Further, with all of the oddities around this case, if there was in fact a conspiracy to kill Epstein, the release of this information at that time may have prevented authorities from altering the narrative around this incident.
Given that the death apparently occurred an hour before the post and a news outlet reported it less than an hour after it that seems like more of a stretch.
No real way of knowing, but it seems likely that OP was just trying to achieve notoriety through their access to privileged medical information. I'm not really ready to cheerlead that, especially if it muddies the water with any ongoing investigation regarding (unlikely) suspicious circumstances.
Most of the US disagrees with you on that one. They have since the polls predicted Hilary would win in a landslide. The authorities and the press constantly lie about even the little things now. Why should we trust anything they have to say?
And believing the press and authorities constantly lie about everything, even small details - things which they would have no practical reason to lie about - is going well past practical skepticism. You're not even accusing the media of getting details wrong here, or failing to properly research, but constant, pathological, willful malice.
That level of extremist paranoia might be fine for T_D or 4chan, and it's uncomfortably common here, but most of the US actually doesn't agree with you in this case.
edit: This cracks me up. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20688904
>Most of the US disagrees with you on that one. They have since the polls predicted Hilary would win in a landslide.
The implication, given the context of the rest of your comment and the subthread (that the media always lies and is covering up the truth about the Epstein incident,) is that the media falsified the election poll results.
After all, it wouldn't be the first time election polls were wrong. That's been a thing since at least "Dewey Defeats Truman." You could have picked any number of incidents to illustrate media bias or the media getting something wrong, but you fixated on something directly out of the Trump playbook.
>That sort of thing shakes even the most steadfast authoritarian.
Who's an authoritarian? Do I hear a dog-whistle?
No, I didn't, nor did I implicate anything near what you're suggesting. I'll thank you to stop putting words in my mouth.
> Do I hear a dog-whistle?
Thank you for reminding me why I stopped posting here.
> The FDNY conducted a review of the the 4chan post. A previous version of this post said FDNY conducted an investigation.
Too bad there will be no consequences to folks who took the guy who _attempted suicide_ once already off the suicide watch, turned off the cameras, and left him alone for an hour.
Nor for the mainstream press who will memory hole this story by Friday.