The Left Likely Coordinating Attacks on Those Investigating the Seth Rich Murder

By Rachel Alexander Published on May 28, 2017

After conservative talk show host Sean Hannity began covering new developments in the Seth Rich murder case last week, the left ramped up its attacks on those looking into it.

Led by Media Matters, the left forced Hannity to stop covering the story by pressuring his advertisers. (Hannity said he was halting coverage out of respect to the grieving family.) Several, including USAA and cars.com, caved this week, saying they were pulling their ads from his shows.

Coordinated Comments

One way the left seems to intimidate those looking into the murder is by leaving coordinated comments after articles and posts. The same comments are left on multiple websites after articles. The wording is often exactly the same. They even have the name-calling down to a science.

The user accounts almost always have very generic usernames and rarely include a profile photo. They’re fond of first names plus a number. They often don’t even take the time to put in a photo of a cat or something else innocuous to provide a semblance of legitimacy.

They even have the name-calling down to a science.

For example, a generic account with no profile photo, “anne55,” spent a lot of time leaving multiple comments after my most recent article. He or she may be unemployed or paid to leave comments — anne55 insists a few too many times in the comments that she (or he) is not.

Another sign that the comments may be targeted is the ratio of comments to Facebook shares. At the time of writing, that article had 182 comments but only 892 Facebook shares. That’s a high number of comments for the readership indicated by the number of shares. In contrast, an article I wrote about Seth Rich last week had 2,900 Facebook shares but only six comments.

Screen Shot 2017-05-25 at 12.42.49 PM

Screen Shot 2017-05-25 at 12.45.27 PM

A third sign: the apparent coordination of comments placed on the most popular mainstream sites after articles with positive news for the amateur sleuths. Real Clear Politics reported, “Rep. Blake Farenthold: Federal Investigators Need to Investigate Seth Rich’s Computer.” “Dave781” (as usual, no profile photo) was one of the first to jump in and leave comments. He left many.

A fourth sign is that they say the same things. Dave71 repeated what appear to be the Democrats’ main talking point: that we need to focus on whether the Russians hacked the DNC’s emails and gave them to Wikileaks.

A fifth sign is the way the attacks ignore all the contradictory evidence, even when it comes from their own side. They don’t challenge those. They challenge only the conservative writers. The commenters mostly ignore articles about Bernie Sanders supporters who agree there needs to be a probe. In an article on ThinkProgress, only 15 comments were left after an article entitled “The complicated origin of the Seth Rich conspiracy theory.”

The Clinton Troll Army

Is coordination possible? Of course it is. Everyone remembers Hillary Clinton’s troll army, a paid group of social media activists who tweeted and left comments during the presidential election.

They  took on Bernie Sanders in the primary. They took on Donald Trump during the general election. My guess is that many of these activists have transitioned to the effort to suppress reporting on and investigation of incidents involving Seth Rich.

The vaguely named “KW,” whose username on Twitter is “KDub0812,” still uses an image as his or her Twitter background that was given to the troll army, a Hillary campaign graphic. This person responds to people tweeting about Seth Rich all day long with clichéd talking points.

Twitter Bots

This doesn’t happen just in the web’s comboxes. Twitter bots repeat the same tweet en masse. Three days ago, this article, “Fox News staffers ‘disgusted’ over Seth Rich conspiracy theory,” was tweeted out over and over again by many Twitter accounts within a short amount of time. Some stragglers must have gotten the memo late, tweeting it out less often yesterday and today.

One Twitter user took a scrolling video of the barrage of tweets.

One of the accounts that tweeted this out even calls itself “Media bot.”

 

The Talk Show Hosts’ Response

As a result of the attacks, talk show hosts across the country are banding together to fight back. While Hannity may have stopped talking about the murder “for now,” he tweeted that he is still looking into it. Despite their zealous efforts, the left has not completely shut the sleuthing down.

 

Follow Rachel on Twitter at Rach_IC

Print Friendly
Comments ()
The Stream encourages comments, whether in agreement with the article or not. However, comments that violate our commenting rules or terms of use will be removed. Any commenter who repeatedly violates these rules and terms of use will be blocked from commenting. Comments on The Stream are hosted by Disqus, with logins available through Disqus, Facebook, Twitter or G+ accounts. You must log in to comment. Please flag any comments you see breaking the rules. More detail is available here.
  • Gary

    It is obvious that those responsible for the murder, and those who benefited from it, don’t want it investigated. Yes, those who are trying to keep it quiet had something to do with the murder. People don’t try to hinder investigations unless they have something to be gained by that hindrance. Can you add? Can you put 2 and 2 together and get 4? If you can, then you know who is behind the murder.

  • Tory

    The Left doest seemeth to beest protesting a did bite too much.

  • Theresa Jane

    Why do you feel you have the right to write about Seth Rich when his parents have asked journalists to stop discussing their sons murder?

    • Sandra Alexander

      I think it’s called free speech…….

      • Theresa Jane

        I think it’s called ignorance, disrespect, lack of compassion and invasion of privacy.

        • Manila2010

          Oh please…this is a serious murder case that deserves major investigation and some random person says doing just that is “ignorance, lack of compassion, and invasion of privacy?” LOL.

          • Jim Walker

            Well said.

          • Theresa Jane

            You are not an investigator. You are a random person gossipping about a murder.

          • Jim Walker

            You have no authority to stop anyone from trying to find the truth either.
            Seth’s death must Not be wasted and sometimes we have to take a stand whether the parents like it or not. It’s not just about the parents, it’s a lot bigger than their feelings, it’s about justice.
            You may say you buy the books of Michael Brown or some other writers here in Stream, do you actually read them? You behave just like any other Far Leftists, All emotion driven.

          • anne55

            The only waste here is people going against the family’s wishes. NO ONE here can find the truth. You don’t have access to any of the information. You are NOT part of the ‘investigative team.

          • Manila2010

            And you obviously ignore key facts of this case….And incidentally, I haven’t said one thing that can be construed as “false” or “misleading.”

          • anne55

            If you do a google search on this, it is pretty much conservative sites that are continuing to push this. But, not all of them. Some are speaking out against it too.

          • anne55

            You are exactly right and I am glad to see other people speaking out here against conspiracies. Thank you.

          • anne55

            All sources have said there is ‘nothing to it’. I might point out that is NOT true for the Trump / Russia connection. Even the FBI and CIA testifying have stated that it is now a criminal investigation.

      • anne55

        Free speech is one thing. But one does have to be careful.

        http(colon)(slash)(slash)www(dot)dmlp(dot)org(slash)legal-guide(slash)
        risks-associated-publication

        Risks Associated With Publication
        Every time you publish something online, whether it’s a news article, blog post, podcast, video, or even a user comment, you open yourself up to potential legal liability. This shouldn’t come as too much of a surprise because the Internet, after all, is available to anyone who wishes to connect to the network, and even the smallest blog or most obscure discussion forum has the potential to reach hundreds of millions of people throughout the world.

        Often the legal risks are small, but not always. The risks you could face when you publish online can take a number of forms, depending on what and how you publish. The sections that follow are not intended to make you an expert on media law, but merely to help you identify potential “red flags” so that when you publish something that might result in liability, you will know to be extra careful and will take the necessary steps to minimize your potential legal risks.

        Let’s start with the more obvious risks.

        First, if you publish information that harms the reputation of another person, group, or organization, or inflicts emotional distress upon another person, you may be liable for “defamation” or “false light.” Defamation is the term for a legal claim involving injury to reputation caused by false statements of fact and includes both libel (typically written or recorded statements) and slander (typically spoken statements). False light, which is similar to defamation, generally involves untrue factual implications about the subject that, although they might not hold the subject up to scorn or ridicule, nevertheless cause emotional distress. The crux of both of these claims is falsity; with very rare exceptions, truthful statements and implications that harm another’s reputation will not create liability, although they may open you up to other forms of liability if the information you publish is of a personal or highly private nature. We explain the details of defamation and false light and provide some practical tips for avoiding defamation and false light claims in the section on Publishing Information that Harms Reputation.

        Second, if you publish private or personal information about someone without their permission, you potentially expose yourself to legal liability even if your portrayal is factually accurate. For example, in most states you can be sued for publishing private facts about another person, even if those facts are true. The term “private facts” refers to information about someone’s personal life that has not previously been revealed to the public, that is not of legitimate public concern, and the publication of which would be offensive to a reasonable person. This could include such things as writing about a person’s medical condition, sexual activities, or financial troubles.

        If you use someone else’s name, likeness, or other personal attributes without their permission for an exploitative purpose you could also face liability for misappropriation or violation of the right of publicity. Usually, people run into trouble in this area when they use someone’s name or photograph in a commercial setting, such as in advertising or other promotional activities. But, some states also prohibit use of another person’s identity for the user’s own personal benefit, whether or not the purpose is strictly commercial. We discuss the details of misappropriation/right of publicity and private facts claims and provide some practical tips for avoiding these claims in the section on Publishing Personal and Private Information.

        Third, if you have web forums, allow reader comments, host guest bloggers on your site, or if you repost information that you receive from RSS feeds, section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (“CDA 230”) will likely shield you from liability for certain kinds of problematic statements made by your users, guests and other third-parties on your site. This important federal law protects you from tort liability for statements contained in these materials – and any other user-submitted content – you publish on your site. You will not lose this immunity even if you moderate or edit this content, whether for accuracy or civility, so long as your edits do not substantially alter the meaning of the original statements. Keep in mind that CDA 230 will only protect you if a third-party – not you or your employee or someone acting under your direction – posts something on your blog or website. It does not shield you from liability for your own statements. We cover this protection in more detail in the section on Publishing the Statements and Content of Others.

        Fourth, if you publish or use the creative work of others, their trademarks, or certain confidential business information without the permission of the owner, you may be exposing yourself to legal liability for violations of intellectual property law. Fortunately, if you allow your site’s user to post this type of content you can protect yourself from copyright infringement claims (but not trademark or other intellectual property claims) under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). In order to take advantage of the DMCA, you must register an agent with the Copyright Office to receive notices of infringement, establish effective “notice-and-takedown” procedures, promptly remove content when a copyright owner notifies you that it is infringing, and have no knowledge that the material in question is infringing. We cover liability associated with copyright, trademark, and trade secrets, as well as the procedures you should follow under the DMCA, in the section on Intellectual Property.

        Fifth, if you are a blogger or social media user who reviews or otherwise writes about products and services, the Federal Trade Commission has issued “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising” that may impose disclosure requirements on you. These guidelines require that you disclose “material connections” you may have with a company whose products or services you “endorse.” Without the legal jargon, this means that bloggers and social media users must disclose their relationship with a company when they are being paid or otherwise compensated by the company to comment favorably on its products or services. We cover these requirements in the section on Publishing Product or Service Endorsements.

        Lastly, as you publish your work online you may want to correct things you have previously published. Your willingness to fix past errors in your work will provide several benefits. It will make your work more accurate and reliable and will likely diminish your liability for defamation and other potential legal claims. We explain the benefits of correcting your errors and provide some practical tips for handling requests to correct or remove material in the section on Correcting or Retracting Your Work After Publication.

    • Rachel Alexander

      You just proved the point of my article. You have a generic name, no profile photo, and posted your comment immediately after the article was posted (25 minutes before I even knew it was up), yet it’s clear from your viewpoint you’re not even a Stream reader. Touche!

      • Theresa Jane

        If the editors don’t delete my reply again I replied as follows:
        I have been a Life Outreach International, James Robison (editor of The Stream) supporter for decades, buy all his books and those of Jay Richards and Michael Brown. I have made multiple comments on a variety of articles. Seth Rich was a private citizen and as such his parents are entitled to the privacy they requested which you continue to disregard. I think it is dreadfully cruel.

        • Rachel Alexander

          Maybe they deleted your reply because James Robison is not the editor of The Stream? And the Stream has only been around since 2015. Not decades. Not sure who you think you’re fooling…

          • Theresa Jane

            James Robison of Life Outreach International, the Life Today TV program with his wife Betty. He may not be the editor but he was involvef in establishing The Stream, contributes to it, and directs his tv viewers to it. Was realizing Rachel, the wrong assumptions you made, the conclusions you jumped to and the nastiness of your spirit about my comments on this article are a perfect illustration of how fake news starts and gets spread by “the right”. A person named Sandra Alexander – perhaps your relative – commented at virtually the same time I did, has just as “generic” a name as mine (using your puzzling definition of the word), he or she has no profile picture…yet you still jumped to your entirely wrong conclusion about me because I happened not to agree with the lines you continue to cross and the liberties you continue to take by disregarding the stated wishes of Rich’s grieving parents. I happen to have 25 comments on The Stream, and I don’t comment on any other sites. I don’t even know who Seth Rich was other than a young man whose murder is unsolved, and whose parents have made a plea to people like you to stop stirring up dirt about his death. They should bring legal action against “journalists” (really just bloggers) like you.

          • Rachel Alexander

            Just curious, if you don’t post on other sites, why are you suddenly so concerned about how others are covering the death of Seth Rich now, to post more comments after articles here about Seth Rich than anyone else? What about “the right” (your quotes) has you so concerned?

          • Theresa Jane

            Heard about it via the contentious articles on The Stream, did some research by reading news articles online, was appalled that people who don’t even know the deceased young man are spouting all kinds of unwelcome junk despite his parents plea to cease and desist. My comments about the Seth Rich murder are limited to expressing disgust that bloggers like you don’t care less about that. I thought The Stream was a Christian site, but it does not seem to be.

          • Rachel Alexander

            So you’re essentially saying if you don’t know someone who was suspiciously murdered, you are not allowed to talk about it or look into it if his parents don’t like it (despite the fact they’re doing their own investigation with an investigator from the right who was arranged for them, and talking about it). Got it.

          • GPS Daddy

            I see what your saying on the characteristics of these user accounts, Rachel. Theresa has a whopping 27 comments over the past 2 weeks of which 85% are anti-Trump. Theresa also uses standard your-not-a-Christian shaming when their arguments don’t work. I’ve seen that tactic numerous times from the left.
            Thanks from putting this list up. I will use it to filter whom I spend time on.

          • Rachel Alexander

            Thanks for pointing that out about “Theresa Jane.” I suspected as much but had not scrolled through all of her comments. Her arguments are standard Democrat talking points, meant to smear anyone who exercises free speech to discuss this case – no matter how much overwhelming evidence there is that something fishy happened.

          • GPS Daddy

            So in your work as an assistant DA (I think I have that right), is the evidence that something is fishy similar to this case in your experience?

          • Rachel Alexander

            Correct, there is a huge pile of things that don’t add up. Can’t get a straight answer whether the FBI is investigating or not. Same with the location of the laptop. No information about the body cameras worn by the attending officers or surveillance cameras in the area. And most disturbing from a prosecutorial standpoint – why wasn’t anyone at the Bar interviewed? Not a single lead on a “robbery” case for almost a year even with six-figure rewards offered – it it was a run of the mill robbery, someone would likely have caved by now. And so on and so on.

          • GPS Daddy

            Now I don’t know David French’s background. Can it be that he does not understand the nature of criminal evidence in cases like this?

            Also, on another person’s death, I wonder about Justice Scalia. While he was a prime candidate for a heart attack it seems fishy to me that they would not do an autopsy to confirm the cause of death.

          • Scalia’s family might not have allowed one to take place. The prosecutor that I wrote about had been investigating DNC voter fraud.

          • GPS Daddy

            You mean the prosecutor who’s body washed up?

          • GPS Daddy

            Being a Supreme Court justice I would think that the decision to have an autopsy done would be automatic to exclude foul play for a person in such an important position.

          • anne55

            Oh, for heaven’s sake GPS Daddy. Are you going to start yet another conspiracy theory?

            He was 79 years old. He was overweight (and likely not terribly physically active from all that sitting on the bench). His doctor said he had ‘many health problems’ (including “…sleep apnea, degenerative joint disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and high blood pressure,” He was also smoker.

            My guess (and it is a guess) is he likely died of a heart attack or stroke. This description doesn’t sound healthy. People DO die of things other than conspiracies.

          • Rachel, I can’t help myself. I just HAVE to say it: Thank you for being a writer who takes the time to interact with and respond to people you don’t even know (like me, for example). I am VERY concerned for this nation, right now, given all that is going on that the MSM refuses, categorically, to acknowledge at all, like the prosecutor, whose body washed up on the Hollywood, Florida beach just recently.

          • Rachel Alexander

            Thanks William! Weirdly, one of the sites I write for prohibits writers from interacting in the comments. Glad The Stream does not have that policy, I enjoy the dialogue.

          • anne55

            There might actually be good reasons for that policy.

          • anne55

            Rachel – you are not currently practicing are you?

          • tasha63

            Her legal work was a little tarnished, I believe. So, what makes Ms. Alexander the armchair expert on this? Google it.

          • GPS Daddy

            Hmmm, you have a total of 2 comments in your history. How about spending time on articles you agree with to build credibility that your not what Ms. Alexander is talking about.

          • tasha63

            Did you google it?

          • anne55

            Have you stopped to consider that maybe Teresa really believes what she is saying? She might say the same thing to you in reverse: “Her arguments are standard Republican talking points, meant to smear anyone who exercises free speech to discuss this case…”

            Frankly, I think the ‘evidence’ (there is very little) is pretty underwhelming. Just my observations based on everything I’ve read from both sides.

          • anne55

            Well, GPS Daddy, I just counted up the number of comments you’ve made to others in the past two weeks and it numbered 85 comments. Of those, I counted 21 statements that were at least somewhat supportive of Trump and the others that were highly critical of Hillary / Democrats / liberals. That is about 25% of your comments. So, my point in doing this is, you (and others) aren’t so different than Theresa. We all have our ‘world views’. But, talking to each other at least exposes us to a differing view point.

            C’mon. Just think how boring this site would be if everyone totally agreed with each other!

          • Theresa Jane

            You are not talking about it privately, you are writing and publishing articles containing all kinds of amateur speculation, accusations and innuendo in regards to the murder of a private citizen. So no, you are not entitled to do that if you are an intelligent, moral and decent human being, let alone on a presumably “Christian” site. Indeed, James Robison is not the editor of this gossip trash magazine.

          • Manila2010

            I can say with utmost confidence that the one whose comments certainly fall within the category of “amateurism” is NOT Rachel Alexander….Yeah, Seth Rich was “just a private citizen,” sure….And I gotta bridge to sell you in Brooklyn…lol DNC staffer murdered–reports that he secretly provided confidential DNC info to Wikileaks….So instead of regurgitating the usual tiresome Democrat talking points, why not acknowledge and try to refute what’s being alleged, eh?

          • anne55

            What exactly do you think qualifies Rachel Alexander as an expert on this? I’d like to know.

            Anyone can write an article and get it published in an online blog.

          • anne55

            They are the parents. Not you. The DC police are in charge here. What could you possible contribute but innuendo and made up theories? You aren’t part of the investigative team. You haven’t interviewed people. You don’t know the family. Speculate in private if you wish, but keep it private.

          • Manila2010

            There are explosive allegations involving Seth Rich that could possibly blow up into something greater than even Watergate–Sorry for being blunt, but I don’t give a hoot what the parents think, at this point….And to object to any investigations on account of their “feelings,” is completely absurd!

          • m-nj

            i have to agree. this is actually still an unsolved homicide, and authorities are duty bound to continue to investigate. in this case, it appears that there are forces at work that are trying (and being successful to a large degree) to thwart that process. so then it falls to the citizens to put pressure on the authorities to move forward, or do their own investigating (as the P.I. was doing).

          • anne55

            Let “the authorities” do their jobs and stop being an armchair detective. We, who believe there may be a Trump / Russia connection based on a fair amount of evidence, are letting the FBI and CIA do THEIR jobs.

          • anne55

            Then you have no heart and are not a compassionate Christian.

          • Tory

            A private citizen and IT staffer for a major political party is murdered after leaving a bar at roughly 4:00am. The still unsolved murder is deemed a likely robbery despite nothing being taken from the victims person, not a single employee or patron of the bar where the victim was last seen alive is ever interviewed, nor do the investigators request the bar’s security footage from the night in question or even visit the bar at all, standard practices in any similar murder investigation.
            An on the record source with ties to Wikileaks claims publicly that the victim, with his help, leaked thousands of emails he’d taken from the DNC to Wikileaks, emails he would have had direct access to in his position, the same emails eventually published by Wikileaks containing numerous communications damaging to the party’s presidential candidate, her campaign team, and the DNC itself, including coordination between the DNC and numerous “journalists” to provide the candidate questions ahead of interviews and coordinate the content and timing of stories to achieve maximum benefit for the campaign, the sharing of debate questions by a major media outlet with the candidate in advance of a live national debate, and open discussions among the DNC Chair and campaign about weighting the awarding of delegates in the state primaries to override the will of the electorate and secure victory for the aforementioned presidential candidate, along with a communication from the campaign manager, referencing the need to “handle” an internal leaker.

            The e-mails in question are the eventual basis for several months of near round the clock reporting by mainstream print, television and digital media outlets, including some identified in the leaked emails as having coordinated with the campaign to aid the candidate, claiming that it was Russia that hacked the DNC, in collusion with the President elect of the United States, and leaked said emails to Wikileaks in order to sway the election for the eventual winner, a claim vociferously denied by Wikileaks which claimed their source was internal to the DNC, with the bulk of the reporting relying on unnamed, off the record sources, and the thrust being that the President Elect was not legitimately elected, but in effect stole the Presidency from the rightful winner, the candidate whose campaign emails were among those taken or hacked from the DNC where the murdered IT staffer was employed.

            But, the victims family, which admittedly does not know how, why, or by whom their son was murdered, claims he was not the Wikileaks source and asks that the few within the media reporting the many layers of this story, including claims he may have been the source of the stolen emails, cease their reporting of “conspiracy theories”, despite having previously called on the public and media to aid the stalled investigation. And that is sufficient reason, despite all of the potential implications, including the obvious issues of press freedom, the public interest, and the murder in question having possible ties to a rigged (or not), and/or stolen (or not) Presidential election, to just cease covering the story?

          • anne55

            Well said.

          • Manila2010

            If you don’t know about Seth Rich, it appears then you haven’t done as much research as you should have….So he’s “just a young man?” LOL

        • anne55

          I agree with you.

      • Theresa Jane

        There you go Rachel. I added my photo. It is sideways, wasn’t sure how to fix it, I hope you don’t mind!

        • Rachel Alexander

          Oh that’s interesting, your photo is very small and Google images can’t find anything similar. Are you on FB? Just curious if you’re a real person. I haven’t seen any evidence yet that you aren’t a paid troll for the left.

      • Theresa Jane

        The paranoia, suspicion and judgement with which you “profiled” me when I commented on this article are a very good illustration of what has gone wrong in your country. Your tone is hysterical and hateful.

  • Jim Walker

    Rachel these trolls need money to continue their livelihood of donuts, pizza, junk food and soft drinks sitting in front of a laptop.
    Some do it for free I believe.
    Sorry I don’t have a picture profile but you will know the tree by its fruits…

  • IWantALamborghini

    Now we are into the coverup phase of the Seth Rich Scandal.

  • Charles Burge

    I’m honestly not sure what to think of this entire affair. David French, someone I have come to respect, wrote an article at National Review in which he called the conspiracy theories “shameful nonsense” and “a disgrace”. I do agree that something seems fishy. I just wonder how much “there” is really here….

    • Dean Bruckner

      David French is a Never Trumper and is not objective in these matters.

      • Charles Burge

        Not only is that irrelevant, but I find a lot wrong with your sentiment. As a conservative, my political allegiance is to conservative principals, not necessarily to any particular Republican politician. If those two ever come into conflict, I’ll choose the principals every time. Frankly, I find unwavering support for Trump rather troublesome, because he’s not particularly conservative on most issues. And the assertion that a “Never Trumper” cannot be honest or objective is flat-out offensive.

        • Dean Bruckner

          Principals? Who are they?

        • Jim Walker

          *principles*

          • Charles Burge

            Thanks. I fixed it.

    • GPS Daddy

      Yep, I agree. But David gives no credit to any of the evidence. The biggest piece of evidence is that the left seems scared.

    • m c

      Because it is fishy!! Wise up. Did you not see how corrupt the DNC got?? ON any major/minor subject. Soros pays good money to control us through them!

  • Jason Baker

    I find it curious that the family of Seth Rich seems to take the stance that people are accusing him of doing something wrong. If he was indeed the “leaker”, he did a service to the electorate by showing how corrupt the DNC is. He also did nothing criminally illegal, in my estimation, by leaking, if he indeed did. The DNC is not a governmental agency. The “conspiracy theory” states that Seth Rich saw unjust electoral and journalism practices, made them known and was murdered for it. How does this degrade Seth Rich?

    • Jim Walker

      When the truth is out, DNC will cease to exist, together with some RNC Personnel as well.
      May the truth set us free!

  • Edward Chastka M.D.

    To all those pursuing the Seth Rich and other stories of criminal behavior by the elites: take heart, the vehemence of their response is your best assurance that you are on the right track. Also important to remember; they will accuse you of doing exactly what they are doing, it is a disguised admission of guilt on their part and is a very useful guide to further investigation.

  • m c

    They were doing that on Yahoo for years!! They were even deleting mine and others. So I waited 5 mins and did my copy and paste so many times they could get rid of them fast enough. That was my contribution to fighting this spiritual war. Please do the same if you can’t do the physical contribution or volunteering or running for something!!! The truth shall set us free!!! We need help Christians and good people. Even good Democrats will slowing be set free if they ever get a chance to read the truth or the difference of what is a veiled untruth is against the real truth!! And pray, pray, pray their eyes and hearts get opened!

  • A. Castellitto

    Sounds like Donna Brazille was giving Rich a hard time before he died and questioned why Wheeler was snooping around…. No smoke there I guess 😉 nice piece by the way, you are a pitbull, that’s meant as a compliment!!!

  • A. Castellitto

    Seeing all these deep state trolls, now add fake christians to the whole fake news sensation

  • anne55

    My dear Rachel, I am retired and likely old enough to be your mother. And no one is paying me. All opinions are my own. I don’t know a single person here – including others who post comments contrary to what you believe. I don’t get together with others to plot against you. Neither was I a Clinton supporter – I voted for Sanders in the primaries. I believe in credible news sources, not Sean Hannity and Infowars. And your own credibility is a bit tarnished I’d say.

  • anne55

    Not only that, but many, many people write here regularly… I could name them, but I won’t. Most use pen names or first names. So, it is okay for conservatives who agree with you to post their opinions or use pen names, but all the rest of us should either butt out, use our real names or photos? Seems a double standard.

Inspiration
The Crisis We Can Do Something About
Dudley Hall
More from The Stream
Connect with Us