You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

Vindicator ago

@MigratoryPatterns, I need to ask you to edit your post for accuracy and rule consistency.

What with memos asking how thinly they wanted the pizza sliced for sharing and the like, a memoir written by a girl who seems not to be able to keep he pants on might just be the first glimpse behind that veiled curtain of illusion.

You need a link to the Wikileak email or a thread including a link to it, and you are implying it was an Obama admin email. It was not. It was a Stratfor email. Please correct that per Rule 2.

Also, I should probably point out that this girl's tell-all is probably another "flooding fake" disinfo campaign designed to bury the Kenyan's true nastiness by fabricating a controlled smear from an easily dismissed, "tainted" source. You may want to state that, so we don't have to put the disinfo warning flair on it.

Sorry to be such a stickler, but if I'm not, Esoteric, who is attempting to get me demodded will claim I'm biased. Thanks for editing.

migratorypatterns ago

I never claimed it was his email. I said this submission fit in with the email drop where people were asking for how thin to slice pizza:

It's connected to the world of pizzagate by the emails that emerged. What with memos asking how thinly they wanted the pizza sliced for sharing and the like, a memoir written by a girl who seems not to be able to keep he pants on might just be the first glimpse behind that veiled curtain of illusion. It allows a peek at what was really going on in and the culture that The Kenyan embraced and nurtured while destroying America.

A two-year-old could understand that, but then we're talking about Esoteric.

Why would I put that this is disinfo? You and I and the other pizzagaters know it's more, but this is a peek into that world. How is it disinfo? How do you know it's disinfo? All we know is she wrote a book, had her pants around her ankles for most of the time, and somehow managed to record what The Kenyan was saying. I don't see how this buries anything. In fact, it makes me anxious to know the dirtier secrets.

Vindicator ago

Why would I put that this is disinfo?

Smears and revelations from questionable characters who stand to profit from their tell-all interviews and books don't harm the person they are attacking. They have the opposite effect. They make the target look like the victim. Setting up such attacks to front-run revelations of real crimes and corrupt behavior is a standard disinfo tactic.

Thank you for clarifying the email connection, but I am still not clear on how this woman or her book connects to the emails. Is there something in the book that is similar to the content of the emails? The pizza email was hearsay from Stratfor guys, not a leak of Obama admin insiders. The book is hearsay from a morally questionable profiteer. The only connection I'm seeing is a very very tenuous "there MIGHT be something in the book that sheds light on those pizza parties." That really isn't "directly related to child sex abuse by the elite".

However, were you to frame this as possible evidence of a disinfo campaign to cover up and discredit any forthcoming testimony that IS pizzagate-related, that would fall under Rule 1.

You get where I'm going with this?

I will leave this up for a few more hours in case you want to edit it more to make that case, since it took me so long to reply to your edit. As is, this doesn't satisfy Rule 1.

migratorypatterns ago

You get where I'm going with this?

No, I can honestly say I have no idea where you're going with this. I have no idea where you're going with anything.

An email is hearsay? Since when? If Joe Blow tells someone Jane Blow that he saw an email and then Jane tells someone else that JOE TOLD THEM THAT HE SAW AN EMAIL, if that person repeats what Jane said, it's hearsay. Joe's statement isn't. The person who witnesses/receives an email can testify to what they saw/received. That is not hearsay it's direct evidence. Whether they're believed is another matter. But if a third person can't testify to what Joe said when they heard from someone what he said. So this skank can testify or write about what she saw and witnessed on the plane. She can testify or write about the person she alleges to have had the affair with. That is he right to do. It is not hearsay, it is her assertion/statement as to what happened. Now the other person is free to admit or deny it, UNLESS it's in a court of law. If the matter were brought into a court of law, both parties would have to offer proof of their assertions. Usually, this is beyond what they stated and relies on dna evidence, hotel bills, photos, emails, whatever. But sometimes it does come down to two people's statements, the defendant and plaintiff. That's just for starters.

Have no idea why you're going off like this. If this is the way it's gonna be. take down the fucking submission.

I won't be posting anymore.

Thanks for the opportunity to participate in this forum.

Vindicator ago

An email is hearsay? Since when?

The people at Stratfor were discussing something they did not have direct knowledge of. They were not part of the Obama Administration and did not actually attend the event they reference. At least, no evidence has ever been put forward that they did. They are discussing something they heard about; possibly joking about it.

And, you still have spelled out no specific connection between what this woman is claiming and what Wikileaks revealed. This is all just a big maybe. So, I will unfortunately have to remove the thread now.

migratorypatterns ago

And yet you make the Q submission a sticky with not a shred of evidence to prove anything. The title clearly says PROOF and there is none.

Biased much?

You know what? You're a mod. There's nothing I can do except getting into a shouting match which I'm not going to do because it's pointless. If this is the direction you want this forum to go, so be it. Since mods are in charge of the rules, and this is how you're enforcing them. I'm gone! Bye!