. . . . bfl
.
Posted on 11/11/2013 6:40:27 AM PST by Hotlanta Mike
Reflexively distrustful, eager to make powerful enemies, the young journalist whose Mercedes exploded in Los Angeles one night couldn’t possibly have died accidentally, could he?
A t the end of his life, Michael Hastings, like many of the progressive journalists he counted among his friends, felt besieged by an overreaching government. Hastings was living in Los Angeles, and at a Beverly Hills theater in April, he took part in a panel discussion about the documentary War on Whistleblowers: Free Press and the National Security State. Interviewed in May on The Young Turks, a talk show on Current TV, Hastings railed against the Obama administration, which “has clearly declared war on the press”; the only recourse, he said, was for the press to respond: “We declare war on you.” On May 31, he dashed off an urgent tweet: “first they came for manning. Then Assange. Then fox. Then the ap.drake and the other whistle-blowers. Any nyt reporters too.” He attended screenings of his friend Jeremy Scahill’s film Dirty Wars, which seeks to expose “the hidden truth behind America’s expanding covert wars,” and when leaks about the NSA began appearing in The Guardian, and Edward Snowden was charged with espionage, Hastings was deeply troubled by the revelations and the Justice Department’s response. On June 7, his last post for BuzzFeed, where he was a staff writer, focused on “Why Democrats Love to Spy on Americans,” and at the time of his death, Hastings was working on a profile of CIA director John Brennan for Rolling Stone.
(Excerpt) Read more at nymag.com ...
Do you acknowledge that there was an explosion before he hit the tree?
Does that mean that you believe that conspiracies exist?
If so, then how do you know when there’s a conspiracy?
“If so, then how do you know when there’s a conspiracy?”
The same thing you know anything else, by the standard use of reasoning.
The response to the question is “Yes, yes he could have.” I’m not ruling out the possibility that somebody messed with him or the car or both beforehand. I’m also not inclined to discount the possibility that even paranoid, controversial left-wing jourbalists* can get themselves killed speeding on the surface streets of LA with no outside help whatsoever.
*Yes, I meant to do that.
Then tell me your reasoning for believing there was no foul play in the explosion that killed Michael Hastings.
Yup.
I don't recall Breitbart's story that was supposed to take down hussein being published, either.
You’ve got it backwards. I don’t have to make my case, because the professional investigators have already done their jobs and made that case for me.
If you have a problem with the results of their investigation, go conduct your own and publish the results. You’d be more likely to change minds than just ranting at random on the internet. Of course, then you would have to take, you know, the most basic steps that any real investigator would take. Like actually looking at the primary evidence, instead of basing your judgement on a few videos you saw on the internet. You might need to get some qualifications too, so you can properly evaluate said evidence.
They published it. It was the story of Barack’s involvement in the protests to get that radical Harvard professor rehired, and the professor’s classroom comments that were caught on video. Amounted to a whole lot of nothing.
Sometimes a car wreck is just a car wreck.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
So why don’t you accept Arpaio and Zullo’s conclusions about Obama’s birth certificate and selective service registrations being forgeries? The professional investigators have done their jobs and made the case. They’ve looked at the primary evidence and have the qualifications. So why do you accept the conspiracy theory that the official law enforcement story is wrong?
You mean like video of the car exploding before it hit the tree?
Actually, it was - a kind of lame video about barack at Columbia endorsing or lauding some leftist or marxist professor at a student rally.. remember that?
Almost as if it wasn’t the stuff Breitbart was talking about but a dud used to make it seem like the real story wasn’t being buried out of fear for Breitbart’s family’s lives...
Usually when Breitbart claimed to have stuff, he had stuff that didn’t dud out. And his claim about this information was bigger than his previous claims.
“Almost as if it wasn’t the stuff Breitbart was talking about but a dud used to make it seem like the real story wasn’t being buried out of fear for Breitbart’s family’s lives...”
Well, let’s see. The people that knew and worked with him said this was the story. So we have their word against the “theory” of a random person on the internet with no connection to Breitbart and no access to any details of the matter.
One of those is more credible than the other.
“So why don’t you accept Arpaio and Zullo’s conclusions about Obama’s birth certificate and selective service registrations being forgeries?”
Who said I didn’t?
Breitbart’s coroner initially said - after looking at the medical records, according to protocols - that Breitbart had not seen a doctor in over a year. Breitbart’s father-in-law, in initial interviews, said that he did not know Andrew had any heart problems. It was after people started wondering at the timing of this that the stories started to change, and those stories grew like Pinnocchio’s nose over time. First they didn’t know of any heart problems, then they said he had moved his office so he didn’t have to walk so far, then they said he was taking heart meds (but there weren’t any in his system according to the autopsy), and eventually they said he had had a massive heart attack that had put him in the hospital for a couple weeks just 6 months earlier. None of it pans out with what the coroner said based on the medical records before there was any question about him being assassinated. The shifting stories on the part of family and friends - stories not corroborated by the medical record - suggest that the family was scared. It is totally consistent with the family knowing he was assassinated and realizing that Breitbart’s children were next unless they fell in line and did what Andrew’s killer wanted them to do.
It actually reminds me of something I know and have observed as a teacher: the kids who will come right out and tell you their parents are abusing them are NOT being abused. The kids who are being abused are the ones who will insist until they are blue in the face that the black eyes and broken bones were because they fell down the stairs or walked into a door. The more adamant they are, the more you know they are afraid. And in those cases you have to let the broken bones tell you what fearful, abused children will never let themselves tell you because they know they will be punished if they let out the secret.
The medical record told a different story than Breitbart’s loved ones’ shifting stories told.
Mark Gillar interviewed Joel Pollack after Breitbart’s death. Pollack affirmed the need to report on important stories, regardless of danger. When asked if he would report on Arpaio’s criminal investigation of fraud and forgery involving Obama’s BC and selective service registration, Pollack said he definitely would NOT. When asked why, he basically said that it wasn’t important enough - not big enough, like this tape. This tape was a dud; a criminal investigation involving the supposed POTUS wasn’t BIG enough?!
That is the behavior of a scared man.
That fear speaks much, much louder than any words.
I think you did. I think I remember you.
Can you show me a post of yours where you accepted Zullo’s findings?
. . . . bfl
.
Huh? I have to dig through my history to prove to you that I said or didn’t say something because you think you remember me?
You want to claim I said something, YOU go do the research and then find the quote.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.