this post was submitted on 16 Jul 2024
574 points (96.6% liked)

politics

19126 readers
2274 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (1 children)

If you seen it "for yourself", please provide the source.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I'll let you know I actively despise you specifically for making my lazy ass repeat due diligence in verifying information for you. This is something you could have researched yourself using advanced modern technologies such as Google. Those materials are openly available, and if you distrust my opinion, then you should never trust any sources I provide instead of researching on your own. You'll notice that all websites I'll provide as sources end with ".gov", which not only means those are somewhat legitimate, but also discoverable by most lazy of fucks. Oh well.

You can check the individual contributions here: https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/individual-contributions/?contributor_name=Thomas+Crooks&contributor_zip=15102

You can check the voter registration status here: https://www.pavoterservices.pa.gov/pages/voterregistrationstatus.aspx

And if you use ActBlue donor data, ZIP code, and all other details we know about the shooter like their birth date and such, you will get this:

If you search on Google Maps for "USA 15102," you will get sent to Bethel Park, PA 15102, which we know the shooter lived in. Here's the "source" for that:

You might notice that on the donor registration there is a location of "PITTSBURGH, PA 15102" instead of Bethel Park, but as far as I understand the USA ZIP code system, that place doesn't exist. 15102 points specifically to Bethel Park. You can try putting "PITTSBURGH, PA 15102" into Google Maps and you'll be sent to Bethel Park. We can then double check if some parts of Pittsburgh are recognized as belonging under 15102 on the USPS ZIP Code Lookup Tool, instead of it being solely used for Bethel Park:

As you can see, it doesn't seem to be the case. So, can anyone else living in Bethel Park with this same name be the person who made the donation? Sure, but the narrative that addresses differ or that the person from this address made multiple donations over the years is fake, as you can clearly see on the donor's receipts, there being only one donation under that ZIP code and name. By the way, you might need to use a VPN to access the www.pavoterservices.pa.gov thing. I used Opera for that as it gave me a free one.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Ok. But I don't use Google in this way. My search engine heads towards me and I live somewhere else. I'm checking the validity of your claim. I don't see conclusive proof. The Thomas Crooks that made a donation does not have a middle name in his donation. From what I have seen that is the crux if the discussion.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

I don't know if middle name is required, and I sort of doubt it seeing as they got city wrong as well. That was most likely typed by hand, someone put in city before asking for ZIP code, I'd wager. Still, that Thomas Crooks would need to live in same neighbourhood, and arguments about it being a democrat that donated repeatedly also couldn't be true unless they moved into this neighbourhood, made this donation, and moved out. At this point what's inconclusive is any argument I've heard against this in my opinion, as most of them are invalidated by either wrong adresses or counts of donations. If you can point me to anyone else who would meet all of the criteria then I'll concede that the evidence about this donation being made by the shooter is not conclusive, before that we can conjure magical creatures and claim it could have been them.