Anonymous Release Bone-Chilling video of Huma Abedin every American Needs to See

What a load of bollocks.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: muzzleflash

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: kosmicjack
a reply to: Annee


Well, so far these links are mostly pertaining to Podesta and now this from Anon about Huma. Classic patsy set up. We need the goods on Hillary, otherwise it will amount to a whole lot of nothing.

Truly, I'm not in denial. I'm an anything/everything is possible/probable person. I actually do believe the top level world leaders are working with "off planet beings".

How do you choose your shark in shark infested waters?

You pick the one swimming in the direction you want to go.

I'm a former Republican, but almost everything about the current Right Wing I'm against. So, Hillary it is (no matter what she's tied to).

So you are knowingly supporting felonies because it's "the direction you want to go"? That explains everything we needed to know.

The part about aliens thrown in the mix, unbelievable.

Zero credibility.

What do you support?

Gossip, accusations, rumors, propaganda, etc.

The presidency is not a single person. The direction I want to go will still be there no matter what happens with Hillary.

I was a Republican until they became insane.

Hillary also has been documented by the NYPD to have been on the Epstien lolita express 6 times. So don't give us that worn out talking point of how Bill isn't running.

a reply to: TrueBrit

(Standing up to applaud...) Hey Bro! You are correct. The U.S. has been an initiator and funder of terrorist networks for many years. Sad, Yes, but true...

I think the fact that this thread was created is good. It does show just one tiny piece, of but one 'cog' in the machine of terror, but it seems that may be the best way to get this type of info out there, to the american people.
Others, unlike us, You and I and other like minded individuals who are in the know of many of the terrible deeds this government has done, have to be spoon fed this knowledge in tiny amounts. It seems if there is too much bad news at once, most will turn away from hearing or seeing it, and it will not register as anything they are, or need to be, concerned about.

Since this is just a tiny piece of the rotten pie, hopefully those who would have normally run from bad news will digest this, and it will open their mind, a little? Know what I mean? Or should I have waited till I was more awake? LOL!!

originally posted by: Doctor Smith

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: muzzleflash

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: kosmicjack
a reply to: Annee


Well, so far these links are mostly pertaining to Podesta and now this from Anon about Huma. Classic patsy set up. We need the goods on Hillary, otherwise it will amount to a whole lot of nothing.

Truly, I'm not in denial. I'm an anything/everything is possible/probable person. I actually do believe the top level world leaders are working with "off planet beings".

How do you choose your shark in shark infested waters?

You pick the one swimming in the direction you want to go.

I'm a former Republican, but almost everything about the current Right Wing I'm against. So, Hillary it is (no matter what she's tied to).

So you are knowingly supporting felonies because it's "the direction you want to go"? That explains everything we needed to know.

The part about aliens thrown in the mix, unbelievable.

Zero credibility.

What do you support?

Gossip, accusations, rumors, propaganda, etc.

The presidency is not a single person. The direction I want to go will still be there no matter what happens with Hillary.

I was a Republican until they became insane.

Hillary also has been documented by the NYPD to have been on the Epstien lolita express 6 times. So don't give us that worn out talking point of how Bill isn't running.

Where's your factual proof from a legitimate source - - - of any criminal activity of Bill or Hill?

You say NYPD. OK, name of officer.

Case record number? Anything legitimate involving criminal activity directly involving Hill or Bill.

Being associated with someone does not make you guilty of their "possible" criminal activity.

originally posted by: Mclaneinc

. . . . pretty much only one set of Radicals PROMISING AND DOING to kill you if you don't convert, . . . .

I don't live in a cave - - or use tunnel vision.

Political control is about control. Using an ideology is a tool.

Tens of thousands of Muslims flee Christian militias in Central African Republic

By Sudarsan Raghavan February 7, 2014 BANGUI, Central African Republic –

Tens of thousands of Muslims are fleeing to neighboring countries by plane and truck as Christian militias stage brutal attacks, shattering the social fabric of this war-ravaged nation. In towns and villages as well as here in the capital, Christian vigilantes wielding machetes have killed scores of Muslims, who are a minority here, and burned and looted their houses and mosques in recent days, according to witnesses, aid agencies and peacekeepers. Tens of thousands of Muslims have fled their homes. www.washingtonpost.com... 11e3-84e1-27626c5ef5fb_story.html

a reply to: Annee

I am sure they were just on the island sight seeing, just like an sure OJ didn't kill anyone.

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Annee

I am sure they were just on the island sight seeing, just like an sure OJ didn't kill anyone.

How do you know what they were doing on the island? Point is, you don't.

When I was in grade school our City Councilman was discovered to be a Ephebophilia. He was a very popular, well liked Councilman. Many parents had him to their homes for dinner and other events. Guess all those parents are guilty as he is by association.

Hagmann report: NYPD officer says.

Name of officer?

a reply to: Annee

That was my point. We don't need to know to form a view that is likely correct.
There was not enough evidence to convict OJ Simpson of murder, but everyone knew.

If OJ had run for President after the murders, how many people would say "well it's not proven he did it, so I am voting for him" .

There is a difference between conviction in a court of law and voting for a person you really know, without much doubt, is a criminal.



The smile from OJ in this video as he is acquitted is creepy and I suspect similar to the smirk on Hillary's face as she laughs at the fools who refused to act on what they really know in their hearts. Of course there will also always be those people who have very little 'heart' and are more interested in getting what they want than doing the right thing.

RE: Douglas J. Hagmann

BUSTED: Douglas J. Hagmann and Northeast Intelligence Network by Ken Welch (2006 - seems he's been on the conspiracy radar for a while).

Al Qaeda terrorist training camps in Georgia? Jihad crazed Muslims preparing to shoot up your local shopping mall? Why the government is hiding the obvious al Qaeda connections of the guy who robbed three gas stations in Oklahoma? All this and more is available from the often comical Northeast Intelligence Network created by Douglas J. Hagmann - or someone using that name. In this report we will listen to Hagmann as he broadcasts a terror alert that he knows is false, and get a brief glimpse of who the U.S. intelligence community believes were the real planners behind 9/11. You can have three guesses but none of them should be foreign. www.ken-welch.com...

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Annee

That was my point. We don't need to know to form a view that is likely correct.
There was not enough evidence to convict OJ Simpson of murder, but everyone knew.

If OJ had run for President after the murders, how many people would say "well it's not proven he did it, so I am voting for him" .

There is a difference between conviction in a court of law and voting for a person you really know, without much doubt, is a criminal.

I was in Los Angeles during the OJ fiasco.

If he'd actually gotten tried by his peers (rich, mostly white folk) - - - there would have been a different outcome.

But, they moved the trial to inner city Los Angeles.

I see people like Annee and kaylaluv continue to pursue this progressive stupidity at every opportunity.

I suppose I'm not alone in assuming that if absolute 100% proof that Hillary had indulged in the alleged child-sex crimes that they'd probably continue to speak in her defense.

I'm starting to think it's all a ruse, this progressive stuff. It's a clever means which perverts can enforce their vile agenda. People need to learn that there will always be mass opposition to this stuff. There will never come a time when the majority are happy for their politicians to be rapists, pedo's and fund and support terrorism.

The people who advocate and excuse this, the fake progressives and liberals who are in fact the extreme right purporting to be one thing but actually being another, will always be the minority.

Thankfully.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Annee

That was my point. We don't need to know to form a view that is likely correct.
There was not enough evidence to convict OJ Simpson of murder, but everyone knew.

If OJ had run for President after the murders, how many people would say "well it's not proven he did it, so I am voting for him" .

There is a difference between conviction in a court of law and voting for a person you really know, without much doubt, is a criminal.

I was in Los Angeles during the OJ fiasco.

If he'd actually gotten tried by his peers (rich, mostly white folk) - - - there would have been a different outcome.

But, they moved the trial to inner city Los Angeles.

We all know he was guilty, but not enough evidence for the jury. That is the point.
It's why court room type discussions about candidates and reasons to vote for them or not are spurious.
This is a vote not a conviction and the assessment of both of them should not require 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Annee

That was my point. We don't need to know to form a view that is likely correct.
There was not enough evidence to convict OJ Simpson of murder, but everyone knew.

If OJ had run for President after the murders, how many people would say "well it's not proven he did it, so I am voting for him" .

There is a difference between conviction in a court of law and voting for a person you really know, without much doubt, is a criminal.

I was in Los Angeles during the OJ fiasco.

If he'd actually gotten tried by his peers (rich, mostly white folk) - - - there would have been a different outcome.

But, they moved the trial to inner city Los Angeles.

We all know he was guilty, but not enough evidence for the jury. That is the point.

I think he would have been found guilty if he'd been tried where he should have been.

It would have been a very different jury.

originally posted by: ThreeDots
I see people like Annee and kaylaluv continue to pursue this progressive stupidity at every opportunity.

Because we have different opinions then you?

You show me where I've said Hillary is innocent.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Annee

That was my point. We don't need to know to form a view that is likely correct.
There was not enough evidence to convict OJ Simpson of murder, but everyone knew.

If OJ had run for President after the murders, how many people would say "well it's not proven he did it, so I am voting for him" .

There is a difference between conviction in a court of law and voting for a person you really know, without much doubt, is a criminal.

I was in Los Angeles during the OJ fiasco.

If he'd actually gotten tried by his peers (rich, mostly white folk) - - - there would have been a different outcome.

But, they moved the trial to inner city Los Angeles.

We all know he was guilty, but not enough evidence for the jury. That is the point.

I think he would have been found guilty if he'd been tried where he should have been.

You can think all you want, he was found not guilty. Your point about the location just furthers my point. You are saying the verdict was influenced by bias of some kind (I would suggest his football career and public persona had a lot to do with it). So the facts didn't actually matter that much or there was reasonable doubt, even though we all know he was and is guilty.

Proving Hillary (or Trump) is guilty of something to the standards of a court should not, and I'd suggest for most people is not, the standard applied to decide who to vote for.

I believe most people know she is guilty wrt the email scandal (I think I saw something like 83% of Americans think she got away with committing a crime), but the verdict was that she was innocent (or not enough evidence to find out). Who she is and her public career, I believe, would have played a massive role in that. Just like OJ. It doesn't mean, on a forum, we have to pretend we think she was innocent.

I have much more respect for Hillary voters who admit she is corrupt but vote for her anyway because they think Trump is worse. That's an argument that has to be accepted at face value.

An argument for every crime that seeks court room level proof to defend her just wreaks of denial and a lack of character.

This video seams to me to be the most damming evidence that clinton is working to stir up #t in the world, I showed it to my wife and she just said " if that was true it would be on the news! " what I am wondering is why hasen't donald talked about the connections with uma and her parents ect, the web sites are easy to confirm, to me its a closed case there is a obvious connection there. So why dosent donald talk about it?

originally posted by: imjack

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: ThreeDots
I see people like Annee and kaylaluv continue to pursue this progressive stupidity at every opportunity.

Because we have different opinions then you?

You show me where I've said Hillary is innocent.

Pfft, I'll say she's innocent. People will endlessly argue and then even agree she's a scapegoat for black military operations, but then just deny what a scapegoat is later.

This is partly of the reason she's criticized for 'nothing' all the time, it's her purpose to go down and/or get away/be slippery, but this is at least in Private American Interests. Part of the reason there are 34786759734957934 conspiracies about her is specifically to hide real ones. The point is once you find real meat and potato's it has nothing to do with her. That last part isn't preferable to her honor in her new defence-ish role for the Nation. When it comes time to do dirty laundry, she becomes a complete puppet.

Speculative accusations are not facts - - - they are speculative accusations.

No "armchair" politician on an internet forum has the slightest clue what really goes on in high level international politics.

If she pisses the wrong person off, maybe there will be facts presented that can bring criminal charges.

I'm certainly not in denial - - - - this is not a movie where "morality" rules, the good guy wins, and corruption is brought to justice.

Idealism is a nice word (not much else).

Corruption is in the eye of the beholder.

For all we know - - - top high level world leaders have signed a co-pack agreement with "off planet" beings - - - that is about saving this planet.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: Annee

That was my point. We don't need to know to form a view that is likely correct.
There was not enough evidence to convict OJ Simpson of murder, but everyone knew.

If OJ had run for President after the murders, how many people would say "well it's not proven he did it, so I am voting for him" .

There is a difference between conviction in a court of law and voting for a person you really know, without much doubt, is a criminal.

I was in Los Angeles during the OJ fiasco.

If he'd actually gotten tried by his peers (rich, mostly white folk) - - - there would have been a different outcome.

But, they moved the trial to inner city Los Angeles.

We all know he was guilty, but not enough evidence for the jury. That is the point.

I think he would have been found guilty if he'd been tried where he should have been.

You can think all you want, he was found not guilty.

Yes, I am aware. I lived there.

If the jury had been his peers - - - it would most likely have had a different outcome.

Do you understand the difference between his peers (wealthy, mostly white folk) - - - and poor inner city mostly black people who worshiped him as a hero?

I'm done. What does OJ have to do with this anyway?

originally posted by: wissy
This video seams to me to be the most damming evidence that clinton is working to stir up #t in the world, I showed it to my wife and she just said " if that was true it would be on the news! " what I am wondering is why hasen't donald talked about the connections with uma and her parents ect, the web sites are easy to confirm, to me its a closed case there is a obvious connection there. So why dosent donald talk about it?

I agree that the video is very damning of the US govt and Hillary in particular.
That is a good question as to why the media and especially Trump have not focused on it.
Trump has talked about it but only once or twice.
The thing is the connections are such that no news channel is going to be able to explain it in their usual 'Jack and Jill' type reporting.