John Podesta Returns - What it looks like when your credibility is disintegrated
John Podesta has returned from hiding with tweet --
Naturally, the master of propaganda is merely 'asking' questions about Russian 'involvement' in the recent election.
I'm sure he knew he would catch flak given the 'pizza-related' news swirling around him for the past month, but not sure he expected this.
Oops.
Lots of ammo was fired in his direction in the 45 minutes since he posted. Here are some of the best samples:
Why are you covering this when there's a perfectly good rumor going around that Russia tried to help the candidate that didn't want war with Russia.
SOOOOO Unamerican!
Russia trying to help Trump is only that. A rumor. Hitlary Clinton is just trying to find more and more excuses to remove Trump from office; she's a sore loser.
This may seem counterintuitive but I don't think it's Hillary. I think it's the following she's developed and the climate she's been a part of
Disclaimer: I am just a bot trying to be helpful.
John Podesta tweeted, "where are the children? I paid for 50 minutes of pizza, damnit!"
John Podesta tweeted, "Pizza isn't so funny anymore. #FakeMedia #AltRight #DonaldTrumpNaziWhores"
John Podesta tweeted, "Do you think i'd play dominos better in James Alefantis's chiller room, or in Tony's art gallery?"
John Podesta tweeted, "I'm a lost #FuctUp #Cnut. I think I need a map."
Thanks for providing the pertinent tweets in such a concise way, its the kind of thing I've been asking of others for some time, but just keep getting loads of conspiracy videos, rants and childish behaviour up to now. Because of this it's very difficult to separate facts from conjecture and searching the internet is like wading through bull shit to find any actual nuggets of useful information.
I must say these tweets do seem suggestive of some sort of code being used, but it's not really conclusive. The first tweet needs some explaining I think, the second one is understandable just stating that pizza isn't funny anymore given the furore around "pizzagate". This second one does seem to suggest that whatever "pizza" was code for, was something Podesta found funny - maybe was some kind of "in joke" between friends. This could be something sinister or maybe just a sick sense of humour....again I think it's inconclusive.
The 3rd tweet can be taken for what it appears to be, a simple question regarding dominoes, though again it can be suggestive of some kind of code word. It would be helpful to know if the words "pizza" and "dominos" are very well known paedophile terminology, or if that is just conjecture? I think knowing the answer to this would impact my view strongly one way or the other.
The 4th tweet does not appear in anyway suspect to me, he appears to be just joking that as he is "lost" emotionally or whatever, he needs a map - a play on words kind of thing.
Has anyone considered the possibility that maybe he's just got a very sick taste in humour to go with his dark taste in Art....just asking? I just find it quite incredible that a well known and clearly intelligent guy would knowingly tweet incriminating evidence against himself, in very thinly veiled code words and broadcast it to the world.
I'd be interested to hear what Podesta himself says about the matter in his defence but can't find anything anywhere. Is it the case that he hasn't answered anything, as I heard he went off-line for a while? Could the possibility be that he was being investigated during this period? Like I say, it';s very difficult to find any actual info without wading through bull shit, so I appreciate your comment.
It's called "taking the piss" @alkafir - They're all satirical.
Thank you blake upvoted back
It's possible that the Podestas are not the culprits in the Madeleine McCann case. I, for one, never trust police statements solely at face value. A couple of days ago, I've watched the Crimewatch episose in which they shared the Podesta-like e-fits and I have to say this tv program looked to me like one hell of a fake crime solving reality tv show. The McCann story is new to me but not to this Thomas Baden-Riess dude. He is convincing that the story was fishy from the start and I like how is brain works, studying all the possibilities.
Here are the 3 videos I'm refering to, for Steemians' pleasure:
Crimewatch UK - October 2013 Madeleine Mccann Special
Madeleine McCann, The Podesta Brothers & Pizzagate
The Madeleine McCann Conspiracy: Sir Clement Freud
On the shallow surface, does John Podesta look like a man you'd let babysit your children or a man you'd expect to see on "To Catch A Predator"?
Excellent. Still fuming. Sick fuck #Podesta My Facebook is known for rants. Feel free to come and be nosy.
I'll try to be polite on Steemit. On Fb I don't really give a rat's ~ https://www.facebook.com/lillyllew
Thanks for sharing the JOY
I think it's both.
Beautiful.
So, reading just the very top few of some of the "best samples" of the "ammo" fired, the first is from "Chubby Hillary" calling the guy "turtle face" and some nonsensical remark about Atheists? As an Atheist myself , I would hazard a guess that very few of us hold any belief in any form of supernatural ideas - particularly of this whacko nature and it is quite an offensive and ill informed generalisation.
If these type of remarks are the best ammunition you have, then no wonder the vast majority of people just ignore you. If you have any kind of a case, then you do both it and the alleged abused children a massive dis- service. Maybe find some evidence and find a grown up to argue your case (all those posting about "pizzagate) - this is just childish.
The whole quote is "Took a break from #SpiritCooking from your lair, turtle face" by someone whos choice in username clearly says that they're subtle blunt troll and will call it as they see it, and you want to connect that end remark, ignorant of the obvious SPIRIT COOKING every other user mentioned, with the username that person chose with the other thing someone wrote, which by itself is clearly out of context, this quote going something like "Spirit cooking is barbecue 4 atheists " in which context atheism isnt a religion like you ascribed to, whence some mention of this religious choice is the nerve which twiches when youre heavy in material which obviously has little to do with philosophical concerns and more with ACTUAL CHILDREN BEING KILLED. I want to know WHY you feel free to brush it off as if you've taken the time to investigate this and concluded like MSM fake news, and in the same breath you can say why you ridicule it, but it has no basis in facts, or in relevant subject, but in casual points which have no merit to the discussion and clearly are misleading, why don't you have any concerns for the FUCKING REALITY : CHILDREN, NOT USERNAMES AND CHOICE OF ANALOGIES WHICH CLEARLY ESCAPE YOU.
Now that was one hell of a loooooong sentence - grammar is your friend if you want to convey your argument to somebody. Do you seriously think I don't know Atheism isn't a Religion (not even an "ism" in fact....lol)? Not really following you and not only because you said it all in one breath. Do you have any evidence whatoever to substantiate your yell of "ACTUAL CHILDREN BEING KILLED"? Yes or No....simple question?
Again you failed to put the quote into any sensible context just as I have pointed out in my first post, where to recap: you cherry picked a couple remarks, putting both of them out of context, and you decided to string those two remarks together by arguing what exactly? That the evidence is hinged on people commenting on social media, that this scandal is simply ridiculous because of peoples reactions to his coming out of hiding so to speak? You want to say I made that claim that I have proof of children being killed? Provide the quote in context instead of putting words in my mouth. You can make any demands to answer whatever illegitimate questions as you clearly are concerned with confusing, fabricating, twisting, and dismissing context, so keep placating on your atheist views of how to trulllolol.
Lol......there isn't any "sensible context" to put it in, whether or not I quoted the whole sentence, I said the tweeter called the guy "turtle face", which she did and it is childish.....that's all. How does quoting the whole "Took a break from #SpiritCooking from your lair, turtle face" make it any less childish or more in context? I'm not "confusing, fabricating, or twisting anything. No idea what any part of"keep placating on your Atheist views of how to trulllolol" even means - maybe consult a dictionary or something.
You state:
"You want to say I made that claim that I have proof of children being killed? Provide the quote in context instead of putting words in my mouth."
No, I did not make that claim, I asked:
"Do you have any evidence whatoever to substantiate your yell of "ACTUAL CHILDREN BEING KILLED"?
Again, to put your words in "context" as you say, or quote the whole sentence rather, makes no difference......and as your opening sentence is 9 lines long, I'm obviously not going to re-post the whole thing. The best I can do is "material which obviously has little to do with philosophical concerns and more with ACTUAL CHILDREN BEING KILLED."
Like I said....it makes no difference to what I asked. Clearly it is not me who is twisting things and putting words in mouths - and I've just evidenced it.
Name calling is childish, and in this situation, and situations which are centered around such emotional subjects it really earns another "so what", SO what that he got called a turtle face in the same sentence he's ridiculing his codewords for something which seems very sinister. You do notice that this situation is about the depravity of man, or how low can you go, and not necessarily about remarks about that depravity, yet you insist on saying that it's not out of context, calling him names is childish, and it devalues any real investigation, investigation perpetrated by the same people that perpetrated these crimes, or you don't believe that judges, da's and police of all rank isn't possibly involved? O yes where is the proof? that you didn't ask for PROOF of actual children being killed, simply you asked if I had evidence to substantiate my Yell.. GTFO, you asked EXACTLY for proof, or when has evidence and proof not meant the same thing and as if that YELL, was all by it's lonesome and not used in the CONTEXT of my point, which is that you have a problem with people's behavior towards possible pedophiles, and namely the public's remarks on these pedophile's appearance or whatnot, which constitute as attacks on character, but based on overwhelming circumstances these characters, these people deserve this scorn. Stop asking for proof, stop demanding, simply, because nobody made that claim, nobody said " I CAN PROVE" and least in the context of "i have evidence". Again I ask, why do you brush it off as if its MSM fake news and peoples comments on social media have any merit to credit or discredit the fact that actual children are the Context, my whole post was asking, since when is that decorum, that "adultness" EVER important in such obviously special circumstances? You clearly dismissed it, you clearly said that we are doing a disservice, please explain why you feel compelled to ask me for evidence, why you feel so comfortable with dismissing it, and why you act as if you've investigated this while ignoring the global context and numerous reports of the same thing, victims, and congressional hearings, all of which you show no awareness of and care neither to gather any more awareness of.
http://www.policeprostitutionandpolitics.com/
http://childabuserecovery.com/nicole-kidmans-father-dies-amid-pedophile-child-murder-ring-allegations/
https://www.sott.net/article/322016-Pedophile-rings-are-enormous-and-pervasive-among-the-worlds-elites
Are you arguing that a lack of bodies means that this is all fabricated? If you think finding witnesses is going to be easy for something like this, you don't understand how a network like this operates.
Both of the videos demonstrate similar patterns of ritualistic abuse and murder, in different locations in different times, all involving people in positions of power. Contextual evidence that historically backs up the possibility of such a thing existing today.
"Are you arguing that a lack of bodies means that this is all fabricated?"
No, but nice try at the straw man. I simply asked if the guy had any evidence to substantiatiate his yell. I WOULD however argue that a lack of bodies, or any other type of evidence for the claims being made means this is all hearsay. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim - not on the person you are trying to convince. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.......and I haven't seen any. Insofar as the videos go, can I ask that we keep on topic, rather than go further down the rabbit hole? I'm from the UK and know all about the Jimmy Saville case - a media celebrity that abused his position to molest/abuse children.....disgusting and sickening yes, but not involving any ritualistic abuse or murder or institutional complicity a far a I know - and not in any way connected to the "pizzagate" claims.
"I want to know WHY you feel free to brush it off as if you've taken the time to investigate this and concluded like MSM fake news, and in the same breath you can say why you ridicule it, but it has no basis in facts, or in relevant subject, but in casual points which have no merit to the discussion and clearly are misleading, why don't you have any concerns for the FUCKING REALITY : CHILDREN, NOT USERNAMES AND CHOICE OF ANALOGIES WHICH CLEARLY ESCAPE YOU."
So, you're offended by someone that tweeted something to someone else? You, as a total stranger and brand new account, are jumping in my thread throwing out ad hominems, while simultaneously telling me I'm not being taken seriously?
Read my previous posts on the Podesta emails. Those are the cores of this investigation. Until a journalist or LEO actually asks Podesta, or the Sandlers what a 'pizza related handkerchief map' is, the global investigation will continue and be limited to the abundance of circumstantial and contextual/historical evidence that exists.
"So, you're offended by someone that tweeted something to someone else?"
No, actually, but that's quite a hypocritical and rich remark coming from someone who is offended by someone that emailed something to someone else and completely negates whatever point you were making in any case.
"You, as a total stranger and brand new account"
Yes.....how dare I?.....lol. As to the ad-hominem claim, I did clarify that I meant all those posting this "pizzagate" conspiracy stuff - not particularly you personally - here's what I said:
"Maybe find some evidence and find a grown up to argue your case (all those posting about "pizzagate) - this is just childish." I think it's fair comment. If you read what I actually said, it's clearly intended to convey that the case being presented is not being taken seriously because of the way it is being presented. It is this type of behaviour, childish remarks etc that puts people off - not things like the NYT article. As I said, if there's any substance to the claims, then you (all of you) are doing any abused children a major dis-service. If you were to state your case clearly and succinctly and provide actual evidence and present it maturely, without all the "add-ons" and going down rabbit -holes you MAY get more serious people more attentive.....is all I'm saying.
"Until a journalist or LEO actually asks Podesta, or the Sandlers what a 'pizza related handkerchief map' is, the global investigation will continue and be limited to the abundance of circumstantial and contextual/historical evidence that exists."
OK then, so this is the issue, no law enforcement/Judge/Court whatever is going to convict anyone of such serious offences based on circumstantial evidence only - however abundant.
If your case rests entirely in the hope that a journalist/LEO asks Podesta what a "pizza related handkerchief map is" and that he's going to say "ritual abuse of children" or something, then it's not going to happen is it? He's going to say "It's a handkerchief with a map of local pizza restaurants" or similar isn't he......and where does that get you?
What you need is actual evidence, not hearsay, not videos, not conspiracy theories - evidence.
Does any exist anywhere?
Thank you for sharing. Tweeted.