Now we can talk about those related to Epstein, Sandusky, Hastert, Saville and the recent busts but we can't talk about Comet, Alefantis, Podesta and any of their possible connections because well, there is nothing to see there. See? So, there aren't any weirdo baby pictures, with suggestive commentary about murder and shit. There isn't any of that really. It's completely normal. See? There aren't any suspicious businesses around either who happen to use pedo logos. Nope. Just a honey pot really. So you see, we shouldn't go there. Nothing to really investigate. No real relevant connections that would suggest an interest in children. And, well, we can't bust the DC ring you see. That one is untouchable and I have to back off now. But look over here, look, look. Nothing to see there....look over here.....there's nothing to seeeee....look over here....super male vitaliteee
view the rest of the comments →
HugoWeaving ago
I disagree with your translation. In fact, I think Alex was telling us exactly who to look at.
The "apology" letter is standard practice in defamation legal suits. After being contacted by Alefantis, Infowars did exactly what every media company does when sued for libel -- draw the distinction between what they reported and what they "commented" on, back off without retracting anything, and then confirming their stance on the issue.
If Alefantis was CIA, or even if he wasn't and has turned on his teammates, he is a protected asset now. Those leads have been investigated and documented. The research is in the right hands.
As for who to haunt next...Epstien, Sandusky, Podesta, Silsby, Clinton, Weiner, Huma...Alex told us who to investigate.
THAT's what Alex Jones is saying...
micha_ ago
He says, focus on what can be proven, all the lower minions will follow.
And while I think about it, I must applause him: What are the FACTUAL links to Alefantis being a child trafficker? Spirit cooking and "pizza party" and sick instagram pics? I am a bit embarassed about myself, because I never noticed how weak the link to Alefantis really was.
Not enough for an investigation. Circumstances may be overwhelming, everything may seem to fit, but for a legal case there must be facts. Being caught with a child. A child accusing someone. Video evidence. Such things.
For example I think the Podesta emails are much stronger. And Alex mentioned the Podesta emails.
Focusing on CPP and Alefantis: 1. Based on what? What evidence? 2. In what way does that get to the global network? To the top?
Contrary to that: Podesta emails, Silsby, Clinton, Epstein.
GeorgeT ago
Evidence: Here is evidence - Laura Silsby was convicted of trafficking 33 children out of Haiti, Daily Mail 2010. Silsby procured children from the very orphanage run by Max Maccoby - The lawyer who represented Alifantis in a blackmail case involving David Brock and a third party. Max's Father Michael Maccoby rallied behind Alifantis against ANC comissiner Frank Winsted in 2008 who implicated CPP in shady activities. Silsby was freed thanks to the Clintons who hired a notorious child trafficker Jorge Pierlo wanted in 5 countries. So lets draw connections: Silsby - smuggles kids out of Orphanage run by Max Maccoby - who represented Alifantis in a Blackmail case - Now, what are the chances that Silsby would smuggle children out of the same orphanage run by a man who represented Alifantis in a law suit, and whose Father actively campaigned for CPP to stay open late hours? This comment was not intended for you (you already shilled me once) this is for all the newcomers. Beware un-informed people who lead you astray. CPP and Alifantis (super high level operative) was never based on some instagram photos alone. Jacke Morphoneus was hit with a law suit for exposing exactly what I just outlined. Look at how Jacke handled it. He said he would counter sue - and force all implicated in the open court, Silsby, Alifantis, Maccobys and the Clintons.
Forgetmenot ago
So well said! Slam dunk.