this particular Instagram post, as set to public at time of capture (best anyone can tell), appears to be the reason why Daily Sheeple was censored by their web host. http://archive.is/1atc5

Following are two video links with more background on this, and most details (so I'll spare you, just watch one or both of these):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBNwnoWdks0&feature=youtu.be

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxmW-QMOslI

The original poster of this Instagram content is listed as "alexandramigoya", which appears to be an actual (not pseudonymous) name. For the record, and though I have no independent method of verifying this at present moment, there is a D.C. based attorney by the name of Alexandra Marya Migoya listed inthe Washington, DC white pages.

As per a standard, public Google search, Ms. Migoya appears to be an alumnus of Cornell U, former corporate attorney, and former on staff in-house counsel at OutsideGC ( outsidegc.com ). http://cornellalumnimagazine.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1169&Itemid=56&ed=25

http://cdn2.hubspot.net/hub/62401/file-2335534568-pdf/Outside_GC_Alexandria_Migoya.pdf?t=1421170126197

Ms. Migoya does appear to be currently employed in the legal field in Washington, DC. And according to her LinkdIn profile, Ms. Migoya is listed as one of two authors of a book, "“Egalité, Liberté ..... Infidelité? Musings on French and American Sexual Behavior,” Women, Femininity and Feminism in the 21th Century: American and French Perspectives", published by Palgrave McMillan in 2009 - as well as having authored / partially authored several other books.

As I said, I cannot be 100% certain that this is the same person, yet she is the only perosn of this name which surfaces in Washington, DC under a standard Google search, and since she is an author there are several pages of listings. So, I will proceed with the remainder of this report AS IF this is the same "alexandramigoya" whom posted the once-Censored Instragram image.

PROS 1. It is possible, likely perhaps, that the Instagram post under consideration is perfectly innocent, and may have been taken out of context.* 2. There are children involved (and on this point, Ms. Migoya can rest assured, any such concerns are perhaps equally shared by those inquiring into Comet Ping Pong). 3. In retrospect, the original poster may have had misgivings upon realizing that an otherwise innocuous post became associated with a general, public investigation into odd, or perhaps bizarre string of social media posts related to Comet Ping Pong and Jimmy Comet (James Achilles Alefantis).

[*FOOTNOTE: I wonder if it dawned on initial pizzagate posters that what may have been being described in the text was the PARTY, depicted, after which they would leave to the parents' address for the SLEEPOVER (not depicted, nor further described)... and under normal circumstances, any message such as this might be described like this. However, "Pizzagate" everybody now knows, did NOT evolve under anything resembling "normal circumstances" such as a police intervention, court case, etc - in which instance, as a misunderstanding based perhaps upon clumsy wording by supposed claimant, the perceived "offense" or "hasty risk assessment" on part of pizzagate citizen investigators happened without any direct communication or clarification on the part of either party, but instead via third parties, so the error and "rush to judgement" on both sides might be completely understandable.]

All that might be perfectly true. Equally possible are the following:

1. Ms. Migoya may have information, may have heard rumors or innuendo, etc., regarding Comet Ping Pong and thus may not wish to speak publicly (or speak at all) about Comet Ping Pong or James Achilles Alefantis, nor perhaps to be further associated with either (understandable). 2. Ms. Migoya may have reacted in the best interests of children's privacy, without due regard to common sense or First Amendment rights to publicly available information, as posted. 3. The law might just be a huge "gray area" where this kind of thing is concerned, and that does appear to be the case to a large degree.

In any case, this is what I have been able to determine SO FAR. If I have injured the original poster of the Instagram feed in any way, or otherwise slandered, maligned, or harmed their reputation, then I expect this posting will be removed forthwith. Again, this entire report is tentative, subject to correction, and based solely on publicly available information, based upon a standardized Google search using applicable search terms.

Likewise, if I have exercised "reasonable" restraint and common sense in this use of publicly available information and public-interest reportage, then I expect the post to STAND, as is.