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.
Naspert ago
I disagree, any regular person would have been investigated in that situation. Normal rules don't apply to elites, that's the problem.
micha_ ago
Childporn is forbidden, but not making disgusting, suggestive photos of kids. So investigated in that case for what?
Podesta (or the Tamera Luzzatto kids) maybe could be investigated because of the email sneding them to a pool for entertainment of an adult.
ThePedoHunter ago
Why did he take down the Satanic pedo artwork?...why did he have it up in the first place? Why are bands talking about their sexual preference for kiddie fcking at his pizza joint? Why is a ghey man who hates kides and sexualises infants so connected to children welfare groups....blah blah blah
You shill mongrel
micha_ ago
In what way is disgusting "artwork" an indication of a crime? Non-pedophilic sick pics of kids is a crime? Where?! Your hysterical reactions to Alex Jones hopefully refocusing on the important things like the Clinton Foundation, international child trafficking, Epstein, the Podesta emails, show me, that you are no longer thinking logically what are the necessary steps to get the investigations going forward.