Jem777 ago

@Are_we_Sure & @Rwesure

You are disinfo....but not just a typical shill. You are a paid insider or "blackhat". You know what that is. Where does your conscience go when defending the market if using children for sex trafficking. Where is your moral clarity?

For the Love of God....even NBC news has now reported Hillary Clinton covered up child sex trafficking in the US State Department.

You are either an attorney trying to influence a jury or have a guilty conscience about something regarding child sex trafficking. Time to come clean it go into hiding and lawyer up yourself.

Call Jorge Puello, maybe he will offer his services for legal defense as he did Laura Silsby while wanted in several other countries for child trafficking.

@Millennial_Falcon @DarkMath @ Dressage2 @Jangles @ BlackSmith21 @Commoner

RweSure ago

Why do you believe I am paid insider. I'm not.

Never worked in government at any level. Never been paid to come to voat.

.even NBC news has now reported Hillary Clinton covered up child sex trafficking in the US State Department.

of course they did not. Please find the original NBC report and find out what it says. Then find out the resolution.

You are either an attorney trying to influence a jury or have a guilty conscience about something regarding child sex trafficking. Time to come clean it go into hiding and lawyer up yourself.

This is fantasy on your part.

DarkMath ago

"Why do you believe I am paid insider."

Because you refuse to be reasonable when discussing these issues. There's actually a formal expectation in Law that people are "reasonable". Without reason the system breaks down: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_person. When people refuse to reason there are legal consequences.

For example you refuse to answer simple questions that may make you look bad. You don't have that option.

Stop ignoring the following question and provide us an answer:

Why is Columbia Economics Professor Jeffrey Sachs wrong and you're right?

:-D

@Millennial_Falcon @Dressage2 @Jangles @BlackSmith21 @Commoner

RweSure ago

Because he's thinks he wants to dumb down actual ethics standards to make "schmoozing" look unethical which is a ludicrous idea and as a policy adviser to Bernie Sanders, he has partisan reasons and is not a disinterested observer. The success of the Clinton Foundation is that they wanted to take the Davos model, where people travel to Davos to look like a big macher and hobnob and schmooze and use it to do good in the world. If people want to donate money to charity because they think it will get them in the same room with Bono, well more power to them and we'll use their money to save the lives of AIDS patients. It's a simple attack their strength, political tactic.

and none of that has anything to do with being a paid insider as you yourself do it all the time.

Also I wonder if you are aware that Jeffrey Sachs has done his own work African development. That he essentially is a competitor to the Clinton Foundation for fundraising and prestige. Are you aware of his experimental program in Africa and the response of his critics? Do you think it would stand up to politically motivated scrutiny? I think Bill Gates's review of Sachs strengths and weaknesses are a good one. Ironically, one of the places Sachs failed is specifically an area that the Clinton Foundation has tried to work in, making sure farmers have access to markets.

DarkMath ago

"we'll use their money to save the lives of AIDS patients"

How do you know the money goes to the AIDS patients?

I already know your answer: "Because there was a Charity Audit.". But AreWeSure a charity audit is less rigorous than a Financial Audit which has to go to ground with all the money. A Charity Audit doesn't pierce the veil of a limited partnership. If you want to keep all the money people gave Bono to help AIDS patients for yourself just create a limited partnership to hide a theft. Call it "Bono's Limited Partnership for AIDS Relief." Then keep the money and try not to laugh when the charity auditor comes around.

Charity auditor: "How much did you give to AIDS patients?".

CFO at the Limited Partnership holding back laughter: "All of it."

Charity auditor: "Ok, that's good enough for me. Thanks for your time."

Bono to CFO at the Limited Partnership: "How much of the money I raised went to AIDS relief?"

CFO at the Limited Partnership really struggling now to hold back an uncontrollable urge to laugh hysterically: "All of it."

Bono: "Great. Thanks for your time."

And done. You now have stolen 98% of the money meant for Haitian Earthquake victims AIDS patients.

AreWeSure the problem is you didn't know there are different types of audits. Well Columbia Economics Professor Jeffrey Sachs DOES know there are different types of audits. So does retired banker Charles Ortel and author Peter Schweitzer who wrote "Clinton Cash".

Do you see what's going on? At this point if you are a "Reasonable Person" you will concede this point. You will say "You know what I don't know if the money actually went to AIDS patients or Haitian Earthquake victims. I'm going to finally watch Clinton Cash to see if there is any other evidence."

But you won't do that AreWeSure because you aren't a "Reasonable Person" in the eyes of the law.

:-D

@Millennial_Falcon @Dressage2 @Jangles @BlackSmith21 @Commoner

Blacksmith21 ago

Don't forget that CharityNavigator.org, the preeminent site for rating non-profit orgs, "delisted" CF/CGI because "it didn't fit their model for assessing non-profits". Translated, CF/CGI was so bad, and they received heat not to report, they just disappeared CF/CGI right off their site.

There are so many ways to cook books. I wouldn't believe the time of day if a Clinton told it to me. Where is Eric Braverman again?

Are_we__sure ago

Blacksmith, all of what you say is wrong. They were not delisted because they were "so bad." Charity Navigator didn't rate them, because couldn't assess them due to a reorganization at the CF. At the time they said this

Why isn’t this organization rated?

We had previously evaluated this organization, but have since determined that this charity’s atypical business model can not be accurately captured in our current rating methodology. Our removal of The Clinton Foundation from our site is neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of this charity. We reserve the right to reinstate a rating for The Clinton Foundation as soon as we identify a rating methodology that appropriately captures its business model.

What does it mean that this organization isn’t rated?

It simply means that the organization doesn’t meet our criteria. A lack of a rating does not indicate a positive or negative assessment by Charity Navigator.

Charity Navigator does rate the CF and it gives the Clinton Foundation it's highest score: four stars, rating it a 93.91 of 100. It's gotten a 4 star review, two years in a row. As a point of comparison, the American Red Cross gets a 83.33 and City of Hope gets a 90.13. https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680

As pointed out above the this claim by you is completely false.

because "it didn't fit their model for assessing non-profits". Translated, CF/CGI was so bad

The Clinton Foundation changed its corporate makeup so Charity Navigator couldn't do an apples to apples comparison. They address this in their FAQ.

Why hasn’t Charity Navigator published a rating of the Clinton Foundation for the last few years? For each charity, our rating system evaluates numerous financial and accounting metrics, including a comparison of how these metrics change from one year to the next. In 2013, the Clinton Foundation merged with one of its affiliates, the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI). This merger made it difficult to compare financial information of the combined entities with financial information from the Clinton Foundation before the merger. In situations like this with any charity, we will reevaluate if the charity provides consolidated financial data that will allow us to perform an accurate year-over-year comparison.

How is it that Charity Navigator is now able to provide a rating of the Clinton Foundation? At our request, the Clinton Foundation provided pro forma consolidated financial information (in particular, a pro-forma Form 990). This information allowed us to conduct the analysis necessary for us to issue a rating.

What do other charity overseers say? CharityWatch gives them an A, one below the highest grade of A+ https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478

Guidestar gives the Clinton Foundation a Platinum level award for transparency. Of 128,000 nonprofits only 1,000 achieved the Plantinum level.

Blacksmith21 ago

You have no, and forever more, invalidate anything you have to stay with more stupidity. Funny how The Chronicle of Philanthropy blatantly disagrees with you.

Charity Navigator Removes Clinton Foundation From Watch List https://www.philanthropy.com/article/Charity-Navigator-Removes/234700

Again, you are a liar and a shill. Go fuck yourself with a Sawzall.

jangles ago

R_we_sure may not be any special person, more likely a skeptic society slue slathered in sloppy subversive ideals painted for them.

In their view they likely believe they are helping this community by providing a skeptical question in the notions presented here. Don't discredit this goat's efforts here as he does provide constructs to his positions, most of the time, not always. They sometimes make logical sense, other times they are an obvious stretch. Who knows what they don't know?.....

Here is a link to a resource that provides great details on how to deal with the radical skeptic.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/whats-skeptical-about-skepticism-0

@Millennial_Falcon @Dressage2 @Jangles @BlackSmith21 @Commoner @DarkMath @Jem777


Note: I am not defending anyone but also support this not becoming an echo chamber.

Jem777 ago

II don't have fantasies regarding exposing child trafficking and organ harvesting....I have Nightnares because reality of all this evil breaks my heart. Turning a blind eye makes you complicit. You should evaluate your moral clarity.

You spend all your time actually fighting for Chikd trafficking to not be exposed.

You are on the wrong side history.

Are_we_sure ago

What exactly is being exposed here? What happens here that has any effect? If folks here want to drop their nonsense conspiracy theorizing and actually focus on helping children, they could have some sort of impact, but they don't. They simply won't do it. They want to stick their conspiracism because on its intrinsic to their constructed identities.

I'm not fighting the exposure of child trafficking, I'm fighting witch-hunting and irrationality. I'm fighting evidence free conclusions. I fighting the lunacy that sees every instance of pizza or a spiral as de facto evidence of pedophilia. Do you not see the madness that is upvoated on this site every single day? I'm fighting a complete lack of proportion, an inability to shades of gray and people who can understand jokes and metaphors. I trying to get people to understand that we now know a lot about the quirks of the human brains that often make us believe things that are not true.

There a dozens of logical fallacies we fall prone too. There's other cognitive glitches we fall prone to. Here's an example. It's called the availability heuristic. If you can easily think of an example, human beings vastly overestimate the possibility of that happening. Think of the obsession with tunnels on this site. People are always mapping tunnels. Tunnels under Comet Ping Pong, Tunnels by Clinton's headquarters. Why? Is there any actual evidence involving tunnels?

Human beings are simply far less rational than we think we are. You have actually train yourself to check your thinking on things. Let's say you had three wheels with three different events on each. If you spun each wheel, so that random combinations were formed, our brains could create a story where the first wheel caused the outcome of the third wheel. There would be no truth to it, but that's how our brains work. We love connections and stories. When someone is researching say Comet Pizza and then keep making connection after connection, I understand exactly what is going on there and why it feels important. It's because making patterns and connections is one of the ways we survived through the millennia, our brain actually releases dopamine when our brain makes connections. It actually gives up happy chemicals. (I also know what happens cognitively, when someone like me types up a post like this. )

DarkMath ago

"You[AreWeSure] are a paid insider"

AreWeSure are you getting paid to post here on behalf of Killary's Resistance Group?

You need to come clean if you are because that's morally reprehensible. I mean we're talking evidence CHILDREN are being sexually abused. I can certainly understand you coming here on your own for free. But if you're being paid you need to have your head examined.

@Millennial_Falcon @Dressage2 @Jangles @BlackSmith21 @Commoner

Dressage2 ago

I think he/she is a paid shill otherwise just plain morally corrupt. What a pathetic job. Maybe someday after reading all our comments he/she will realize what is really important. The children are being destroyed and it needs to stop.

fogdryer ago

What I read is that Laura gaylor was long time friend of bill first

Millennial_Falcon ago

You lie. Jorge Puello told a reporter that the orphans came from a collapsed orphanage called "Friends of the Orphans of Haiti."

You ignore other key details from the Executive Summary:

Hillary Clinton was sent email updates on the prosecution of Laura Silsby, who was caught trafficking children in Haiti. Laura Silsby was got off the hook by Jorge Puello, who was later convicted of sex trafficking, and was wanted on charges of sex trafficking in four countries. Additional source. Izette Folger, a close friend of James Alefantis, gave a statement in support of Silsby. Folger is the daughter of Michael Maccoby, who coaches leaders of Nuestros Pequeños Hermanos, or NPH, a large organization that runs orphanages all over the world. His son, Max Maccoby, is on the Boards of Directors of an NPH orphanage called Friends of the Orphans, which is one of 760 orphanages operating in Haiti, and happens to be the orphanage from which Silsby was caught trafficking children. Max Maccoby gave an emphatic and lengthy statement of support for Comet during a contentious neighborhood commission meeting. The relevant portion of the audio file starts at 31:40.

RweSure ago

Possible Disinfo? That's hilarious. I think have debunked charge number 1. I certainty debunked the evidence used to assert charge #1. That's a valid bit of info for this investigation. Disinfo should be used when someone is actively lying and not just incorrect, right?

I will reply with my comments on this thread.

@hookednosedjoooo, are you trying to tell me that the entire Silsby thing was disinfo?

I have no idea how PleadingtheYiff could have written about a document that clearly was written or updated in January 2010 and claimed it was from 2001

@Commoner Yes or No? Did the state dept have the silsby document when they rescued her from Haiti?

I can't answer yes or no to this, because the State Department did not rescue her. She was convicted of a crime in Haiti and sentenced. She left Haiti after the Haitian Justice system was done with her.

On to MF.

Hillary Clinton was sent email updates on the prosecution of Laura Silsby, who was caught trafficking children in Haiti.

Yes. Of course she was. Because she is the Secretary of State of the United States and ensuring that American citizens have their rights seen to is part of the State Department's mission. And this was a high profile case. Clinton's involvement in this case is NOT because of Laura Silsby who she didn't know. Clinton's involvement is because of her job, She was the secretary of State when this occurred. As I point out, the State Department got involved because it was 10 AMCIT arrested or 10 American Citizens. The State Department would have gotten involved if it was a different set of 10 American Citizens or if the crime was different. See the Amanda Knox case. In fact, the State Department was criticized for being slow to react in that murder case and Knox ended up deciding not to get a lawyer and wound up being falsely convicted.

I link to the State Department's page on Americans getting arrested overseas above and at the bottom is two bulleted lists of what the State Department can and cannot do. These two lists are very important in understand the email chain.

Laura Silsby was got off the hook by Jorge Puello, who was later convicted of sex trafficking, and was wanted on charges of sex trafficking in four countries.

This has nothing to do with Clinton. And Silsby was not got off the hook, she was convicted of a lesser crime after a trial. Puello was not her lawyer at trial. This is another thing your summary seems to not understand. Puello was exposed and off the case by mid-February. Jean-Rene Tesir was her lawyer at trial which began in May. At the time of the trial Puello was under arrest in the Domican Republic and was awaiting extradition to the US by the time her trial began.

A fugitive who once acted as the lawyer for a group of U.S. missionaries accused of kidnapping 33 Haitian children was arrested on human-trafficking charges, authorities said Friday........One of the Baptists’ Haitian lawyers, Aviol Fleurant, said Puello absconded with $30,000 in legal fees the Americans had raised for Fleurant.

Why would you think he did anything for these Baptists that the Haitian courts couldn't reverse in the months before trial? Why do you say he got them "off the hook"

Which brings us to this.

You lie. Jorge Puello told a reporter that the orphans came from a collapsed orphanage called "Friends of the Orphans of Haiti."

Actually my post clearly says this

Jorge Puello claimed she got kids from an orphanage that crumbled in the earthquake and called for help.

and clearly give my reason for not believing this to be true.

I always dismissed the Maccoby story based on two things. One is that "Friends of the Orphans" is the name of a US group and wouldn't be the name used in Haiti. Two is Puello is just a crazy known liar.

Two Questions for you. How am I lying when I mention and explain this? Why do you believe the word of Jorge Puello.

Other details.

Izette Folger, a close friend of James Alefantis, gave a statement in support of Silsby.

Check your summary. You provide no link for the "Statement in support of Silsby." So I can evaluate that one way or another, can't see if she was just responding to what was in the news or something more material.

You do provide a link for the claim that the NPH orphanage https://archive.fo/ox7Fa#selection-523.0-533.198 and here is the quote

VAN SUSTEREN: Where did they find these 33 children? How did they get these children? PUELLO: There was an orphanage that collapsed in Haiti. It was called friends of the orphans of Haiti. And there was somebody over there that told them that the orphans had no place, no room to place them.

The context make clear, Puello makes this claim about the 33 children she was arrested with. So the theory mentioned by Waxdino, that I quote doesn't apply. (100 kids from Friend of the Orphans)

The same 33 children where the AP traced to Citron and 20 from Callabas. NPH operates no facilities there.

The NPH orphanage is in Kenscoff which is up in the mountains. As I said in the original post, the NPH bulding that collapsed was in Petitionville and was not an orphanage

2010: Father Wasson Center collapsed in the 7.0 magnitude earthquake

Kay Pere Wasson (Father Wasson Center) located in Pétionville, Port Au Prince This five-story building, formerly St. Damien Hospital, is the administrative hub of NPFS

Questions for @Millennial_Falcon

So MF, I ask you these questions (The first two of which I think have been definitely answered)

  1. Where is the evidence that an orphanage called "Friends of the Orphans of Haiti" existed.
  2. Where is the evidence that it collapsed during the earthquake.
  3. Is there evidence that doesn't rely on the word of a conman?
  4. Where is the evidence I am lying?

Commoner ago

@Commoner Yes or No? Did the state dept have the silsby document when they rescued her from Haiti? I can't answer yes or no to this, because the State Department did not rescue her. She was convicted of a crime in Haiti and sentenced. She left Haiti after the Haitian Justice system was done with her.

I will rephrase it.

Did the State Department under Hillary Clinton have access to the Silsby's document when she was arrested in Haiti?

RweSure ago

When she was arrested? No. They did not

After she was arrested? Yes. They googled the group's name and found the document on the East Side Baptist Church website.

What conclusion do you draw from this?

Commoner ago

So what was the state dept's response and why did they have an email about this particular American that was arrested out of the country?

And what did the State dept know about all of the other Americans that were arrested?

See the Amanda Knox case. In fact, the State Department was criticized for being slow to react in that murder case and Knox ended up deciding not to get a lawyer and wound up being falsely convicted.

You act as though the Haiti case and Amanda Knox case were the only two cases the State dept had to deal with. Why are there no emails about any other cases?

RweSure ago

So what was the state dept's response and **why did they have an email about this particular American **that was arrested out of the country? And what did the State dept know about all of the other Americans that were arrested?

**why did they have an email about this particular American ** This is the whole point. The State Department responded AFTER THE ARREST. Have you read the Cheryl Mills email that kicks this off, 10 AMCITS ARRESTED WITH 33 CHILDREN, HEADED TO DR. NOW UNDER ARREST IN PORT AU PRINCE? If you haven't read that email then you don't know about the Silsby case and the State Department. It's that simple.

It starts with a call to the embassy duty officer (literally the person who answers the phone in the middle of the night when you call an embassy) in the US Embassy in Haiti who emails/calls consular affairs and it goes up the chain.

And what did the State dept know about all of the other Americans that were arrested?

The State Department knew nothing about any of the Americans at the time

It was not the person that caused the response. The response was because it involved American citizens. That's what consular services is about. It moved all the way up the chain because it was a high profile case. 10 Baptist Missionaries from Idaho arrested with orphans in Haiti after the Earthquake? That's a story that going to AND DID get tons of news all over the world. It was going an international incident, the missionaries were denounced by the Haitian Justice Minister, the Haitian Chief of National Police and the Haitian Prime Minister. Three former presidents of the Southern Baptist Convention appealed to President Obama on their behalf. It made headlines all over the world.

You act as though the Haiti case and Amanda Knox case were the only two cases the State dept had to deal with.

Because these were two massively high profile cases. The kind where the Secretary of State might get asked about. This isn't a guy was caught smuggling a pound of pot.

Why are there no emails about any other cases?

There are. Of course, there are. Why would you say there are not?

DarkMath ago

Oh look you forgot to address my issues:

1) Silsby lied and said the kids were orphans when they weren't.

2) Silsby was repeatedly told not to take the kids out of Haiti without government permission. She was told that by both the Dominican Republic and Haiti. She ignored both their warnings and she was arrested for child trafficking.

3) A child's organs are worth over $1,000,000 and provide a compelling financial incentive for any child trafficker. At the time of her arrest Laura Silsby's business was struggling and finally went bankrupt.

4) Children are also used in Brownstone Operations. Jeffrey Epstein and Mossad ran a Brownstone Operation on a Carribean island close by called Little St. James. Mossad used underage children to gather sexual blackmail evidence which is often used to control politicians. Dennis Hastert is a prime example of how TPTB put compromised politicians in positions of power so they can control them better.

Your silence is deafening AreWeSure

:-D

fogdryer ago

laura gaylor

RweSure ago

Your issues are irrelevant. The state department's consular services are available to any American, guilty or innocent. And you have zero proof that 3 and 4 apply at all to Silsby.

DarkMath ago

"The state department's consular services"

That's true but organized crime is built on plausible deniability. That's just how it's done. Lucky Luciano imported Mediterranean and South American "fruits". For every organized crime there is often a legitimate cover.

"Your issues are irrelevant."

Laura Silsby's crime is highly relevant because it suggests a legitimate front(Christian missionaries) for child trafficking. Laura Silsby even worked for Alert Sense which could, ding ding ding, give Silsby a veil of legitimacy de rigueur for any organized criminal and her WASP Mafia capo.

When things get ambiguous we don't want to live in a world where rich white people who went to Yale are above suspicion.

Sorry, I don't make the rules.

:-D

DarkMath ago

"rely on absolutely blind hatred of Hillary Clinton"

Please disregard AreWeSure. He or she is on a mission to "Resist!" any and all criticism of Killary Clinton.

If AreWeSure was truly objective they'd concede some of the massive pile of evidence pointing to the Clinton Foundation committing charity fraud on a scale never before seen in the History of Western Civilization.

Even prominent Ivy League economists will tell you straight up the evidence of fraud is overwhelming.

But AreWeSure has NEVER conceded a single piece of evidence pointing to a crime. That's extremely odd if one is here to objectively investigate a potential crime. I've been wrong on MANY occasions like my totally misreading George Webb as legitimate. He's not. He's another CIA limited hangout like all the rest, FBIAnon, Edward Snowden, Julian Assange etc etc.

Rational and objective people admit their mistakes. AreWeSure has never admitted a single mistake which makes he or she either the smartest person in the world or a mindless Hill-bot.

So take his or her accusation of our "blind hatred of Hillary Clinton" with a grain of salt. The evidence Hillary & Co may be involved in child trafficking down in Haiti is substantial and can't be dismissed. If anyone's curious for the most damming evidence let me know. The worst is Laura Silsby lied and said the children were orphans. None of them were orphans, they all had at least one live parent. Silsby was also told not to take them out of Haiti without government permission. Both the Domincan Republic and Haitian government told her that and she ignored them.

(For context a child's organs are worth around one million dollars and provide an enormous incentive for a child trafficker to kidnap them. They're also useful in Brownstone Operations at the least the cute ones.)

:-D

Jem777 ago

Julian Assange tweeted the direct energy strike on 9/11......pay attentikn

equineluvr ago

That DE weapons were used on 09/11 is a THEORY.

Assange has CIA and Rothschild ties, which doesn't exactly BUTTRESS that THEORY.

hookednosedjoooo ago

HOL UP! are you trying to tell me that the entire Silsby thing was disinfo?

DarkMath ago

"the entire Silsby thing was disinfo?"

Hnj the entire Pizzagate CIA disinfo campaign is to distract from the evidence of child trafficking by Hillary Clinton. Keep it real brother.

CIA disinfo has a purpose and that's to distract from evidence of real crimes. If there were no real crimes why would they go through all that effort to set up CPP and James Alefantis?

;-D

Commoner ago

Yes or No?

Did the state dept have the silsby document when they rescued her from Haiti?

Commoner ago

It's also the most serious episode, because it's the only connection to an actual crime.

Besides Hillary using a private server, destroying it, her emails, her blackberries, and lying about it.

Besides Comey lying about Hillary to hide her emails

Besides the Clinton Foundation running a pay to play scam

etc........

darkknight111 ago

Lying shill still being lying shill defending corrupt leftist elites.

The honest have no use for multiple alts. If you are being honest, then get rid of every single one of your alts. And explain to everyone. Shills use alts to give themselves upvoats and get around downvoats.