RE: More Emerges About The Hillary Clinton/Huma Abedin Sex Video: There's No Limit To This Evil
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.
You say you are happy to believe what there is direct evidence for, yet you say O'Brien is not credible. You neglect that immediately upon disclosure of the Weiner laptop seizure claims of the HRC/Abedin tape were made, and that we have not seen any of the evidence from the Weiner laptop.
If you check, you will find that I have not stated the HRC/Abedin tape is certain to exist. What I have said is that it's existence is consistent with the bulk of evidence, and that it is likely to exist. The claims regarding have been consistent.
More than this I cannot say, because we haven't seen Weiner's laptop yet.
Claims are not evidence. Anybody can claim anything they want. The more claims that you make without evidence, the less credible you are, especially when on the surface the claims seem pretty incredible. I say O'Brien is not credible because she has not provided evidence for her many wild claims. Very few people, even among Clinton haters, find her to be credible.
"We have not seen any of the evidence" - my point exactly.
When evidence is controlled by criminals, as is at least attempted in every crime, that is a factor in credibility.
That children are tortured and murdered by powerful people is a certainty. Haut de la Garenne proves that. The reason they are still digging up shattered, burned bones of children there is because the evidence is controlled, and destroyed.
At some point the breadth of claims supported by circumstantial evidence is just as compelling as more probative evidence in a specific case. There are a great many circumstantially supported accusations against HRC, from her direct involvement with parties proven to victimize children, from Bernard Kouchner to Laura Silsby--and including Anthony Weiner. This is why a tape showing her personally harming a child is so inflammatory.
It would provide proof a specific crime which would corroborate all the accusations. No one doubts Al Capone was a gangster, even though all that was ever proved in court was that he didn't pay taxes.
Given the proof of conspiracy that the Dutroux scandal presented, and that horrific crimes against children are enabled by suppressing evidence, I am less sanguine about dismissing claims with broad circumstantial evidence demonstrating close association between HRC and such crimes.
If there is a tape, the evidence will no longer be circumstantial. Such tapes are the mechanism that controls politics through blackmail, and thus I don't find the claim of such a tape to be incredible. It remains unproven to me at present, but the preponderance of evidence shows such a tape to be likely to exist. Whether it's Frazzledrip or not makes little difference.
Hearsay is not even circumstantial evidence. I'm not dismissing anything. Anything is possible. But until proven otherwise, for a all practical purposes the tape does not exist. You saying it probably exists does not make it exist. Some other random person saying it definitely does exist also does not make it exist. You cannot claim something into existence. You can believe what you want but that will make little difference to Hillary or the rest of the world. Sure, there's lots of things the existence of such a tape WOULD do but that is meaningless unless in fact it exists. Right now, the evidence for such a tape is less than circumstantial - it's baseless claims and other non-evidence and ridiculous names like "frazzledrip".
Yes, Hillary Clinton knows Anthony Weiner who sexted an underage girl. A lot of people know him. And what he did is a long, long, long way off from what Hillary is accused of with this tape. It's kind of like saying that knowing someone who shoplifted is circumstantial evidence that you are a serial murderer of grocery store employees. Is it not reasonable to demand proof before believing such extreme accusations?
Yes, it is utterly necessary for strong evidence to be known before one can consider a thing proved.
Hearsay, as you point out, isn't strong evidence.
Proven public record of HRC involvement with Bernard Kouchner and Laura Silsby isn't hearsay. Voluminous evidence of video recordings of children being harmed being used to blackmail politicians isn't hearsay either. To consider any particular accusation reasonably requires acknowledging the context of the circumstances, and this is circumstantial evidence--not hearsay.
I do not claim this video is what is claimed. I state that it is likely that such video exists, due to the preponderance of evidence that corrupt politics as practiced by HRC has necessitated it. Significant and consistent claims have been made since the discovery of Weiner's laptop, and historically such have eventually been proved in similar prior events.
It isn't important whether disinfo has caused the specific language regarding this specific video, IMHO. The context of extant political power and history indicate that such video incriminating HRC is likely to exist, because she would never have floated to the the top of the pond she swam in if it didn't.
Laura Silsby tried to get some kids out of Haiti, purportedly with the best of intentions. Other than unsubstantiated allegations, is their evidence she was sex trafficking? Or was she just, as she would claim, trying to help some kids in abject poverty? Is there anything more than circumstantial evidence that Kouchner committed a crime related to sex trafficking? Or any evidence at all? The problem is you are using HRCs association with certain people, at least some of which she would have reason to associate with anyway, as evidence when the evidence against those people is at best circumstantial and I would argue less than that...I mean it's certainly possible to genuinely believe that an accused pedophile is in fact innocent without being a criminal (RE: Kouchner defending an accused pedophile for example)...unless you automatically believe every accusation is true.
Hearsay not only isn't strong evidence, it is not evidence at all. "Bob said that Steve said that Weiner's laptop has HRC having sex with kids" - that's not evidence...at all. "My friends said that some guy he doesn't know said that a video he uploaded on the dark web shows HRC killing children" - also not evidence...at all. I certainly think that there is a lot of wrongdoing associated with HRC but satanic child rape and murder along with the removal of faces seems just a bit of a stretch. And the so-called "evidence" does not make it less so. Being a corrupt politician does not imply such things. I shouldn't even have to point out the logical fallacy of your last statement. And "significant and consistent claims"? I can make significant and consistent claims all day long, every day of the year about things that aren't true. I guess Russians hacked the election too.
My problem with all of this is that such claims, without significant evidence (which there isn't), only makes Hillary Clinton's opponents look bad and strengthens her position. This reminds me of one of the storylines in the X-Files where it is revealed that the whole UFO thing is a government hoax designed to draw attention away from other things. They were happy to leak "secret" UFO investigations and deny all the accusations in order to make suspicion stronger so long as it led away from what they were really hiding. Then such accusers were easily discredited later. Remember the story about the boy who cried wolf?
The truth may be out there but it isn't in this supposed child raping/murdering/face removing video.
I generally agree with your statements regarding evidence, but you are mischaracterizing the evidence, conflating a wide variety of sources and allegations that include voluminous detailed public records with such demonstrable twaddle as 'Russian Collusion', which is repeatedly shown to be derived almost solely from HRC and her associates.
The claims made regarding the face-ripping video seem to be a psyop, presently. I reckon it's intended to be used exactly as you are using it: to discredit all accusations of SRA/pedophilia blackmail against deep state actors.
Note, I am not accusing you of intending to discredit anyone or anything. You appear to be, however.
Laura Silsby, if you look deeply into the case, lied voluminously about the children, what was happening to them, and did so with criminal intent. You may claim that she was trying to do good, but it appears to be a weak claim, given the nature of child trafficking and her own reliance upon counsel already convicted of child trafficking to defend her in the case.
Bernard Kouchner, while you touch on surficially damning evidence, has much more to reveal regarding Dyncorp, the UN, Kosovo, and crimes against humanity than that alone.
Ed Rendell, who I haven't mentioned before, also pulled a Silsby, and is also connected to HRC. Epstein, direct connection to HRC. HRC is connected to the most recent sex trafficking scandal involving the Bronfman's and Allison Mack. If you look, you will find a web of convicted and accused child traffickers with direct connections to HRC.
You won't see what you don't look at. You are also using language that seems deliberately intended to impugn and disparage the very issue, investigators, and the evidence. Words like 'hearsay', 'baseless', 'ridiculous' all insinuate and imply that folks that investigate SRA/child sex trafficking should all be locked up in loony bins.
I consider your choice of words when judging your intent. I use those same words when discussing Russian collusion, for similar reasons. However, there is simply no comparison between the investigations, as SRA/child sex trafficking has voluminous public records derived from court proceedings for at least decades, while every scrap of Russian collusion leads directly back to HRC and her associates.
HRC has risen to the surface of a pond of corruption and vileness for reasons. She didn't do that because of her virtue. The pond is convincingly reported to be controlled by blackmail, and SRA/pedophilia video evidence from operations like Epstein's are not merely hearsay, but indicated in dozens of investigations I can name off the top of my head, that involve thousands of researchers, hundreds of jurisdictions, and all point in the same direction.
The evidence is circumstantial that HRC is deeply enmeshed in SRA/child sex trafficking. It isn't hearsay, or remotely comparable to Russian collusion, or ridiculous, or any other pejorative term.
Expect psyops to impede organic formation of considerations. I do. @richq11 has personally stated that he investigated more deeply into this matter and reports this particular video appears to be a psyop. He also reports that he personally has seen evidence along these lines he cannot discuss further.
I believe him.