Whistleblower Clinton Foundation CEO Missing, Presumed Dead

originally posted by: ALSGoes4th
Wow, with all the Trump and Pizzagate investigation I complete missed how much the CF was in turmoil.

Chelsea it would seem is/was cleaning house.

Check out this scolding!

.org/podesta-emails/emailid/12401

Wow, didn't know we couldn't link to WikiLeaks.

This site amazes me xD

You can also not post about pizza gate.

Okay, here's a course description from Yale Law School for Eric Braverman's Spring 2017 course. Click on the source to read the whole description as it is long, unlike the other course descriptions. And note the government involvement and the war zone focus of the course, are there any field trips involved? If he is around I don't think he will be for long.

Source: courses.law.yale.edu...

This interdisciplinary course on Innovation in Government and Society will blend perspectives from management, public policy, and law in exploring why communities must innovate in the delivery of public services and how ideas from the public sector, private sector, and civil society are shaping the future of public management. The course will include hands-on work to help advance innovation in communities in developing countries or areas affected by natural disaster or war, in partnership with the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). This course will meet according to the School of Management calendar. Enrollment limited to six law students. Permission of the instructor required. Also MGT 866b/GBLS 697b. E. Braverman.

Note: This course will meet on the following dates: January 27, February 9 and 10; March 2 and 3; April 13, 14, 27, 28, May 4.

STM

Note: I think Chelsea was the leaker too after he found the truth for her. Podesta said Braverman was a mole in the Clinton Foundation in his own emails. Enough was given to Wikileaks to put the brakes on Hillary's campaign and to stop the CF train from continuing.

originally posted by: Greven
Another hoax.
Please stop with the hoaxes.

Someone not using twitter for a couple of months, especially one who historically is not a regular user, does not mean he is missing.

You have to use another source than Snopes now. It's not credible any more.

originally posted by: BlueAjah
The reports back as far as October saying that Braverman sought asylum at a Russian embassy are interesting.
If someone had evidence against the Clintons, and had been called out as a mole, and if that someone firmly believed that Clinton was about to become president-elect... that would make anyone with common sense a bit afraid.
And knowing that Clinton controls the Justice Department, and knowing what has happened to others who became their enemy, it makes sense that the only path to safety would be with a country who would not be friendly with Clinton.

She didn't need to become POTUS to be feared. Just look what happened to Seth Rich, the likely real DNC leaker, at least according to Julian Assange.

Question: How does Braverman's alleged disappearance coincide with the murder of Seth Rich? Maybe that event scared him into hiding and even now he's in witness protection waiting for the new DOJ Director to be sworn in..

Hillary seemed convinced that if Trump one, they would "hang".

I think the whole "network" has to be pulled down, and that includes the Podestas and the Clintons and various people in their corrupt network.

Otherwise, you end up with a bunch of Satanists and other people of very poor character just waiting in the wings to come back to power or dug in as the "permanent government" that I have a feeling may not be as permanent as it thinks.

The ongoing investigation can be done in such a way that it doesn't appear to be targeting Clinton personally, but what can you do if she and her people get caught up in the dragnet?

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: BlueAjah

Okay, what's the other evidence?

Multiple people all citing each other in a circular echo chamber also doesn't count.

Does Braverman even know or care?

I know - how about you give him or Neil Brown a call and report back to us. Clearly you are concerned with his safety.

I agree with you, if Neil Brown is up and about happy as Larry then its unlikely any harm has come to Eric.

I am going to try and contact him today.

Regardless of this individual thread, I'm forever done with considering Snopes a reliable source for fact-checking.

I've been noticing their ever-increasingly swing to the left as time goes by and several "fact-checks" didn't add up.
There's no way a small familial team can "check" so very many claims thoroughly enough to debunk anything.
Plus, since THIS news came out, it finally put the Kibosh on the site for good for me.

I'm not cementing my truth or not vote on a ragtag group of sleazy hicks.

a reply to: BlueAjah

Just because his husband is going on with life does not mean that Braverman is not in FBI witness protection custody or in asylum at the Russian embassy.

Maybe that was the reason behind the expulsion of the Russian diplomats . He may be in hiding and they are trying to flush him out where ever they think he might be

a reply to: mOjOm

It used to be that when someone made a claim they had to prove it before it was believed. Now we have to disprove every half baked theory to say it's false.

Welcome to the internet sandbox.

originally posted by: gottaknow
Regardless of this individual thread, I'm forever done with considering Snopes a reliable source for fact-checking.

I've been noticing their ever-increasingly swing to the left as time goes by and several "fact-checks" didn't add up.
There's no way a small familial team can "check" so very many claims thoroughly enough to debunk anything.
Plus, since THIS news came out, it finally put the Kibosh on the site for good for me.

I'm not cementing my truth or not vote on a ragtag group of sleazy hicks.

I stopped believing since copyright laws made it a crime to possess anything downloaded from the internet, coupled with the shut down of mega upload. Add to that all the intentional discrediting, marginalizing, ridicule and avalanching of false data that goes on.

The problem wth fifty witnesses testimony is you get fifty different stories...

Any damn cretin can travel the internet and add the word fake to every search for the truth, creating reasonable doubt.

a reply to: sad_eyed_lady

So it actually has nothing to do with whether slopes is lying or not. The data they represented in your link was from other (undisputed) sources, part of which reads...

Eric Braverman, the Clinton Foundation CEO from 2013 until 2015, has apparently been missing since October. His absence has fueled speculations in the blogosphere but so far has been ignored by the media.

Some speculate, with good reason, that Braverman may have gone into hiding after an email mentioning his name was released by Wikileaks on October 22 of this year. In the March 2015 email exchange, Center for American Progress President Neera Tanden told Clinton campaign manager and confidant John Podesta there was a mole within the Clinton Foundation. Pedestal in his reply told Tanden the mole was Braverman.

"So far Ignored" by the same media that has protected Clinton all the way down the line.

Strike one

In an wikileaked Email, Tanden tells Podesta theres a mole within the Clinton Foundation.

Strike two

In a return Email Pedestal names Braverman directly.

Strike three

So far Wikileaks data remains undisputed, the statement by Assange that source for emails was from within... again, ignored by the main stream. The unending Russian hack story in the same media to deflect and bury the leaks, the source and what they reveal.

Game over.

Conclusion? He's missing, in hiding or dead.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Noncents

Haven't we still reversed the burden of proof here though???

It used to be that when someone made a claim they had to prove it before it was believed. Now we have to disprove every half baked theory to say it's false.

Doesn't that seem like a bad idea?? Believing any crazy theory until it's proven incorrect will cause all kinds of problems rather than the other way around.

Well if this were in a court room and this was an evidentiary hearing we would weigh the evidence for both sides.

Side one: He is missing.
- evidence provided
1. He hasn't been on twitter for over a month.

Side two: He is not missing.
-evidence provided
1. Nothing

Looks like side one wins, at least for now.

Has a missing persons report been filed by anyone in his family? Does he even have a family? You would think so. Where did he live? With all this interest in him you'd think someone could do a pretty simple investigation. That being said, it is well known and obvious that the Clinton's seem to have alot of people die around them.

I live in a "pilot" family. Almost all male members of my family are pilots. I have known only one person by two degrees of separation that has died in a airplane wreck.

The Clinton's have know NUMEROUS people that have mysteriously died in plane crashes. The odds of that alone are very odd.

I remembered that Zerohedge mentioned that he could bring the Clinton Foundation down.

www.zerohedge.com...

That was posted on October 22nd. Soon after I think came the rumors he applied for protection at the Russian Embassy. I think it's clear here that something is rotten in Denmark and it isn't the cheese.

Not commenting on if the guy is missing or not until proof is available either way. I hate taking guesses as facts from either side.

But Snopes needs to go back to debunking nigerian prince chain e-mails and keep out of the MSM and conspiracy stuff.
It's all they were ever good at.

a reply to: Greven

So just because Snopes, who has been wrong before, can't prove that he's missing (or that he isn't, either, as they never made contact with him), it's a validated hoax?

I mean, in all probability, I'm sure that the dude is fine, but your reasoning for citing that Snopes article as proof is escaping me (and, apparently, others).

a reply to: xuenchen

(A) Fake News Site
(B) From my research, he is teaching courses at Yale right now..

Just cuz someone doesn't respond to trolls on the Clinton email leaks does not mean he is missing or dead?

Is there a missing person report? WTF did "missing or dead" come from? This OP is nuts...

som.yale.edu...

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: Greven

So just because Snopes, who has been wrong before, can't prove that he's missing (or that he isn't, either, as they never made contact with him), it's a validated hoax?

Yes...Cuz you can issue a fake news story claiming "Presumed Missing or Dead"...absent ANY evidence...for anyone..and then call it real until it proved otherwise...but even then you can say body double..or fake twitter...or his Students at yale are in on the conspiracy..

Effen Logic matters..

a reply to: Indigo5

Well somebody should be able to reach him by email or phone right?

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Indigo5

Well somebody should be able to reach him by email or phone right?

Yep! His email address is listed for all to see on the Yale School of Management's page. Have at it

a reply to: Indigo5

Your right, logic does "effen" matter, so let's discuss.

A story surfaces that a guy has gone missing.

A crack team of investigators (smell the sarcasm?) on Snopes.com does some "exhaustive" research, and can't actually contact or locate the guy who is the subject of the missing-person claim.

In being unable to locate the guy, they label this claim "unproven."

So, since logic "effen" matters, consider this reality: They're basing the conclusion of "unproven" (which is different than a "hoax") on a lack of positive evidence. If I'm told that someone is missing, and I can't get a hold of them after multiple attempts in different ways, I'm not ready to disregard the claim that they're missing, yet.

While I fully understand that 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,' to pretend that, as of right now, this claim is a hoax, is illogical. It may be improbably that the dude is missing and that his disappearance has ties to the Clintons, but improbability does not equate to being illogical.

So, yes, "Effen Logic matters," but I'm not sure that you're employing logic in the way you tried to negate my comment. All I was talking about was that Snopes can't really call this "unproven" (or, at the very least, be cited as proof that it's a hoax) if they have note made contact with the guy and verified, for themselves, that he's still around and kicking.

That is logic.