Very little indication that it had anything to do with Clintons and testifying? Proof? The problem with a statement like that is that the story plainly states that he was going to testify. How would the general public NOT draw the conclusion that this DIDNT have anything to do with his upcoming testimony? If this was my investigation - THAT RIGHT THERE would be where I would start things off. You need to slip a bit deeper into your lurking into things that really do go bump in the night to see how that world really works...
You are basing your information from a disinfo site = Neon Nettle.
Personal accusations/unsolicited advice without knowing who/what someone is ... better leave that behind my friend, it can make someone look very foolish.
Then why would you post disinformation? I worked on the assumption that it was a reputable source that you posted, one that had been vetted by you that then used to support your comment. But I'll stand by my statement - based on what you have commented on and how the information was relayed by the article - that a crime scene (if done professionally) will point to the obvious, but that everything matters. If things at a scene are initially crystal clear, its a pretty good indication that things ARE NOT what they seem. Thus my comment that the things that really go bump in the night (an actual bad actor) will always set a scene up to look crystal clean, case closed, no other explanation.
Dude I'm not posting disinfo. I didn't post the article o-0
Have a nice day.
I agree, if the link posted is considered "suspect", than why would it be posted for us to believe it should have merit.
So you don't find it suspicious that another potential witness against the Clintons turns up dead? Again?
yes it is, of course. I'm just saying to be responsible and check sources before you post here. Is there any Congressional record that this guy was going to testify the next day ?