Judge's son gunned down, hitman found dead in car

[BStrong]

Vixen quoted tweet:

"Why do I keep seeing the same names over and over. Circles are tight. Clinton, Bush, Epstein, CIA, Deutche Bank, Kroll, Ghislaine.....Time for accountability. #cleanupcrew #suicided #maxwell #salas #ItsOkayToNotBeOkay #VoteBlueToSaveAmerica"

Qanon fan left out one name...Trump. Qanon spokesperson at work - go to the one minute mark, NSFW language

 

[JesseCuster]

Did you miss:

1. The other ten years: "Attorney, New York, N.Y., Russia, Ecuador, 1990-1999
   Counseled companies, individuals, and nonprofit organizations in America, Russia, and Ecuador on legal and
   business issues, including international financing and marketing.<snip>"
2. The reference to KROLL?

Nothing in there about being involved in semi-espionage, espionage, being a double agent or setting up security systems for Russia. If you're just reporting on what the media says, then can you tell us where the media are reporting that he was involved in espionage, being a double agent and was involved in setting up the Russian security system?

Because so far it looks like you just made up all that, just wild speculation based upon seeing what you think are buzz words in his resume.

 

[JesseCuster]

This is a tweet from someone called 'Sherlock':




Not saying I agree with him, just saying.

Keep maintaining your plausible deniability so you don't have to answer any direct questions. You're just reporting on what the media says (even though you aren't), you're not agreeing with what some random Twitter user says (you're 'just saying'), etc.

Straight out of the fringe playbook. Just ask questions, make vague implications, etc. so that when you're asked you can shrug your shoulders and say you never actually directly said anything and don't have to answer for anything.

 

[smartcooky]

"Why do I keep seeing the same names over and over....."

Its called confirmation bias. Conspiracy theorist nutjobs are all obsessed with the same people?

Moon Hoax nuts are all obsessed with the astronauts, particularly Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin, and with Gene Krantz, probably the most outspoken of the mission controllers as regards hoax nuts

JFK assassination conspiracy nuts are all obsessed with the same people and alphabet soup - CIA, FBI, NSA, Lyndon B. Johnson, E. Howard Hunt, Bernard Weissman, Jack Ruby.

This is normal (at least for the conspiracy theory fruitcakes). They imagine a cabal of bad actors. Their expectation is that this cabal will be comprised of rich, powerful, connected people, so rich, powerful, connected people become their obvious choices for membership of their cabal.

 

[Vixen]

Its called confirmation bias. Conspiracy theorist nutjobs are all obsessed with the same people?

Moon Hoax nuts are all obsessed with the astronauts, particularly Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin, and with Gene Krantz, probably the most outspoken of the mission controllers as regards hoax nuts

JFK assassination conspiracy nuts are all obsessed with the same people and alphabet soup - CIA, FBI, NSA, Lyndon B. Johnson, E. Howard Hunt, Bernard Weissman, Jack Ruby.

This is normal (at least for the conspiracy theory fruitcakes). They imagine a cabal of bad actors. Their expectation is that this cabal will be comprised of rich, powerful, connected people, so rich, powerful, connected people become their obvious choices for membership of their cabal.

You are a PR agent's dream if you can see no questions arising from JFK's assassination.

 

[Babbylonian]

You are a PR agent's dream if you can see no questions arising from JFK's assassination.

You should probably pay attention to the overarching point which is that there will always be questions, but filling in those answers with fantasies isn't particularly useful unless you're going to write a novel (or TV show or movie or whatever).

In this particular case, there really aren't any significant questions. You're attempting to fit this tragic event into a big conspiracy because that's what gets you off. None of us can win in the reality you inhabit because if the story is simple it's suspicious and if the story is complex it's obviously the work of a shadowy cabal.

You're not following the evidence or connecting the dots. You're just making up nonsense because you've chosen to live in a super-scary world where everything that happens is controlled by a super-scary conspiracy, such a super-scary conspiracy that it lets its opponents tell us all about it every single day without silencing them.

 

[smartcooky]

You are a PR agent's dream if you can see no questions arising from JFK's assassination.

Oh, I can see questions alright, but they have all been answered many years ago. JFK was assassinated by a disgruntled nobody called Lee Harvey Oswald, who acted alone. Any other theory of the crime is pure frootloop nutjobbery.

But this is not the place to debate JFK, that is here...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=329916

...I invite you to come on over. That thread is packed with experts on the JFK assassination who will tear your arguments to shreds.

 

[smartcooky]

You should probably pay attention to the overarching point which is that there will always be questions, but filling in those answers with fantasies isn't particularly useful unless you're going to write a novel (or TV show or movie or whatever).

In this particular case, there really aren't any significant questions. You're attempting to fit this tragic event into a big conspiracy because that's what gets you off. None of us can win in the reality you inhabit because if the story is simple it's suspicious and if the story is complex it's obviously the work of a shadowy cabal.

You're not following the evidence or connecting the dots. You're just making up nonsense because you've chosen to live in a super-scary world where everything that happens is controlled by a super-scary conspiracy, such a super-scary conspiracy that it lets its opponents tell us all about it every single day without silencing them.

Indeed, debunkers are always at a disadvantage when debating conspiritards. We are stuck with facts; real, invariable, stubborn facts... all we have to work with is reality; with what actually happened. Conspiracy nutjobs, on the other hand, can (and do) just expand or change the conspiracy at will, altering "facts" at will, or even creating them out of whole cloth.

To paraphrase S.G. Collins...

"Once you are forced to hypothesise whole new "facts" to keep your conspiracy possible, you have stepped over into the realm of magic, requiring of you a deep and abiding faith in things you can never know."

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Indeed, debunkers are always at a disadvantage when debating conspiritards. We are stuck with facts; real, invariable, stubborn facts... all we have to work with is reality; with what actually happened. Conspiracy nutjobs, on the other hand, can (and do) just expand or change the conspiracy at will, altering "facts" at will, or even creating them out of whole cloth.

To paraphrase S.G. Collins...

"Once you are forced to hypothesise whole new "facts" to keep your conspiracy possible, you have stepped over into the realm of magic, requiring of you a deep and abiding faith in things you can never know."

Uncovering the truth by making up facts does seem a rather strange way of going about things.

 

[Axxman300]

You are a PR agent's dream if you can see no questions arising from JFK's assassination.

We've got multiple threads on that including an active one.

ALL of the questions relating to the assassination have been answered and were answered in 1964. Suspicion based on paranoia makes nothing real.

 

[Vixen]

You should probably pay attention to the overarching point which is that there will always be questions, but filling in those answers with fantasies isn't particularly useful unless you're going to write a novel (or TV show or movie or whatever).

In this particular case, there really aren't any significant questions. You're attempting to fit this tragic event into a big conspiracy because that's what gets you off. None of us can win in the reality you inhabit because if the story is simple it's suspicious and if the story is complex it's obviously the work of a shadowy cabal.

You're not following the evidence or connecting the dots. You're just making up nonsense because you've chosen to live in a super-scary world where everything that happens is controlled by a super-scary conspiracy, such a super-scary conspiracy that it lets its opponents tell us all about it every single day without silencing them.

Thank you for your personalised opinion.

 

[Vixen]

Indeed, debunkers are always at a disadvantage when debating conspiritards. We are stuck with facts; real, invariable, stubborn facts... all we have to work with is reality; with what actually happened. Conspiracy nutjobs, on the other hand, can (and do) just expand or change the conspiracy at will, altering "facts" at will, or even creating them out of whole cloth.

To paraphrase S.G. Collins...

"Once you are forced to hypothesise whole new "facts" to keep your conspiracy possible, you have stepped over into the realm of magic, requiring of you a deep and abiding faith in things you can never know."

You can't know that the Salas killer was 'just another nut' any more than you can know the truth about Sirhan Sirhan and Lee Oswald Harvey, the truth about one of the Twin Towers seeming to implode from the inside (I was watching this live on TV at work [my boss liked to have a TV on his desk as he was a gambling addict and needed to keep up with the horse racing], the truth about the death of Marilyn Monroe or Diana. Your saying they are all perfectly innocent doesn't make it so.

 

[Vixen]

We've got multiple threads on that including an active one.

ALL of the questions relating to the assassination have been answered and were answered in 1964. Suspicion based on paranoia makes nothing real.

Not so. There was a recent documentary showing the various angles of the shooting, raising all sorts of new questions.

Yeah, yeah, a US president being assassinated is all very innocent. I'm sure.

Fact is, a lawyer and a court of law in determining evidence, will look at chronology - the time line - which is extremely important in understanding what has taken place. In the Salas case, the time line shows that just five days before Fedex in costume knocked, Judge Salas had been assigned the DeutscheBank money laundering and corruption case.

 

[Babbylonian]

Fact is, a lawyer and a court of law in determining evidence, will look at chronology - the time line - which is extremely important in understanding what has taken place. In the Salas case, the time line shows that just five days before Fedex in costume knocked, Judge Salas had been assigned the DeutscheBank money laundering and corruption case.

Five days? What had he done in those five days to make himself a threat needing violent, murderous correction?

 

[Vixen]

Five days? What had he done in those five days to make himself a threat needing violent, murderous correction?

It's called intimidation of witnesses, judges, prosecutors. The mafia in Italy have killed off lots of judges and tampered with witnesses.

The claim he had a personal grudge against judge Salas doesn't really wash as she found in his favour and granted him leave to appeal. The last contact was over five years ago. If this guy had a grudge against women, which he did to an Iron John extent - all because his Russian wife just used him to get a Green Card and dumped him as soon as she set foot in the USA - and a personal grudge against judge Salas, then it is telling that he didn't actually shoot the female person, nor the judge. In true mafia style, who ever answered the door got sprayed.

This demented dude an elderly guy with terminal cancer is found dead shortly after, wearing a Fedex uniform and a package marked Fedex addressed to judge Salas lest anyone be unclear that he is the guy 'who must have carried out the shooting' - short of his assassin hanging a note on his chest saying, 'Here lieth the body of Roy, Who dieth the naughtiest boy, He shot himself dead, three times in the head, once more in the chest to decoy.'

Riiight.

 

[Babbylonian]

It's called intimidation of witnesses, judges, prosecutors. The mafia in Italy have killed off lots of judges and tampered with witnesses.

The claim he had a personal grudge against judge Salas doesn't really wash as she found in his favour and granted him leave to appeal. The last contact was over five years ago. If this guy had a grudge against women, which he did to an Iron John extent - all because his Russian wife just used him to get a Green Card and dumped him as soon as she set foot in the USA - and a personal grudge against judge Salas, then it is telling that he didn't actually shoot the female person, nor the judge. In true mafia style, who ever answered the door got sprayed.

This demented dude an elderly guy with terminal cancer is found dead shortly after, wearing a Fedex uniform and a package marked Fedex addressed to judge Salas lest anyone be unclear that he is the guy 'who must have carried out the shooting' - short of his assassin hanging a note on his chest saying, 'Here lieth the body of Roy, Who dieth the naughtiest boy, He shot himself dead, three times in the head, once more in the chest to decoy.'

Riiight.

Personal incredulity combined with conspiracy paranoia. I'm sure you'll convince many with those powerful analytical tools.

 

[Craig4]

It's called intimidation of witnesses, judges, prosecutors. The mafia in Italy have killed off lots of judges and tampered with witnesses.

The claim he had a personal grudge against judge Salas doesn't really wash as she found in his favour and granted him leave to appeal. The last contact was over five years ago. If this guy had a grudge against women, which he did to an Iron John extent - all because his Russian wife just used him to get a Green Card and dumped him as soon as she set foot in the USA - and a personal grudge against judge Salas, then it is telling that he didn't actually shoot the female person, nor the judge. In true mafia style, who ever answered the door got sprayed.

This demented dude an elderly guy with terminal cancer is found dead shortly after, wearing a Fedex uniform and a package marked Fedex addressed to judge Salas lest anyone be unclear that he is the guy 'who must have carried out the shooting' - short of his assassin hanging a note on his chest saying, 'Here lieth the body of Roy, Who dieth the naughtiest boy, He shot himself dead, three times in the head, once more in the chest to decoy.'

Riiight.

You need to stop watching "Jason Borne" films. Life is not a summer action movie.

 

[Axxman300]

Not so. There was a recent documentary showing the various angles of the shooting, raising all sorts of new questions.

Yeah, yeah, a US president being assassinated is all very innocent. I'm sure.

There are also recent documentaries about Bigfoot. Doesn't make them fact. And seriously, there are no new questions, just re-hashed old questions by people believing in magic beans.

Fact is, a lawyer and a court of law in determining evidence, will look at chronology - the time line - which is extremely important in understanding what has taken place. In the Salas case, the time line shows that just five days before Fedex in costume knocked, Judge Salas had been assigned the DeutscheBank money laundering and corruption case.

That lawyer would also have to prove relevance or the case gets thrown out.

Should point out that in the real world the plaintiffs get murdered, not the judge.

 

[JesseCuster]

When you want to intimidate judges, witness, prosecutors, etc., you need to send them a clear message that their enemies are out to get them and they better step into line or they'll be the next vicitim or the threats will be carried out.

What you don't do is set up a pathetic anti-feminist MRA activity lawyer with a grudge, who has a terminal illness, make a botched assassination on a judge, commit suicide, leave behind him screeds of MRA anti-feminist material, etc.

When the mafia assassinate a judge, they want other judges and prosecutors that was the mafia who assassinated the judge, because that's how you send a message. "Don't **** with the mafia or we'll get you next". You need to know it was the mafia (or whatever shadowy organisation is out to get you).

This is a really stupid way to send a message to prosecutors and judges by convincing them that the gunman was a sad pathetic loner deep into the MRA anti-feminist movement who killed himself after failing to kill his target.

What ad-hoc excuse are you going to come up for why this actually somehow makes sense?

 

[JesseCuster]

In true mafia style, who ever answered the door got sprayed.

Is that actually "true mafia style" or idle speculation made to turn a failed amateurish attempt at murdering a judge into a professional hit carried out by powerful organised criminals?

I want to know where you gleaned that supposed piece of information from.

You're trying to wash your hands of having to answer questions like this by claiming you're just reporting what the media says, but I have doubts that these kind of claims you're getting from the media (like the "espionage/double agent" speculation you've indulged in and the "setting up Russian security systems" claims who've made about this guys work in Russia, nothing in his CV you've link to says anything of the sort).