You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Ep. 7: The Elections, SJWs, Leaving For SteemFest
It's generally circumstantial evidence around people who were close to the Clintons who have died in mysterious circumstances. They talk about it all the time on /r/TheDonald, that would be the right place to ask and decide if it's conspiracy theory grade stuff or genuinely suspicious.
Okay... I looked around a bit and found some links that (IMO) aren't even worth linking to here. I don't have enough tin foil for all that. Way too much unsubstantiated conspiracy-filled lose connections. @andrarchy likes to argue from first principles and evidence, so I'm hoping he has more to go off of than what I found on reddit (which was far from evidence, IMO).
Is it possible she (or people close to her) had people killed? For sure. That's also a pretty serious claim which should require some serious evidence. People dying suspiciously is not evidence. Much has been written about how our brains make connections and correlations and pretend they are causations.
Many people are demonizing Hillary via memes and claims about her being a criminal and murderer, etc. I'd like to see more evidence before I jump onboard with that perspective. Some supporters of Hillary look at it differently and say she's been investigated in minute detail (10+ years of personal emails) with no dirt on her. That's kind of amazing.
(btw, I didn't vote and don't support either candidate).
I won't defend the murder claims.
The only way you could say there was no evidence of wrongdoing in the emails are if you're not looking or are readily dismissing it. There is for example emails where her campaign discuss co-ordination with the DNC during the primaries, getting to hand pick electoral officers and requesting that Debbie Schultz put up phoney interviews on her calendar to give the impression of impartiality. They talk about using "leverage" on Bernie Sanders to keep him in line. The rigging of the DNC primaries is one thing there is mountains of evidence on. They talk about deliberately deleting emails just as they learn of an investigation into them. They get tips from people at the DoJ which help them to evade investigation. They have their own internal investigation into Chelsea Clinton spending Foundation money on her $3 million wedding. They talk about their donors expecting political favours, and instead of rebuking them they say they will talk about it in person. There's evidence of Bill Clinton doing favours for donations. They talk about "bird dogging", ie. trained agitators who provoke political supporters to anger so that they can present them as violent. They talk about co-ordination between her campaign and the Super PACs (that's a federal crime). Etc. etc. It's all there if you're willing to look. Ask people on the wikileaks subreddit.
Have you seen the videos made by James O'Keefe?
Rigging the Election - Video I: Clinton Campaign and DNC Incite Violence at Trump Rallies
The Clinton Chronicles film (1994) might be what you are looking for. The Clinton Body Count theory has to be at least as old as this documentary. You should find it on YouTube, I've watch it there about a year ago.
Not exactly what I would call "evidence" based on this initial reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Clinton_Chronicles
I was not proposing evidence but merely what could be the origin of the theory. The movie is not fresh in my mind so I can't discuss every detail of the corruption purported to be conducted by the Clintons in it. One thing is for sure, if my memory serve me correctly and even a small portion of what is alleged in the film really happened and involved Hillary and/or Bill, there would be matter for criminal prosecution.
You are quoting Snopes which according to the The Daily Caller is left-leaning and bias. Before looking into The Daily Caller fact-checking and reading the debunking piece by Snopes, I believe the best would be to start by watching the film so to judge it for yourself.
On another topic, I once tweeted to Kim LaCapria of Snopes that it is no argument just to say that the source of an information (Intellihub this time) is biased without adding any explanation to support the claim of not being objective. She did not adress my remark about her use of an ad hominem fallacy.
I think it's hard to find doubtless evidence for such a serious crime as murder, whether it's by gleaning on the Internet or as some kind of investigative citizen in real life. What we are often left with are the media, which like any other type of medium at the middle of a chain of information, will relay the best they can (or not) the data to us at the other end of some type of broken telephone line.
Another documentary I've seen a couple of months ago, this one only about the more recent influence peddling:
CLINTON CASH OFFICIAL DOCUMENTARY MOVIE ( FULL )
I found it, and I might actually rewatch and then compare it with Snopes' article:
The Clinton Chronicles (Full Version)