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.
You're clearly wrong. The thesis that the Clintons provided assistance to Silsby is not disproven by the link that you gave (https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/2122876))
The assistance is documented by Disobedient Media in their Jan 2107 article "The Clinton-Silsby Trafficking Scandal And How The Media Covered It Up"
I am not clearly wrong. You're citing the same guy I debunked. Pleading the Yiff is William Craddick is Disobedient Media. All the same guy. He's been lying about Clinton and Silsby for 13 months now.
If you think any of the below if false, please point me to it, but you'll need to do more than cite Craddick, he's made claims that are easily proven false.
The claim that Clinton knew who Silsby was before the Baptists were arrested is completely false. Craddick claims Wikipedia has an email from 2001 showing this. It's completely false because the emails wikileaks has are from Clinton's time at the State Department which began in 2009 AND the document he cites was clearly written after the Haitian earthquake of 2010. There is no way he could be making an honest mistake here. He is lying.
The claim that State Department got involved in this case because of some personal connection to Silsby is completely false. Helping Americans overseas is one of the highest priorities of the State Department. This includes Americans who get arrested. Sometimes this goes up the level of the Secretary, sometimes it does not. This was an international incident.
This email thread shows how the State Department got involved. They got involved because 10 AMCIT, that is American Citizens were arrested. They didn't know how the 10 AMCIT were or what their organization was. The document Craddick talks about is not even an email, it's an attachment to this email.
https://www.wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/3765
There is a single news report that Bill Clinton was sent on a diplomatic mission the Times of London. However, there is a ton of evidence against this news report being true, the key one is that is was never confirmed by anyone including the reporter who made the first claim. There was no followup whatsoever including by the paper that made the claim. Craddick also cites a law professor, but doesn't seem to realize the law professor has no original information and just refers to same article in the Times of London. And the Law professor makes another claim that is false.
Here the comment I made previously on this article.
Yes, I believe that Shani M. King is completely wrong here. First of all, he doesn't work at Harvard. His paper makes clear he is an Associate Professor of Law University of Florida's Levin College of Law or the 41st best Law School in the country. https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/law-rankings/page+2
And it's clear that King did not do original research on Clinton in Haiti, because that is not the point of his paper. You should follow his footnotes and find the original sources. He relies on a single news story.
No other news reports have this. The UK press didn't claim this is a secret effort on behalf of Bill Clinton. An actual diplomatic intervention would have been reported by multiple sites if it actually happened. Haitian newspapers would have been all over this. The international press would be all over this.
The paper that reported it never followed up on it at all. So the original report had no confirmation and zero follow through.
The Clinton quotes they used were reported by other outlets 2 days before. Clinton openly spoke to reporters about what the US and Haitian governments should do. He never claimed anything first hand or that he was working on a deal and not a single other source claimed he was intervening in any way. In fact, in CNN's report on it, Bill Clinton doesn't even appear until 22 paragraphs in. http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/02/05/haiti.arrests/index.html
There was no press conference about having a reached a deal. Again this was not reported to be a secret deal.
Bill Clinton left Haiti with all the Baptists were in jail.
Even with this the State Department went out of its way to say it was not intervening and Secretary Clinton would not be getting involved at all.
At the time, no other media even did a story following up on the The Times's report. This happens all the time when papers confirm another a paper's reporting. They do not do a followup story when their sources cannot confirm this. And reporters from around the world were on this story for months.
Nothing in the 7 plus years since the Haitian earthquake suggests this was true and the Clintons, of course came under intense scrutiny during this time. Haiti's AP reporter who worked this story stayed in Haiti for years writing a book and never had anything on this.
In short, there's nothing at all to suggest the Times got their story right. And there's a lot to suggest they got their story wrong, including the fact that they never even followed up on their story. The writer of the Paper relied on them and did not do original research/reporting into this.
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
Random101 ago
You're clearly wrong. The thesis that the Clintons provided assistance to Silsby is not disproven by the link that you gave (https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/2122876))
The assistance is documented by Disobedient Media in their Jan 2107 article "The Clinton-Silsby Trafficking Scandal And How The Media Covered It Up"
Are_we_sure ago
I am not clearly wrong. You're citing the same guy I debunked. Pleading the Yiff is William Craddick is Disobedient Media. All the same guy. He's been lying about Clinton and Silsby for 13 months now.
If you think any of the below if false, please point me to it, but you'll need to do more than cite Craddick, he's made claims that are easily proven false.
The claim that Clinton knew who Silsby was before the Baptists were arrested is completely false. Craddick claims Wikipedia has an email from 2001 showing this. It's completely false because the emails wikileaks has are from Clinton's time at the State Department which began in 2009 AND the document he cites was clearly written after the Haitian earthquake of 2010. There is no way he could be making an honest mistake here. He is lying.
The claim that State Department got involved in this case because of some personal connection to Silsby is completely false. Helping Americans overseas is one of the highest priorities of the State Department. This includes Americans who get arrested. Sometimes this goes up the level of the Secretary, sometimes it does not. This was an international incident.
This email thread shows how the State Department got involved. They got involved because 10 AMCIT, that is American Citizens were arrested. They didn't know how the 10 AMCIT were or what their organization was. The document Craddick talks about is not even an email, it's an attachment to this email. https://www.wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/3765
There is a single news report that Bill Clinton was sent on a diplomatic mission the Times of London. However, there is a ton of evidence against this news report being true, the key one is that is was never confirmed by anyone including the reporter who made the first claim. There was no followup whatsoever including by the paper that made the claim. Craddick also cites a law professor, but doesn't seem to realize the law professor has no original information and just refers to same article in the Times of London. And the Law professor makes another claim that is false.
Here the comment I made previously on this article.
https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/2255382/11153241
ESOTERICshade ago
You are clearly a pedosatanist child raper protector.