NBC News: Hillary Clinton ‘Covered Up’ Pedophile Ring At State Department

Don't know if it has been mentioned yet, but if Trump takes no REAL action on investigating this, it's seemingly very likely because there is a case filed/pending against him for having sex -- and allegedly very roughly-violently BTW -- with a 13 year old "prostitute" (slave) in 1994 by way of his good buddy Jeffrey Epstein, and he knows someone has enough dirt on him to keep him quiet.

originally posted by: Lightworth
Don't know if it has been mentioned yet, but if Trump takes no REAL action on investigating this, it's seemingly very likely because there is a case filed/pending against him for having sex -- and allegedly very roughly-violently BTW -- with a 13 year old "prostitute" (slave) in 1994 by way of his good buddy Jeffrey Epstein, and he knows someone has enough dirt on him to keep him quiet.

Why would he investigate "this"?

The matter was settled in 2014. See the Inspector General's report linked above.

a reply to: Gryphon66

No link there, try again. If the matter was truly settled (which doesn't automatically denote innocence anyway) in 2014, how was there so much discussion about it on the web, as a legitimate case pending, in 2016?

P.S./EDIT: "This" means underage sex trafficking, and for that matter, human/sex trafficking in general.

This really sounds like fake news. Why would she ever do what is implying in the accusation. There's nothing to gain and everything to lose.



Rage = Ratings = MONEY

It's sad just how generally stupid, gullible, and uni formed this site has become.
That report is from 2013. They cherry-picked a few paragraphs from a r year old report. And a bunch of idiotic buffoons who are too stupid or lazy to actually read it or do any research or verify it immediately jump on and start saying idiotic nonsense like "something big is about to happen!" It's 4 years old! lol.
it's no wonder this site has sadly become a complete laughingstock to the rest of the Internet. Stuff like this is the reason.

Responding to Gryphon 66

I do appreciate the quotes from other sources and your lack of ad hominem. I noticed that you critisized the original poster and asked a question:

"you're citing a right-wing echo chamber site that is dredging up something from 2013.

Why not cite NBC News or at least something from the time of the report (2013)? "

The OP has a clip from the NBC report from 2013. The probable reason for this is that the "right-wing echo chamber site" featured the same clip. In fact at least 1/2 of the article from the "right wing echo chamber" is a direct quote of the 2013 NBC report. The other half of the article contrasted the lack of official action in 2013 and what the Current Head of the Executive Branch (and therefore its agencies) is doing about this:

The president held a short, dramatic press conference after meeting with human trafficking experts to announce that he will direct “the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security and other federal agencies” to devote more resources and personnel to the investigation.

"Appearing at the press conference for less than two minutes, President Trump said that the issue has been on the radar of federal government “for some time” but since taking office in January the investigation has become “much more focused."

It would seem that because of the actions taken by President trump that any Journalist worthy of the name would "dredge up" any related stories from the recent past.

a reply to: kenToma

You might want to continue reading ... the matter "dredged up" was resolved fully in 2014 ... no finding of any wrong doing on the part of the Ambassador, no evidence of any "elite pedophile ring" and nothing to do with Hillary Clinton.

Your attempt to link the pure political mud-slinging I referred to with the President's "efforts" against human trafficking just don't hold up.

originally posted by: Lightworth
a reply to: Gryphon66

No link there, try again. If the matter was truly settled (which doesn't automatically denote innocence anyway) in 2014, how was there so much discussion about it on the web, as a legitimate case pending, in 2016?

P.S./EDIT: "This" means underage sex trafficking, and for that matter, human/sex trafficking in general.

I provided links to every part of the story. I provided a link to the Inspector General's report. Indeed, the matter was investigated, and the investigation showed that Ambassador Gutman was not guilty of the allegations.

Speaking of NOT PROVIDING LINKS though ... why don't you link what you're referring to in 2016? Eh?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Seems we might be referring to two different things, or I couldn't find anything concerning an IG report on the Trump case... There are many pages of links if you Google "Trump 1994 sex with 13 year old." It was all over the place last (late) June. Here is one:

www.snopes.com...

originally posted by: Lightworth
a reply to: Gryphon66

Seems we might be referring to two different things, or I couldn't find anything concerning an IG report on the Trump case... There are many pages of links if you Google "Trump 1994 sex with 13 year old." It was all over the place last (late) June. Here is one:

www.snopes.com...

Ah.

I'm not talking about Trump, I'm talking about the OP.

Beg pardon.

How much did those involved have to 'donate' to the clinton foundation? Can anyone get a copy of the clinton foundation donors??????

a reply to: shawmanfromny

More of this garbage? Even Alex Jones, the King of the Nutjobs, says it baloney. But hey, rave on...

originally posted by: daveinats
How much did those involved have to 'donate' to the clinton foundation? Can anyone get a copy of the clinton foundation donors??????

it's on their website

Whose ambassador is this?

Does this have anything to do with the recent spate of youn African-American/black girls going missing in the past two months in DC?

a reply to: shawmanfromny

Sheriff can be corrupt or pedoes, too. Let's ok st the Franklin scandal in Omaha tied to Bush I.

a reply to: MOMof3

originally posted by: cfnyaami
Whose ambassador is this?

Does this have anything to do with the recent spate of youn African-American/black girls going missing in the past two months in DC?

a reply to: shawmanfromny

Our Ambassador to Belgium.

No.

originally posted by: scubagravy
Trey Gowdy for President,

Or as the American people will have it, Kim Kardashian, Oprah or Carslon Crestely.

Or Donald Trump, right? But that would be inconvenient to your little narrative, wouldn't it?

originally posted by: Maroboduus
It's sad just how generally stupid, gullible, and uni formed this site has become.
That report is from 2013. They cherry-picked a few paragraphs from a r year old report. And a bunch of idiotic buffoons who are too stupid or lazy to actually read it or do any research or verify it immediately jump on and start saying idiotic nonsense like "something big is about to happen!" It's 4 years old! lol.
it's no wonder this site has sadly become a complete laughingstock to the rest of the Internet. Stuff like this is the reason.

My sentiments exactly

Of course, this thread will never be dumped in the hoax department. Where it belongs.

When there's growing real evidence that a foreign spy currently holds the highest office in the land, why dredge up this long discredited nonsense?

Oh, right, because a lot of people on this site are fans of that foreign spy. And are trying to distract us.

a reply to: cfnyaami

Sheriffs are elected which means if they don't do their job they lose it. The creeps have to reside and organize in a county somewhere. Has anyone tried who has probable cause proof?