Misleading news in several alternative sites: List of sources.
Fact is that attorney Trinh Huynh was shot, let her rest in peace, and fact is that she was possibly targeted. Mislead is that she "was working pro bono with abuse victims on several legal cases involving high-profile elite pedophiles". Let's break the misleading claim into parts:
- "was working pro bono", TRUE, she was http://www.pbpatl.org/?s=Huynh
- "with abuse victims", PLAUSIBLE. She was in the advisory board of directors in GAIN, an organization offering such legal services for immigrants, but her expertice doesn't fit into these kind of cases. She's a construction lawyer more focused into property, patent and trademark work. Still, she might have worked "with abuse victims" - maybe not as an attorney in court, but providing assistance, or legal advices in her areas of expertice for them.
- "on several legal cases" , PLAUSIBLE, LIKELY. That's was attorneys do.
- " involving high-profile elite pedophiles", FALSE, there's no several court dockets involving child abuse against high profile persons, not currently open, not in close history, in the Georgia Northern District Court. This claim is not possible even with her as an assistant.
This seems like a clever mislead including a lot of truth and possible truths, only the part meaningful to pizzagate investigators being difficult to confirm as false (it really took some time). On Voat pizzagate there are several posts on this, all linking to those questionable sources, not sure if these are all. I suggest checking the senders and the comment threads closely:
In my opinion this news is not just a clickbait (those are typically spreading similar ways within the controversial media), but possibly also an effort to debunk pizzagate in a clever way. It would be enough to pay to one of these clickbait news sites to make suck a news spread. We're expected to share such news for "awareness on elite pedophilia", as that's what we love to do, but in a week or so it'll be easy to share in the MSM that the news was false in we were "all wrong". Let's not buy into this without PROOF ON THOSE LEGAL CASES.
None of the news sources link to any documents, case numbers or court officials. A clear warning sign!
Dailymail seems to include the plausible parts not mentioning elite pedos. Currently this might be the most revealing, closest to the truth news out there, but include reasonable amount of grain and salt even on this: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4380376/Suspected-killer-Atlanta-lawyer-caught-camera.html
view the rest of the comments →
samhara ago
The reason the story doesn't add up is more likely that the hit man fucked up. And then they have to cover.
They will go to all the trouble of killing a woman , execution style, in the middle of the street, just to make "Pizzagaters" look bad.
Makes no sense.
She was hit because she had info on the Bridge? Really? Where's the evidence for that? More supposition?
I don't think so.
Why is my post how I saw the same guy on my train last month, which discusses the un-natural deaths around "Pizzagate" researchers , i.e. Monica Peterson, Breitbart, Seth Rich, buried ; while this one, built upon a faulty assumption , in my opinion, gets first page treatment?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Seth_Rich Murder of Seth Rich
Researchers / Investigators are led to try to "please" the Mass Media, which is controlled,
So why bend over backwards to avoid their "Gotcha" moment - which is strictly an hypothisis / supposition which never happened.
And even if it did, so what? They have a millions ways to make us look silly and they already have accomplished that https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/1779208
anonOpenPress ago
Hit man fucked up or not, that doesn't affect my reasoning. The news remains misleading and is possibly being used for debunking in either case.
My post doesn't discuss on the bridge, it's whole another case, sources and usefulness to be checked as well. It becomes important to the pizzagate investigation if someone manages to connect the bridge to trafficking.
Your post I just read, it starts by supporting tha false claim. Maybe edit that part. Then it wonders around several topics, quite difficult to follow through. Maybe limit the focus or add some clearance. In overall you might be onto something but you don't manage to share it in a useful way, reagarding investigations. Just my two cents, happy if you try again. Make it worth an upvoat and you get one from here.
That's the case in here too, important to recognize. Sharing unreliable stuff would be one way to follow that lead. They do their best, we do ours. Let's stay strong and focused.
samhara ago
Prove it's a false claim. I think you missed doing that.