As expected, there's a lot more of this fight on @bakedalaska twitter account. One tweet pointed out the fact that in the video that Posobiec made at that event with the person who took the picture of the sign, Posobiec is wearing a similiar hooded sweatshirt to the sign holder.
So you posted this because Posobiec is fabricating news. That's weird because you weren't bothered by Democrat Black Ops Commander Robert "Non-Dairy" Creamer doing the same thing at Trump rallies before the election. But that's ok, I'll let it slide, dishonesty isn't good. I'm with you so far.
The problem is why are you posting this to /v/Pizzagate? This is something Jack Posobiec did at an Anti-Trump protest. GoPluckYourself even deleted your post and writes "not even sure where to repost this".
This is very odd AreWeSure. Why? Because 6 hours ago on this thread https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/1560343/7600096 you castigated someone for trying to insinuate James Alefantis prior criminal record implied a crime at Comet Ping Pong.
Technically you're correct, previous crimes aren't admissible in court. But you're not being consistent. Past sketchyness can't be used against Alefantis but it CAN be sort of be used against Posobiec. Once again and for the like 5th time you're not being objective and consistent in your judgement.
That means you're not here looking for the Truth. You're not here to make doubly sure we get it right. You're here to sow doubt and gas light anyone who suspect PizzaGate is the real deal.
A. I posted this because Posobiec went to Comet Ping Pong and created source footage from Comet Ping Pong. If he faked source footage in one place, I would be careful using him as a source, particularly if he comments again on Comet Ping Pong/Pizzagate. I think that is relevant.
B. Re: Robert "Non-Dairy" Creamer: This is a ridiculous example of Whattaboutism. Flat out ridiculous. I was not on VOAT before the election, but you claim to know my thoughts. This is either majorly silly or you are confusing me with someone else.
C. He implied that he caught Alefantis in a contradiction and he did not. There's other issue of I sold pot in College 20 years ago doesn't not imply, I run an occult-canaballistic, child-trafficking ring of pedofiles today.
D. Technically, I'm correct..... Of course, I am. Posobiec's sketchnyess was a few months ago and he denied it this week. C'mon.
E. Bullshit on gaslighting and you probably know that. Not only, have I never gaslighted, I've never deliberately posted anything this is false. I think I have been wrong maybe 3 times and I have acknowledged that.
F. I not here to sow doubt. I here to show the people the doubt that is already there. The doubt they are choosing not to see. Most folks here are motivated not to see it. I'm here to establish the primacy of doubt, the value of doubt, the proper use of skepticism. Witchhunting is so much easier without doubt. When you can convince yourself you know the truth without really holding your evidence up to doubt, these grand conspiracies become so easy to believe especially when you can make up what the evidence means.
"never deliberately posted anything this is false."........You said Hillary deleting her emails is totally normal because everyone deletes emails. I had to remind you of BleachBit and the fact all a RICO case needs is malicious destruction of evidence. Doesn't matter who actually clicked the Delete button. In fact that's kind of the whole purpose of RICO: to make it easier to prove criminal intent because before RICO Mafia king pins were getting off the hook because they weren't the ones carrying out the crime. They just gave the orders.
"But you're not using evidence."........This was a blatant lie. Conchita Sarnoff has so much evidence against Jeffrey Epstein SHE WROTE A BOOK: https://www.conchitasarnoff.com/
Why are these lies and not just gross misrepresentation of fact? Because you know the truth. You knew about BleachBit. You saw the Conchita Sarnoff link. You knew Epstein was arrested for sex with minors. You knew all this stuff but lied and implied you didn't.
Hi, I don't think Epstein is a central figure in pizzagate, you might. I don't.
Nothing I wrote about Hillary's emails was untrue. There's no malicious destruction of evidence on her part, because she asked that they be deleted months before a subpoena was sent. The idea of RICO case here is pretty much laughable, it's armchair lawyering. Not something an actual prosecutor would try to prove. This is all shit the FBI knew about. You want to play Fantasy League Justice Department, knock yourself out.
None of this is gaslighting. It's disagreeing on what the facts mean.
Ah no, Rudy isn't the problem, James Comey is. What you're saying essentially is because James Comey didn't prosecute then no crime occurred. But you can't say that because there's evidence Comey was bought off. For example: ( https://youtu.be/g-km5K9uOQw?t=172 )
-no grand jury
-no subpoenas
-no court orders
-immunity to the co-conspirators
-letting the co-conspirators in on the interview
Comey also had a clear conflict of interest. He was on the board of two companies with very close ties to the Clinton Foundation: HSBC and Lockheed. He made MILLIONS in those two positions.
So Rudy actually IS being objective. And the points above actually prove James Comey isn't. Comey covered this up. You'd be a fool to say otherwise.
"disagree on this".........Sorry you can't just punt this one. You have to actually provide a REASON you disagree with me. You need to explain why the FBI's standard operating procedure wasn't followed:
-no grand jury
-no subpoenas
-no court orders
-immunity to the co-conspirators
-letting the co-conspirators in on the interview
Why do you have to provide a reason? .......Because your name is AreWeSure. Someone who wants to be sure by definition can't sweep things under the rug........ Sorry. I don't make the rules.
You're incorrect. I don't have to provide anything to you. You accused me of gaslighting with zero evidence.
However, you are also quite incorrect on FBI procedure. If you do an investigation and conclude there's no crime you can charge you do not need to go to a grand jury. Not every infraction of classified info rules is a crime, not everyone goes to the FBI. The FBI did not see a crime in this case and thus did not recommend that the US Attorney call a grand jury.
"conclude there's no crime"........Your naivete knows no bounds. If you interview co-conspirators TOGETHER their stories tend to all agree and kiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiind of make it difficult to catch them lying no? There are many examples but I don't want to belabor the point. All you need to know is OF COURSE the FBI concluded there was no crime. THEY WEREN'T LOOK FOR ONE!
The problem is you have no interest in finding the Truth and I can prove it. Please provide just one piece of evidence that points to Hillary Clinton breaking the Law. This can be anything, mailing SAP documents, Clinton Foundation fraud, anything. I will take ANY evidence from you that points to Hillary Clinton having committed a crime.
My theory is you won't be able to name even ONE thing you think she did to break the law.
You are hilarious. Proof of the truth is something you believe in? Nice.
No 'SAP documents' went to her email. You should know that. No "classified documents" at all went to her email. She properly viewed classified documents on the SECURE system. Classified info, not documents were among her emails. Regarding the SAP stuff, the emails were vague conversations about an SAP prorgram, the CIA drone program, but they were not "documents" about them. This is exactly what I am talking about in terms of something that rises to the level of a crime. An email that says "Hey did you see the article in the NY Times about Wazirstan yesterday" would be considered classified if that publice avaialble information discussed the CIA drone strike program, even if everyone knows about it and government officials have publically discussed it.
Just as I expected. You can't provide even ONE thing Hillary Clinton did that may have broken the law.
And then what you wrote was strange as well. It was almost as if you were ashamed of saying: "Yep, I don't think Hillary did anything wrong." and then end it. No you couldn't do that because that would easily prove me right. So you throw in some shade on SAP etc even though I said I'd take ANY EVIDENCE.
Here's the problem though AreWeSure. THE FBI IS STILL INVESTIGATING THE CLINTON FOUNDATION. So even the FBI believes she may have broken the law. But you AreWeSure are so opposed to being sure that you believe even the FBI is wrong.
You don't "owe" me anything AreWeSure. It's just a common courtesy to engage with another human being as both try to discover what the Truth really is. People have been doing that for thousands of years.
You however don't play by those rules. You'll leave the conversation or try to castigate your opponent when you're put on the defensive.
I asked you to give me just ONE piece of evidence Hillary Clinton has broken the law. Your response is to rhetorically stick your fingers in your ears and start repeating "La la la la. I can't hear you."...............
AreWeSure it's not "WHEN did Hillary Clinton break the law?". It's "HAS Hillary Clinton ever broken the law?". The FBI certainly thinks it's possible. Otherwise they wouldn't be investigating her!
Bee tee dubs, great job playing "The Victim Card(tm)". It's the Left's tried and true go to move. They never let a good crisis go to waste. People don't think you're transparent? Come out and say you're the most transparent politician that has ever walked the face of the Earth and shame on you for implying otherwise. People notice Haitian protesters demanding back the 98% of the money promised them? Take the offensive and say your opponent is a Racist.
It's a simple question: "HAS Hillary Clinton broken the law?"
view the rest of the comments →
AreWeSure ago
As expected, there's a lot more of this fight on @bakedalaska twitter account. One tweet pointed out the fact that in the video that Posobiec made at that event with the person who took the picture of the sign, Posobiec is wearing a similiar hooded sweatshirt to the sign holder.
DarkMath ago
So you posted this because Posobiec is fabricating news. That's weird because you weren't bothered by Democrat Black Ops Commander Robert "Non-Dairy" Creamer doing the same thing at Trump rallies before the election. But that's ok, I'll let it slide, dishonesty isn't good. I'm with you so far.
The problem is why are you posting this to /v/Pizzagate? This is something Jack Posobiec did at an Anti-Trump protest. GoPluckYourself even deleted your post and writes "not even sure where to repost this".
This is very odd AreWeSure. Why? Because 6 hours ago on this thread https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/1560343/7600096 you castigated someone for trying to insinuate James Alefantis prior criminal record implied a crime at Comet Ping Pong.
Technically you're correct, previous crimes aren't admissible in court. But you're not being consistent. Past sketchyness can't be used against Alefantis but it CAN be sort of be used against Posobiec. Once again and for the like 5th time you're not being objective and consistent in your judgement.
That means you're not here looking for the Truth. You're not here to make doubly sure we get it right. You're here to sow doubt and gas light anyone who suspect PizzaGate is the real deal.
What is your deal AreWeSure? WHY ARE YOU HERE?
;-)
AreWeSure ago
A. I posted this because Posobiec went to Comet Ping Pong and created source footage from Comet Ping Pong. If he faked source footage in one place, I would be careful using him as a source, particularly if he comments again on Comet Ping Pong/Pizzagate. I think that is relevant.
B. Re: Robert "Non-Dairy" Creamer: This is a ridiculous example of Whattaboutism. Flat out ridiculous. I was not on VOAT before the election, but you claim to know my thoughts. This is either majorly silly or you are confusing me with someone else.
C. He implied that he caught Alefantis in a contradiction and he did not. There's other issue of I sold pot in College 20 years ago doesn't not imply, I run an occult-canaballistic, child-trafficking ring of pedofiles today.
D. Technically, I'm correct..... Of course, I am. Posobiec's sketchnyess was a few months ago and he denied it this week. C'mon.
E. Bullshit on gaslighting and you probably know that. Not only, have I never gaslighted, I've never deliberately posted anything this is false. I think I have been wrong maybe 3 times and I have acknowledged that.
F. I not here to sow doubt. I here to show the people the doubt that is already there. The doubt they are choosing not to see. Most folks here are motivated not to see it. I'm here to establish the primacy of doubt, the value of doubt, the proper use of skepticism. Witchhunting is so much easier without doubt. When you can convince yourself you know the truth without really holding your evidence up to doubt, these grand conspiracies become so easy to believe especially when you can make up what the evidence means.
DarkMath ago
"never deliberately posted anything this is false."........You said Hillary deleting her emails is totally normal because everyone deletes emails. I had to remind you of BleachBit and the fact all a RICO case needs is malicious destruction of evidence. Doesn't matter who actually clicked the Delete button. In fact that's kind of the whole purpose of RICO: to make it easier to prove criminal intent because before RICO Mafia king pins were getting off the hook because they weren't the ones carrying out the crime. They just gave the orders.
"But you're not using evidence."........This was a blatant lie. Conchita Sarnoff has so much evidence against Jeffrey Epstein SHE WROTE A BOOK: https://www.conchitasarnoff.com/
https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/1554022/7568885
Why are these lies and not just gross misrepresentation of fact? Because you know the truth. You knew about BleachBit. You saw the Conchita Sarnoff link. You knew Epstein was arrested for sex with minors. You knew all this stuff but lied and implied you didn't.
AreWeSure ago
Hi, I don't think Epstein is a central figure in pizzagate, you might. I don't.
Nothing I wrote about Hillary's emails was untrue. There's no malicious destruction of evidence on her part, because she asked that they be deleted months before a subpoena was sent. The idea of RICO case here is pretty much laughable, it's armchair lawyering. Not something an actual prosecutor would try to prove. This is all shit the FBI knew about. You want to play Fantasy League Justice Department, knock yourself out.
None of this is gaslighting. It's disagreeing on what the facts mean.
DarkMath ago
You are so wrong it hurts. All that's needed here is Criminal Intent:
https://medium.com/@TeamTrump/rudy-giuliani-statement-on-the-fbi-notes-of-hillary-clinton-interview-52a813f161dc#.43pnqwl3b
AreWeSure ago
Yeah Rudy is so objective here.
DarkMath ago
Ah no, Rudy isn't the problem, James Comey is. What you're saying essentially is because James Comey didn't prosecute then no crime occurred. But you can't say that because there's evidence Comey was bought off. For example: ( https://youtu.be/g-km5K9uOQw?t=172 )
-no grand jury
-no subpoenas
-no court orders
-immunity to the co-conspirators
-letting the co-conspirators in on the interview
Comey also had a clear conflict of interest. He was on the board of two companies with very close ties to the Clinton Foundation: HSBC and Lockheed. He made MILLIONS in those two positions.
So Rudy actually IS being objective. And the points above actually prove James Comey isn't. Comey covered this up. You'd be a fool to say otherwise.
;-)
AreWeSure ago
Again, we completely disagree on this. It's not gaslighting.
DarkMath ago
"disagree on this".........Sorry you can't just punt this one. You have to actually provide a REASON you disagree with me. You need to explain why the FBI's standard operating procedure wasn't followed:
-no grand jury
-no subpoenas
-no court orders
-immunity to the co-conspirators
-letting the co-conspirators in on the interview
Why do you have to provide a reason? .......Because your name is AreWeSure. Someone who wants to be sure by definition can't sweep things under the rug........ Sorry. I don't make the rules.
;-)
AreWeSure ago
You're incorrect. I don't have to provide anything to you. You accused me of gaslighting with zero evidence.
However, you are also quite incorrect on FBI procedure. If you do an investigation and conclude there's no crime you can charge you do not need to go to a grand jury. Not every infraction of classified info rules is a crime, not everyone goes to the FBI. The FBI did not see a crime in this case and thus did not recommend that the US Attorney call a grand jury.
DarkMath ago
"conclude there's no crime"........Your naivete knows no bounds. If you interview co-conspirators TOGETHER their stories tend to all agree and kiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiind of make it difficult to catch them lying no? There are many examples but I don't want to belabor the point. All you need to know is OF COURSE the FBI concluded there was no crime. THEY WEREN'T LOOK FOR ONE!
The problem is you have no interest in finding the Truth and I can prove it. Please provide just one piece of evidence that points to Hillary Clinton breaking the Law. This can be anything, mailing SAP documents, Clinton Foundation fraud, anything. I will take ANY evidence from you that points to Hillary Clinton having committed a crime.
My theory is you won't be able to name even ONE thing you think she did to break the law.
;-)
AreWeSure ago
You are hilarious. Proof of the truth is something you believe in? Nice.
No 'SAP documents' went to her email. You should know that. No "classified documents" at all went to her email. She properly viewed classified documents on the SECURE system. Classified info, not documents were among her emails. Regarding the SAP stuff, the emails were vague conversations about an SAP prorgram, the CIA drone program, but they were not "documents" about them. This is exactly what I am talking about in terms of something that rises to the level of a crime. An email that says "Hey did you see the article in the NY Times about Wazirstan yesterday" would be considered classified if that publice avaialble information discussed the CIA drone strike program, even if everyone knows about it and government officials have publically discussed it.
DarkMath ago
Just as I expected. You can't provide even ONE thing Hillary Clinton did that may have broken the law.
And then what you wrote was strange as well. It was almost as if you were ashamed of saying: "Yep, I don't think Hillary did anything wrong." and then end it. No you couldn't do that because that would easily prove me right. So you throw in some shade on SAP etc even though I said I'd take ANY EVIDENCE.
Here's the problem though AreWeSure. THE FBI IS STILL INVESTIGATING THE CLINTON FOUNDATION. So even the FBI believes she may have broken the law. But you AreWeSure are so opposed to being sure that you believe even the FBI is wrong.
;-)
AreWeSure ago
You're still pretending I owe you something. I don't. We're just two folks on a internet board.
DarkMath ago
You don't "owe" me anything AreWeSure. It's just a common courtesy to engage with another human being as both try to discover what the Truth really is. People have been doing that for thousands of years.
You however don't play by those rules. You'll leave the conversation or try to castigate your opponent when you're put on the defensive.
I asked you to give me just ONE piece of evidence Hillary Clinton has broken the law. Your response is to rhetorically stick your fingers in your ears and start repeating "La la la la. I can't hear you."...............
;-)
AreWeSure ago
Are you talking common courtesy after giving me a "Just tell me when you stopped beating your wife question?" Amusing.
DarkMath ago
AreWeSure it's not "WHEN did Hillary Clinton break the law?". It's "HAS Hillary Clinton ever broken the law?". The FBI certainly thinks it's possible. Otherwise they wouldn't be investigating her!
Bee tee dubs, great job playing "The Victim Card(tm)". It's the Left's tried and true go to move. They never let a good crisis go to waste. People don't think you're transparent? Come out and say you're the most transparent politician that has ever walked the face of the Earth and shame on you for implying otherwise. People notice Haitian protesters demanding back the 98% of the money promised them? Take the offensive and say your opponent is a Racist.
It's a simple question: "HAS Hillary Clinton broken the law?"
;-)