Qanon Conspiracy theories

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bubba said:
www. thegatewaypundit .com/2018/12/breaking-federal-court-orders-discovery-plan-in-10-days-whether-hillarys-private-server-an-intentional-attempt-to-evade-foia/[/url]
Click to expand...
:D

rationalwiki said:
The Gateway Pundit is a hard-right website founded by former corporate executive Jim Hoft, who is also a principal writer.[1] Often cited by such "scholars" as Matt Drudge, it holds a strong pro-Trump[2] stance, is anti-liberal, and has occasional flirtation with outright white supremacists. It is a fairly popular blog, allegedly getting 4 to 5 million views each month, once again proving that being popular doesn't necessarily make you right.
The Gateway Pundit has spread false information about the 2017 Las Vegas shooting (misidentifying the perpetrator) and the 2018 Stoneman Douglas High School shooting (stating that the survivors were crisis actors);[1] in both events, Gateway Pundit has claimed, without evidence, that the perpetrators were Democrats.[1] The Gateway Pundit actually received White House press credentials in 2017 from the Trump administration, but the tipping point of their vileness may have been reached when they were disinvited from a panel at the 2018 Conservative Political Action Conference due to their "reportage"
over the Stoneman Douglas shooting by Wintrich.[1]
On February 14, 2018, Hoft, Gavin McInnes, Paul Nehlen, and several other people and entities were sued for defamation for falsely naming the driver who killed Heather Heyer at the 2017 Unite the Right rally.[1][3]
Click to expand...


The Gateway Pundit was one of the folks who brought us that press conference to bring down Mueller for sex crimes.

https://www.thewrap.com/far-right-g...nded-metoo-accusation-against-robert-mueller/
 
Imhotep said:
For anyone that hasn't read about or watched that "press conference" it is hilarious!

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/ju...ference-claiming-mueller-sex-assaults-n929951
Click to expand...

I think the allegations are serious. I mean, the company that launched them has so many respectable actors and models working for them, and I don't see Christoph Waltz getting involved with an obvious scam. He is their Swiss Intelligence Officer, after all.

https://www.businessinsider.com/jacob-wohl-made-fake-surefire-intelligence-spreading-lies-on-mueller-2018-10

/s

Edit: inb4 Bubba claims that surefire was a deliberate con job by the deep state to make the anti-Mueller conspiracy look flimsy.
 
Last edited:
of course anyone getting up in front of a group of reporters with their fly down should be taken seriously.
 
carlitos said:
The Gateway Pundit was one of the folks who brought us that press conference to bring down Mueller for sex crimes.

https://www.thewrap.com/far-right-g...nded-metoo-accusation-against-robert-mueller/
Click to expand...

Oh, my, that was brilliant stuff. Sort of an object lessson in what happens when one tries to bring “Q”-type stuff into the real world. The one guy standing there the whole time with his fly open, though, elevated it from the merely ridiculous to the sublimely risible.

Here’s the thing that gets me, though. I don’t like fat speaker’s fees from banks, etc. to people who are going or trying to go back into politics. I consider it a form of “legal corruption”. But the Clinton haters have been screaming for decades that the Clintons have been guilty of far worse. Republicans have spent many years and many millions of taxpayer dollars “investigating” Whitewater, Benghazi, emails, Seth Rich, etc. The net result is that they found Bill Clinton lying about a consensual (if reprehensible) sex act.

So either the Clintons aren’t guilty of all the (illegal) corruption and murders ‘n’ stuff - you know, the stuff we’re told is so absolutely obvious - or the Republicans (who keep telling us they need to be in charge) are the most farcical bunglers of all time - a bunch that makes the Keystone Cops look like the Untouchables channeling Sherlock Holmes. (And no, I’m not a Democrat.)
 
sts60 said:
So either the Clintons aren’t guilty of all the (illegal) corruption and murders ‘n’ stuff - you know, the stuff we’re told is so absolutely obvious - or the Republicans (who keep telling us they need to be in charge) are the most farcical bunglers of all time - a bunch that makes the Keystone Cops look like the Untouchables channeling Sherlock Holmes. (And no, I’m not a Democrat.)
Click to expand...

Doesn't have to be either/or :D
 
The only thing the Clintons are guilty of beyond Bill's obstruction of justice and perjury charges (for which he was impeached) is their constant lack of self-awareness when it comes how they conduct their personal business.

The far right's obsession over the Clintons since 2000 has long since crossed the line into insanity.

I didn't didn't like Bill Clinton for a long list of policy reasons along with his personal conduct. Voting for Hillary in 2016 was the hardest thing I ever had to do at the polls because I do not like her.

The difference for me is that Bill has been out of office for almost 19 years. He has no power. Sure, he's great at fund raisers, but that's it. He can't pick up a phone and call Nancy Pelosi and tell her to do something. This means there is no reason for me to freak out any time Bill Clinton does something. There was no continued harassment of Walter Mondale after he lost, so why the Clintons?
 
Hen consults fox about henhouse security.


Imhotep said:
ABC News

Factual Reporting: High

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/abc-news/

A factual search reveals that ABC News has not failed a fact check by an IFCN fact checker.

https://ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org/

Share your source that says otherwise. It will need to be backed up by a thorough study.
Click to expand...


Facts Shmacts.
Its about what they consistently dont report. Project Censored is a comparator.

https://www.projectcensored.org/
 
Last edited:
What the Judge just said about Hillary's emails


Judicial Watch Victory: Court Orders Discovery into Clinton Email Scandal

I have said all along that, in their delaying, blocking, and obfuscating our attempts to get to the truth about Hillary Clinton’s email, the Justice and State Departments have been acting in bad faith by defending the evasion of the Freedom of Information Act and other email misconduct by Hillary Clinton.

Now, a federal judge is questioning their motives, as well, and ordering them to join us in rectifying this miscarriage of justice.

In a ruling excoriating both the U.S. Departments of State and Justice, U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth has ordered both agencies to join us in submitting a proposed schedule for discovery into whether Hillary Clinton sought to evade the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by using a private email system and whether the State Department acted in “bad faith” by failing to disclose knowledge of the email system.

The decision comes in our FOIA lawsuit related to the Benghazi terrorist attack.

Specially, Judge Lamberth ruled:

… the Court ORDERS the parties to meet and confer to plan discovery into (a) whether Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email while Secretary of State was an intentional attempt to evade FOIA; (b) whether the State Department’s attempts to settle this case in late 2014 and early 2015 amounted to bad faith; and (c) whether State has adequately searched for records responsive to Judicial Watch’s requests.

Terming Clinton’s use of her private email system, “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency,” Judge Lamberth wrote in his MEMORANDUM OPINION:

… his [President Barack Obama’s] State and Justice Departments fell far short. So far short that the court questions, even now, whether they are acting in good faith. Did Hillary Clinton use her private email as Secretary of State to thwart this lofty goal [Obama announced standard for transparency]? Was the State Department’s attempt to settle this FOIA case in 2014 an effort to avoid searching – and disclosing the existence of – Clinton’s missing emails? And has State ever adequately searched for records in this case?

***
At best, State’s attempt to pass-off its deficient search as legally adequate during settlement negotiations was negligence born out of incompetence. At worst, career employees in the State and Justice Departments colluded to scuttle public scrutiny of Clinton, skirt FOIA, and hoodwink this Court.

Turning his attention to the Department of Justice, the Court wrote:

The current Justice Department made things worse. When the government last appeared before the Court, counsel claimed, ‘it is not true to say we misled either Judicial Watch or the Court.’ When accused of ‘doublespeak,’ counsel denied vehemently, feigned offense, and averred complete candor. When asked why State masked the inadequacy of its initial search, counsel claimed that the officials who initially responded to Judicial Watch’s request didn’t realize Clinton’s emails were missing, and that it took them two months to ‘figure [] out what was going on’… Counsel’s responses strain credulity. [citations omitted]

The Court granted discovery because the government’s response to the Judicial Watch Benghazi FOIA request for Clinton emails “smacks of outrageous conduct.”

Citing an email (uncovered as a result of our lawsuit) in which Hillary Clinton acknowledged that Benghazi was a terrorist attack immediately after it happened, Judge Lamberth asked:

Did State know Clinton deemed the Benghazi attack terrorism hours after it happened, contradicting the Obama Administration’s subsequent claim of a protest-gone-awry?

****
Did the Department merely fear what might be found? Or was State’s bungling just the unfortunate result of bureaucratic red tape and a failure to communicate? To preserve the Department’s integrity, and to reassure the American people their government remains committed to transparency and the rule of law, this suspicion cannot be allowed to fester.

The historic court ruling raises concerns about the Hillary Clinton email scandal and government corruption that millions of Americans share.

We look forward to conducting careful discovery into the Clinton email issue, and we hope the Justice Department and State Department recognize Judge Lamberth’s criticism and help, rather than obstruct, this court-ordered discovery.
 
I looked up the words skeptic and skeptical. The definitions need to be updated, apparently.

Axxman300 said:
The only thing the Clintons are guilty of beyond Bill's obstruction of justice and perjury charges (for which he was impeached) is their constant lack of self-awareness when it comes how they conduct their personal business.

The far right's obsession over the Clintons since 2000 has long since crossed the line into insanity.

I didn't didn't like Bill Clinton for a long list of policy reasons along with his personal conduct. Voting for Hillary in 2016 was the hardest thing I ever had to do at the polls because I do not like her.

The difference for me is that Bill has been out of office for almost 19 years. He has no power. Sure, he's great at fund raisers, but that's it. He can't pick up a phone and call Nancy Pelosi and tell her to do something. This means there is no reason for me to freak out any time Bill Clinton does something. There was no continued harassment of Walter Mondale after he lost, so why the Clintons?
Click to expand...
 
LSSBB said:
Q is not valid.

ETA: here are the people that probably, in my estimation, invented Q.

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/how-three-conspiracy-theorists-took-q-sparked-qanon-n900531
Click to expand...



Skeptical, I sought expert knowledge confirming the people in the linked item are who they say they are rather than paid sleeper agents in place for years working now to discredit/disinform in the information wars. None was available.

Please share how it was confirmed they are not sleeper agents paid to play and work on the information superhighway for years and shift into disnfo action whenever they are directed to do so.
 
Bubba said:
Skeptical, I sought expert knowledge confirming the people in the linked item are who they say they are rather than paid sleeper agents in place for years working now to discredit/disinform in the information wars. None was available.

Please share how it was confirmed they are not sleeper agents paid to play and work on the information superhighway for years and shift into disnfo action whenever they are directed to do so.
Click to expand...

Firstly, you don't endorse anything QAnon or his followers say, so I fail to see what difference it makes to you.

Secondly, I sought expert knowledge confirming the people in the linked item are who they say they are rather than pengiuns, living among us for years in heavy disguise, emerging only when called upon to further their fishy agenda. None was available.

Please share how it was confirmed that they are not penguins in disguise.
 
Originally Posted by Bubba View Post

Please share how it was confirmed they are not sleeper agents paid to play and work on the information superhighway for years and shift into disnfo action whenever they are directed to do so.
Click to expand...


carlitos said:
That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.
Click to expand...


Magic Wand Waving fails.

Here's how it works.

There are agents online working to credit/discredit or inform/disinform according to commercial or political agenda. From people paid to post glowing tweets about new music, to govt agents editing wikipedia and lying on discussion forums.

https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/


Sometimes it is impossible to discern the truth.


Now then...Please share how it was confirmed they* are not sleeper agents paid to play and work on the information superhighway for years and shift into disnfo action whenever they are directed to do so.


*

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-ne...-qanon-n900531
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom