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.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
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.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
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.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
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.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
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.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
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.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
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?
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit
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.
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit