You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: More Emerges About The Hillary Clinton/Huma Abedin Sex Video: There's No Limit To This Evil
I think Hillary Clinton is a horrible human being. But as far as the sex tape goes, I'll believe it when I see it.
We're never going to see it (or any of them for that matter- I understand that there are several taken via phone at Epstein Island). The NYPD has already confirmed they exist, but the FBI has taken over the "investigation."
Who at the NYPD? To me it just sounds too much like the golden showers Trump story. A bunch of wild claims with no real evidence. There's plenty Hillary has done wrong without focusing on unsubstantiated stories.
You may not notice the huge difference between the two categories of reports. The Steele dossier was deliberately used by corrupt government for political purposes. The stories about HRC are being suppressed by those same governmental forces.
I reckon that strongly demonstrates the likelihood of the falseness of the former, and the truth of the latter. Also, in the latter case there are matters of public record which support the reports. Weiners laptop, the Silsby case. Much, much more.
It is unrealistic that public availability will be forthcoming of any such video evidence, in light of the fact that making it available would constitute a felony.
That doesn't mean I believe it, either. Neither does it mean I discount it. I cannot say if it's true, but the ancillary circumstances lend the reports veracity. Further, I have read and been told that the HRC/Abedin tape is available on the deep web.
I'm not going looking. I don't want to see. If it is actually on the deep web, plenty of folks will see it, and there will be more and more reports. Hopefully, there will be charges, trials, and convictions as a result.
If it's on the deep web, it will show up on the not so deep web. The point is, it's all hearsay and pointless without actual evidence. I mean "somebody" at the NYPD said so and "somebody" told you its on the deep web? Well then it must be true!
Like I said, I think Hillary is a despicable person, but accusing her of seemingly outlandish things without evidence only detracts from the credibility of those making the accusations and leads to a perception that other more serious claims (by "serious" I mean those backed by actual evidence) are so much made up bullshit.
Cathy O'Brien has made specific personal charges of violent pedophilia against HRC. The allegations of a snuff film aren't presently confirmed. There is far more evidence than I am willing to discuss here that HRC has done terrible things to kids, and the volume of accusations from a wide variety of unrelated sources, including the enemedia, is evidence itself.
I'm not, as I have said before, stating I believe such a tape exists. There are numerous sources for the claim. That's not nothing. That's evidence, if only circumstantial.
I hope to God it's not true.
You are just illustrating my point. Cathy O'Brien is not credible, or at least I see no reason why she should be considered so. And "far more evidence than I am willing to discuss here" is not evidence, circumstantial or otherwise.
If you wanted evidence, you'd look for it. No one is credible when they encounter your entrenched beliefs from the wrong side.
You my not belive O'Brien, but that doesn't mean she is lying. The other things she has reported seem to have been verified, such as GHW Bush being a pedophile and there are also other far less incredible witnesses that have testified to that.
It is easy to pick what you want to be true, and defend it to the death. That's a lot of what people are for, biologically. It's far more difficult to be so independent of the socialization behavior that you actively look for evidence.
There's a lot.
The evidence that there's a tape didn't just begin to be discussed. It was one of the first things I ferreted out from the Weiner laptop news.
I am a skeptic by nature. If someone wants to make a bold claim then I expect the evidence to go along with it. I do not think that is unreasonable. It is not up to me to spend an indefinite amount of time to seek out supposed evidence to every claim on the internet. If you make a claim then it is your responsibility to provide the evidence. Otherwise it is nothing but a baseless and unsubstantiated claim. I'm not picking what I "want" to be true. I just don't automatically believe everything that excretes from the keyboard of every random person on the internet. Hearsay is NOT evidence. I don't have any "entrenched beliefs" in this matter. I don't even like Hillary Clinton nor would I EVER vote for her based on what there IS evidence for. That doesn't mean I'm going to automatically believe every claim made about her is true.
Without providing evidence, it just looks like YOU are the one believing what you want to be true. I'm happy to believe whatever the evidence shows.
If you use search engines that do not deliberately censor there are many credible sources that talk about the missing children in Haiti and connections to the clinton foundation