with it - this is a hallmark of the Hillary political machine? Maybe it was a leak, maybe Rich was the leaker, maybe he was working for the Russians? You come off a lot like someone 'correcting the record'.
    2
  5. I predict that after another month of persecuting and silencing Alex Jones, there will be some official declaration, or public labelling of Alex Jones/Infowars, as 'Fake News'. This will retroactively justify silencing him and set a precedent for gvt pressure and even direct intervention to silence 'fake news', ahead of the upcoming elections.
    2
  6. +RedXIV You have poor reading comprehension.
    2
  7. +RedXIV Youre just institutionalized to a false dichotomy.
    2
  8. Ahhhh... I understand. Youre just correcting the record.
    2
  9. +Moloch 'Its obvious' Perhaps you can supply a definition for 'obvious'? Because what you have, is a nobody DNC staffer was killed in a bad part of town, therefore its 'obvious' he was the single most important person in the history of US elections.
    1
  10. +TheZodiac And suppose no one ordered anything and Rich wasnt a leaker? Suppose some fanatical Hillary loyalist thought he was a leaker and decided to 'handle' it?
    1
  11. +loki the jokester Happens all... the... time. Sadly, people are murdered every day, for no reason whatsoever. People are murdered for fun, theyre murdered in botched robberies, theyre murdered in gang initiations, theyre murdered for lingering eye contact, they're murdered for sport, theyre murdered by mistake, etc. Its not one bit uncommon for someone to be killed in a robbery and nothing ultimately taken. But for that matter, we dont know that nothing was taken, only that some things were not taken.
    1
  12. +William Webber And shockingly, thats why criminals had been targeting that specific area.
    1
  13. +LackofAttack Thats complete nonsense. DNC cyber security was practically nonexistent. That is undoubtedly the main reason they didnt want their system audited. Its like when your car is stolen, the last thing in the world you want the insurance company to find out, is that you left it running in the parking lot. Their security was so bad, it couldve been literally anyone with physical access to their computers. There are a number of reasons someone with his duties, may have had direct access to email archives. He may have simply been poking around and discovered unsecured emails, by accident. Ive worked at engineering companies that get externally attacked on a daily basis, yet have practically open access across the system, from the inside.
    1
  14. +Mike Dunn Speaking of things that haven't been proven, everything this guy says is pure speculation. But, it confirms your bias, so hes right about everything.
    1
  15. +Mike Dunn Rich had multiple defensive wounds and survived almost to the hospital, regaining consciousness at least once, in the ambulance. Hillary's hitmen are apparently making way too much, because if I caught a target from behind, at close range, the echo from shots would outlive him.
    1
  16. +Mike Dunn What 'download speeds'? What is the source of these statistics and what position was this guy in, that put him in primary contact with that data? Did he examine the server?
    1
  17. +Mike Dunn A) 'No Internet service in 2016 could transfer data at that rate' - FALSE B) You are citing the same report that you are discrediting.
    1
  18. +Mike Dunn Wow, you have some extraordinarily poor reading comprehension.
    1
  19. +Mike Dunn And your comprehension has improved 0% since your last comment. That or youre deliberately strawmanning, aka 'lying'.
    1
  20. +Mike Dunn Apparently you dont even comprehend your own comments.
    1
  21. +j M Its not a Left to Right spectrum, but an Authoritarian to Anarchy spectrum, with Conservatives and Liberals populating it, from one end to the other.
    1
  22. +Kona Blue You would think that Wikileaks could arrange some anonymous 'tip', if they had any proof. But then also, I thought one of their big things is that they dont even know the identity of their sources?
    1
  23. +Tom Wostoncroft You mean like the families of suicides, drug dealers, murderers, child molesters, hackers, homosexuals, etc., etc., who 'know them best' and insist that its just impossible? Why would his mom know anything whatsoever about it?
    1
  24. +888strummer Thats not necessarily true. There have been a number of dumps, which claim not to know the identity of the source; the verification coming independently though the community. Furthermore, a 'neither confirm nor deny' policy must be absolute to be effective. If you confirm or deny under any circumstances whatsoever, then a confirmation or denial can be inferred or interpolated in the future, from a non-response.
    1
  25. Im diverting nothing. Im saying your perspective that protecting a dead source is counterproductive, isnt necessarily accurate. I said nothing of the innuendos to the identity of the source. But, if I must, I agree that he should've said nothing at all. There are a myriad of arguments to be made that Rich was, or was not the source and/or that he was or was not assassinated over it. For what its worth, he might have been killed because someone erroneously thought he was a mole. Hell, he may have been wittingly or unwittingly working for the Russians. Or, he may have been killed in a gang initiation, for that matter and had nothing to do with anything. It may have been something personal. But the weakest of the arguments going round, against his being the source, is that he didnt have access to the information. This is akin to the 'Oswald was a poor shot' argument. Digression aside, no Assange shouldve said nothing. However, it may in fact be that hes in some way protecting another source by directing attention at the dead guy. One thing is certain, in my ex-professional opinion(former intel analyst) - it was definitely an internal leak and not an intrusion. This is gathered from the DNC's response to the exposure and their subsequent behavior.
    1
  26. +RedXIV per·se·cute /ˈpərsəˌkyo͞ot/ verb subject (someone) to hostility and ill-treatment, especially because of their race or political or religious beliefs.
    1