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

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

But the facts here are plain.

I dont see them as plain. I think you or I are far removed from a place where we could observe all the facts about any particular case...especially one involving high level politicians or other powerful people.

OP cited material that is moving through the right-wing blog-sphere in the last two days which is dredging up nonsense from 4 years ago

No nonsense. The matter was "apparently investigated"...which obviously mean the allegations were serious enough. And it has nothing to do with right wing blogosphere...NBC reported on it.

and trying to attach it to Hillary Clinton

well...let's say that one is a speculation...but is it really unbelievable to consider ? These are not the first such allegations of Clintons. And no...it's not all from right wing blogs.

You know when crime happens...the police usually knocks on the doors of usual suspects. It's only logical. Humans are not that unpredictable.

Anyway...the title is a hopeful...but allegations state that the investigation was squashed from high up. So let's consider these allegations to be true...do you really believe that Psaki would say anything other then damage control ?

Whatever the alleged investigation would turn up...there's simply no way that anyone in US administration would come out and admit..."oh yeah..we have had a few pedos around here...oh...and yes...and Hillary squashed the investigation about it, but we're fine now...trust us...no more pedos here". Really man. There was no other way that it could have been said, but to deny it all.

Is it proof ? No it isnt...but it isnt proof of opposite either.

Remember the 9/11 incompetence card ? Apparently all levels of US military and govt agencies to Airport personnel is infested with it. To be honest...I wouldnt trust them to perform an investigation to determine the color of orange.

Just watching recent Comey's comments about not being able to prove intent is laughable and proves a sad point.

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986
a reply to: Gryphon66

Honest question, if this entire "scandal" was focused around Trump and his folks, how would you feel about it?

We all know that he would be on his 27th thread on the subject and boiling over with vitriol.

You guys have an unhealthy obsession with Gryph. It's.... strange.

Something Gryph said surely upset.... may I venture to say "triggered," you considering the amount of effort being put forth to attack his character.

originally posted by: knowledgehunter0986

POST REMOVED BY STAFF

Just come and out and say it - you don't want to acknowledge opposing viewpoints.

Unfortunately, ATS is not a safe space for exclusively alt-right members so you'll have to deal with people who don't agree with you.

a reply to: Boadicea

Sure I can... the fact that the header indicating it was a direct reply to my comment was removed. And unless and until I have reason to think it could have happened any other way, I have to believe that you knowingly and deliberately did so to make it appear you were responding to the OP and not to me.

I was originally going to post a response to something you said but I removed the link from the top before I composed the post and submitted it. Or at least I thought I did. Have you ever noticed that when you start a post and then don't submit it for an extended period of time, when you do post it, it's not the most recent post? Clearly there's at least one row being inserted into a database table.

Whether it was an oversight on my part or a bug, it wasn't my intention to direct the post at you and I think that if you read what I actually said, it's clear that it's not a response to your own post.

Now if you don't mind, back to my original question — what about the CONTENT of my post was inaccurate? Are you arguing that the YourNewsWire title wasn't bogus?

- Did NBC claim that Clinton had covered up a pedophile ring?
- Was the story even about a pedophile ring?
- Was Clinton directly implicated?

No, no and no? Where I'm from, that's called bull#. Was there any information in the YNW post that was new? Was all this covered in 2013 in the media? Was there no follow up coverage? Why go with the breaking news segment and not the later coverage of the alleged incident(s) and purported "quashing" of the investigation?

Think that one through. If four years from now, I posted the earliest MSM coverage of the "Katie Johnson" lawsuit against Trump accusing him of raping a 13 year-old instead of one of the scores of follow ups that showed that she eventually dropped the suit and was generally discredited as a fraud, would you consider that as some how proving that Donald Trump had raped a child?

I don't think you would. Because you would recall that the woman's claims didn't amount to anything at the time and then you would rightly question why of all the coverage available, I selected a four year-old breaking news piece that didn't address the outcome.

If you are able to be shamed, it's because of what's in your heart --- not anything I could possibly say.

I am perfectly capable of being shamed when I've done something wrong. I haven't done anything wrong though.

And as for the "not being gullible" part, well, "gullible" isn't the word I would use for your determined resistance to even an investigation, which could just as easily exonerate as incriminate... especially when you are quite happy to accept and promulgate as truth any and all unsavory anonymous rumors about Team Trump, but refuse to even consider any specific evidence against Team Hillary.

My determined resistance to an investigation of what? Please be specific because the conflation of anything related to sexual misconduct, pedophilia and pizza has gotten to the point that next wingnuts will be suggesting that a department be formed to investigate every pizzeria in the United States.

especially when you are quite happy to accept and promulgate as truth any and all unsavory anonymous rumors about Team Trump, but refuse to even consider any specific evidence against Team Hillary

You're gonna have to try harder than that I'm afraid. If your goal is to persuade me and not simply to score points with other people in this thread. I'm going to need a specific example of me pushing a rumor and claiming that it's the truth.

Here's my last thread: Has Disgraced Nat Sec Advisor Lt. Gen Michael Flynn Cut A Deal With The FBI?

What's the very first thing I say in the thread?

This is firmly in the domain of speculation and rumor at this point but it's a hypothesis that does seem to fit what can be observed of the recent #RussiaGate developments well.

Next thread: Amid New Allegations from Ukraine, Rick Gates, Manafort's Man in Trumpland, Booted

I don't even need to be emboldened by the example of my President, Dear Leader "Say Anything on Twitter" Trump, to have absolutely no qualms speculating that Gates stayed on to serve as a conduit between Manafort and Team Trumpster fire.

Next thread:

Ukranian MP Alleges Evidence of Manafort Receiving Illegal Payments

Just when you didn't things could get any more convoluted, the Ukranian PM who Manafort alleges tried to blackmail him (who flatly denies Manfort's claim) now has documents which he claims prove illegal payments made to Manafort.

You want to get a snapshot of the lunacy that goes on around here? This thread cites a source that is known to push straight up fake news — not just biased, not just inaccurate, not just filled with spin but straight up fabricated stories, hoaxes, whatever — that cherry picks breaking reporting about allegations, conflates it with some other s# and tries to make a story out of it.

Here's what the OP did with it:

I just read this and while I'm not shocked that Clinton did this, I am shocked that no charges have yet been brought against her. IMO, there's now ample evidence for Donald Trump to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary. Instead of her thinking about a potential NYC mayoral run, she should think about how to decorate her prison cell.

This garbage will be first post on the front page of ATS. Page after page of people chiming in their agreement. Yet I'm the one who gets the sanctimonious critiques when in reality, I actually do my due dilligence and I'm completely aboveboard.

SMH.

a reply to: RomeByFire

I could care less who you support, what you believe, where you stand, what color your shoes are or which direction you comb your hair.

I'm not even 'right' but nice try though.

a reply to: dashen

Or- it means that they have given up- the cat's out of the bag and there is nothing to do but pretend it was your story all along.

So, the allegations of a sex crimes coverup are true then!

But, yet since this is "in the past" it is now simply not politically
correct to discuss it, because it was somehow covered up
during the election?

The only question is whether the statute of limitaitons
has run its course, if not it needs an investigation!

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

You and I are not privy to every action and activity of the world's powerful people. Check.

CBS actually "broke" the story in 2013, followed up by NBC, CNN, etc.

It didn't involve Hillary Clinton then, and it doesn't now.

My citation of the "right-wing blogsphere/echo chamber" has to do with the OP's source (which was not NBC) using a heavily edited news report FROM NBC via YouTube.

Why would anyone speculate that Hillary Clinton would try to provide cover for child molesters that isn't a) part of the right-wing "haters of all things Hillary" club or b) an adherent of the fringe theory crafted by Infowars regarding the Comet restaurant?

No reason at all.

You still don't seem to realize or acknowledge that these allegations were made by a professional "whistleblower" and were investigated and settled years ago in 2013. I'm not sure why that is.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Whether it was an oversight on my part or a bug, it wasn't my intention to direct the post at you and I think that if you read what I actually said, it's clear that it's not a response to your own post.

Thank you for explaining that. I do hope you also understand that because I was notified by ATS that it was a direct response to me, it was completely and entirely reasonable -- and expected -- for me to take it as a direct response to me. So no, it was not clear that it was not a response to my post. Now I will accept you at your word and no longer think it was directed to me and my previous comment.

I will address the rest of your comment when I have the time to do so thoughtfully. I just wanted to acknowledge the former part immediately.

a reply to: shawmanfromny

The report is from 2013, did you think to find the follow up to it? Please tell me you did?

a reply to: Boadicea

Always runnin around trying to pick fights, Bo. God

a reply to: theantediluvian

One has to ask themselves why we bother.

I'm not sure that any of the Hillary Haters would have any idea that this wasn't breaking news if it weren't for our posts.

Good job at clarifying this muddle.

Whistle-blower alleges State Dept. Squelched Probes


"Whistle-blower Aurelia Fedenisn says State Department investigators threatened to prosecute her for providing documents to U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz"

A State Department whistle-blower says she was threatened after turning over documents to a U.S. senator that alleged coverups of investigations into employee use of drugs and prostitutes, her lawyer says.

originally posted by: burntheships
Whistle-blower alleges State Dept. Squelched Probes


"Whistle-blower Aurelia Fedenisn says State Department investigators threatened to prosecute her for providing documents to U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz"

A State Department whistle-blower says she was threatened after turning over documents to a U.S. senator that alleged coverups of investigations into employee use of drugs and prostitutes, her lawyer says.

Why not add the date on your article from USA TODAY?

June 12, 2013

a reply to: RomeByFire

You noticed that too?

I've started thinking of them as "fans" ... too bad so many seemed like obsessed stalkers.

BTY, your take on this is clear and non-partisan, as usual.

I get caught too many times with mud on my boots.

a reply to: Boadicea

There isn't any way you can respond to it. The OP should be hoaxed based on the title alone.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

It didn't involve Hillary Clinton then, and it doesn't now.

Prove it.

a memo by the State Department's Office of the Inspector General that cites eight investigations that were "influenced, manipulated, or simply called off" during the tenure of former secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Among the allegations CBS reported:

• A State Department security official in Beirut sexually assaulted foreign employees working as embassy guards.

• Criminal gangs sold drugs to diplomatic security personnel at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad.

• Members of Clinton's security detail hired prostitutes while on official trips overseas.

www.usatoday.com...

a reply to: burntheships

Follow-up:

If Ted Cruz has the info, where's the six or seven Congressional investigations we would have had by now?

Oh, that's right, even Ted must have seen that he was dealing with a professional "whistleblower" and not the facts.

Is Ted part of the coverup too?

Jesus.

a reply to: burntheships

Prove it?

Ted Cruz was given this BS in 2013 and did nothing with it.

Next?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: burntheships
Follow-up:
If Ted Cruz has the info, where's the six or seven Congressional investigations we would have had by now?
Oh, that's right, even Ted must have seen that he was dealing with a professional "whistleblower" and not the facts.
Is Ted part of the coverup too?
Jesus.

So then, Hillary was smack in the middle of the allegations,
so then you need to talk about Ted Cruz.



S hillary lost, thankfully.
But her minions are still working .....