Pleading the Yiff/William Craddick lied about this case from the very beginning. Here's whole thesis on Silsby
Hillary and Bill Clinton provided assistance to convicted child trafficker, Laura Silsby(aka Laura Gayler), resulting in a reduced sentence for child trafficking.
Contrary to reports in the media, the crowd sourced investigation labeled by some as “Pizzagate” **did not begin with internet sleuths digging through the WikiLeaks Podesta Files **releases looking for pizza parlors and encoded language discussing human trafficking. It began with the shocking discovery that Hillary and Bill Clinton provided assistance to convicted child trafficker, Laura Silsby
This is false because he made his post on Reddit on Nov 3. Here's a screenshot of his Reddit post from Nov 3 2016. Notice that this was taken when the post was just 2 hours old. https://archive.is/BeauJ
There was a ton of activity going on by Nov 3. TruePundit had it big fake story claiming that Clinton was going to be tied to Child exploitation and Sex crimes with minors on Nov 2. This was background during which Craddick posted his fake story.
So what is false in this link
Specifically these claims are false and the first two are straight out lies.
False claim 1
Emails from her organization can be found in WikiLeaks’ Hillary Clinton Email Archive discussing the NGO before her arrest.
Why It's False.
Document was not an email and we know exactly how and when it got to Hillary's email. The document was an attachment to this email https://www.wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/3765. It was sent to Hillary Clinton on Jan 30, 2010, after Silsby arrest.
From: Mills, Cheryl D [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, January 30, 2010 5:39 PM
Subject: Fw: 10 AmCits arrested with 33 children, headed to DR. Now under arrest in Port au Prince Attachments: nIcrhaitianorphanrescuemission.pdf
False claim 2
Silsby’s organization also appears in Clinton’s emails, soliciting donations for their “ministry.”
Why It's False.
(This guy doesn't even realize this is the exact same document as above. It's one thing not two.)
The claim that Bill Clinton intervened is false too, but in this case, the original reporting is wrong, not Craddick.
The press release Craddick found among the email archives at Wikileaks is shown there as an email, with a date of 2001-01-01. It may be a processing error on their part, but he accurately reported what Wikileaks presented. The fact that you are pushing his work as deliberate disinfo and do not acknowledge that it is Wikileaks, not Craddick, that originated that date undermines your supposed "correction" here, AWS. You also ignore the fact that Wikileaks retweeted Craddick's Reddit post, saying it was a "Significant, if partisan, find."
Even if the thesis that Silsby had a preexisting relationship with the Clintons is wrong, you have not proven that the Clinton intervention was normal diplomatic work standard for the SOS. The state dept memo discussing possible options is suspiciously almost completely redacted (a fact you also ignore). Why redact something that is completely normal?
In various places, I've already addressed nearly every point you made.
The press release Craddick found among the email archives at Wikileaks is shown there as an email, with a date of 2001-01-01.
Yes. You are correct on the date. (The document is not a press release, it's more a mission statement/recruiting document for the organization.)
This is a complete error on Wikileaks part
However, Craddick is still a liar, because he used this error dishonestly. Craddick is not an idiot and there is no way to read that document and he did read the document and conclude it's an email from 2001.
For one, have you ever seen an email with no sender and no receiver? How does it get from from a computer in Idaho to Clinton's server without being sent? That's a big clue.
From:
To:
Perhaps he missed that, but there is no way a non-idiot could read that document and think it was composed in 2001. There's simply no honest mistaking that the document was reading after the Haitian Earthquake in January 2010. The clues are everywhere.
New Life Children's Refuge
Haitian Orphan Rescue Mission
Purpose: Rescue Haitian orphans **abandoned on the streets, makeshift hospitals or from
collapsed orphanages** in Port au Prince and surrounding areas, and bring them to New Life
Children's Refuge in Cabarete, Dominican Republic.
The Urgent Need: The number of Haitian orphans is estimated to have increased by 300% **as a
result of the catastrophic earthquake this past week.** Thousands of children have lost their
parents, and are injured, hungry, thirsty and alone with limited chance of survival without help.
The Plan:
Rescue Orphans from Port au Prince, Haiti
22nd:
• Friday/Saturday, Jan** NLCR team fly to the DR**
• Sun Jan 23 r1: Drive bus from Santo Domingo into Port au Prince, Haiti and gather 100
orphans fromthhe streets and collapsed orphanages, then return to the DR
I am not sure of your point here
You also ignore the fact that Wikileaks retweeted Craddick's Reddit post, saying it was a "Significant, if partisan, find."
Are you surprised at Wikileaks jumping at the chance to make Hillary Clinton look bad? We know they reached out the Trump campaign last year.
Even if the thesis that Silsby had a preexisting relationship with the Clintons is wrong.
It is absolute proven to be wrong. Again, I point to the original email thread of how this case worked its way up to Clinton and where that document came from. It was downloaded from the website of East Side Baptist Church in Twin Falls, Idaho by a low level state department employee. East Side Baptist was one of two Churches the Baptists who went to Haiti came from.
The fact that there was no preexisting relation completely kicks the legs out from his entire argument. The whole thing collapses in a heap.
you have not proven that the Clinton intervention was normal diplomatic work standard for the SOS.
I have mentioned this several times. The actions taken by the State Department were part of standard consular services available to any American citizen or AMCIT in State Department speak and Clinton did not intervene personally.
The state dept memo discussing possible options is suspiciously almost completely redacted (a fact you also ignore). Why redact something that is completely normal?
This is not suspicous at all. This is standard. And I have not ignored it. Someone pointed it out to me the other day and I explained why it was redacted.
If you read that document it explains why it was redacted: B5. This refers to one of the exemptions in the Freedom of Information act, it specifically said legal work product is not to be released under FOIA. The part that is redacted is a legal memo from Harold Koh the Legal Adviser State Deparment.
You can see that the email has this attachment: nIcrhaitianorphanrescuemission.pdf
This is how that attachment got to Clinton
The group is called the New Life Children Refuge America Organization (NLCR). Bill Bistransky found the attached "Plan of Action"(P0A) on their web site when he googled that name. As he notes, either today's arrest is their second run into Haiti to get children, or their original schedule is off.
view the rest of the comments →
Are_we_sure ago
Pleading the Yiff/William Craddick lied about this case from the very beginning. Here's whole thesis on Silsby
is completely false as proven here. https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/2122876
This part about the timing is false too.
This is false because he made his post on Reddit on Nov 3. Here's a screenshot of his Reddit post from Nov 3 2016. Notice that this was taken when the post was just 2 hours old.
https://archive.is/BeauJ
People were already searching Podesta emails for code by then https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=2016-10-03%202016-11-03&q=podesta%20code
People were already claiming a pedophile ring by the end of Oct. https://img.buzzfeed.com/buzzfeed-static/static/2016-11/4/7/asset/buzzfeed-prod-fastlane01/sub-buzz-5512-1478259424-1.png
There was a ton of activity going on by Nov 3. TruePundit had it big fake story claiming that Clinton was going to be tied to Child exploitation and Sex crimes with minors on Nov 2. This was background during which Craddick posted his fake story.
So what is false in this link
Specifically these claims are false and the first two are straight out lies.
False claim 1
Why It's False.
Document was not an email and we know exactly how and when it got to Hillary's email. The document was an attachment to this email https://www.wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/3765. It was sent to Hillary Clinton on Jan 30, 2010, after Silsby arrest.
False claim 2
Why It's False.
The claim that Bill Clinton intervened is false too, but in this case, the original reporting is wrong, not Craddick.
See this comment https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/2255382/11157188
Vindicator ago
The press release Craddick found among the email archives at Wikileaks is shown there as an email, with a date of 2001-01-01. It may be a processing error on their part, but he accurately reported what Wikileaks presented. The fact that you are pushing his work as deliberate disinfo and do not acknowledge that it is Wikileaks, not Craddick, that originated that date undermines your supposed "correction" here, AWS. You also ignore the fact that Wikileaks retweeted Craddick's Reddit post, saying it was a "Significant, if partisan, find."
Even if the thesis that Silsby had a preexisting relationship with the Clintons is wrong, you have not proven that the Clinton intervention was normal diplomatic work standard for the SOS. The state dept memo discussing possible options is suspiciously almost completely redacted (a fact you also ignore). Why redact something that is completely normal?
Your "debunking" really isn't.
Are_we_sure ago
In various places, I've already addressed nearly every point you made.
Yes. You are correct on the date. (The document is not a press release, it's more a mission statement/recruiting document for the organization.) This is a complete error on Wikileaks part
However, Craddick is still a liar, because he used this error dishonestly. Craddick is not an idiot and there is no way to read that document and he did read the document and conclude it's an email from 2001.
For one, have you ever seen an email with no sender and no receiver? How does it get from from a computer in Idaho to Clinton's server without being sent? That's a big clue.
Perhaps he missed that, but there is no way a non-idiot could read that document and think it was composed in 2001. There's simply no honest mistaking that the document was reading after the Haitian Earthquake in January 2010. The clues are everywhere.
I am not sure of your point here
Are you surprised at Wikileaks jumping at the chance to make Hillary Clinton look bad? We know they reached out the Trump campaign last year.
It is absolute proven to be wrong. Again, I point to the original email thread of how this case worked its way up to Clinton and where that document came from. It was downloaded from the website of East Side Baptist Church in Twin Falls, Idaho by a low level state department employee. East Side Baptist was one of two Churches the Baptists who went to Haiti came from.
Wikipedia still points to this url, but the church has taken the PDF down. http://www.esbctwinfalls.com/clientimages/24453/pdffiles/haiti/nlcrhaitianorphanrescuemission.pdf
The fact that there was no preexisting relation completely kicks the legs out from his entire argument. The whole thing collapses in a heap.
I have mentioned this several times. The actions taken by the State Department were part of standard consular services available to any American citizen or AMCIT in State Department speak and Clinton did not intervene personally.
https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/international-travel/emergencies/arrest-detention.html
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/09/haiti.clinton.arrests/index.html
This is not suspicous at all. This is standard. And I have not ignored it. Someone pointed it out to me the other day and I explained why it was redacted. If you read that document it explains why it was redacted: B5. This refers to one of the exemptions in the Freedom of Information act, it specifically said legal work product is not to be released under FOIA. The part that is redacted is a legal memo from Harold Koh the Legal Adviser State Deparment.
Are_we_sure ago
Here's the first email thread that involves Silsby https://www.wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/3765
You can see that the email has this attachment: nIcrhaitianorphanrescuemission.pdf
This is how that attachment got to Clinton
It happened after Silsby's arrest.