You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

d347h574r ago

Ok, so, I'm getting laughed at by people when I try and talk about this stuff. I have to admit as powerful as all this information is, it is largely circumstantial. How do I explain the evidence in a cohesive way? Is there any direct evidence?

UglyTruth ago

The most direct evidence is the WikiLeaks codewords, you can show them how the ordinary meaning is nonsensical:

"In the pasta game changer put us in a position to help both parties and gave them incentives." ~Hillary Clinton https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/23566

More examples here: http://actsinjunction.info

NotThe77th ago

We don't yet and probably won't get any clear cut evidence on this, what we do have is a mountain of circumstantial stuff.

Trying to explain this to people unwilling to spend time in the rabbit hole won't work so don't try to sell the whole story, hint that you know something interesting but "it might be nothing, the FBI leaks might be fake". Let them drag it out of you, let them do some digging.

d347h574r ago

This is good advice, I appreciate it, I can't believe that even the possibility of this happening isn't enough to spark people that I know. I fully admit to them that the evidence is circumstantial, but I'm seriously getting laughed at! This is more than enough evidence to start an investigation, isn't it? Thanks again :D