Pizzagate

[monty]

Pizzagate Connections between Washington Elites and political insiders



https://youtu.be/f0fA4Sxv8dE

[vacuum]

This is some weird shit.

They found the kill room.

[PatColo]

Sadly, I'd guess PG dies with a wimper in the coming months. That is, barring smashing new wikileaks revelations, and/or pedo/SRA-victim pop stars coming out with interviews which puts a fire under PG again. But most of the new YT vlogger PG vids I'm seeing now aren't really saying much new.

D.Seaman apparently recorded a Daily Show interview on Friday. He seems naive here again in imagining they will do anything but a hatchet job, no matter what he really says.

Up'd Jan 3rd:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01R5fPDy9SI


Sofia Smallstorm has done a couple recent interviews on what she's calling "The Club" aka powerful secret societies:

Our Interesting Times: Sofia Smallstorm – The Club

January 6, 2017 renegade 2 Comments
Sofia looks into the dark and sinister world of “the Club” and how this malevolent society is behind the desecration of humanity.
Read more


and


https://i.ytimg.com/vi/E3yJM562wOs/h...3GF72vLtcqpRqc
1:41:41
Sage of Quay Radio - Sofia Smallstorm - Pedophilia: Domain of The Beast (Dec 2016)

• 4,976 views
• 3 weeks ago

ETA: I rolled by Sofia S's blog; find this:

Connecting Pizzagate, CPS, Vaccines, Children's Rights Bill and Straw Man

• Print
• Email

On December 20th, I was invited to call in to The Real Deal with Professor Jim Fetzer to explain a network of connection between Pizzagate and several other current issues. Please listen here -- the relevant section begins at about 25 minutes.
Click image to see larger version:

http://www.aboutthesky.com/images/st...RightsBill.png

[Dachsie]

Here are a couple of PizzaGate articles of interest, two part of four part series by Allan Weisbecker and one of several separate ones on Fitzpatrickinfo.wordpress.com

I appreciate contributions toward truth in this matter by both of them but I also have problems with both of them so far in some of their assumptions and omissions.

https://fitzinfo.wordpress.com/2016/...ate-for-trump/


Roger Stone concocted Pizzagate for Trump?

_____

Will let you search for part 1 on Allan's site but Part 2 is the real meat so far...

http://blog.banditobooks.com/what-ha...llan-part-two/
What Happened to Allan? Part Two
by Allan Weisbecker on January 7, 2017 in Blog

Hi Folks,

The following is Part Two of my essay on alt media co-option, the election, and pizzagate. If you found Part One of value, you should find Part Two especially so. I start off with more observations on government surveillance and what it means regarding the subjects of the essay. We pick up while I’m in the midst of trying to find an alt media outlet that did not deceive us regarding the PTB’s forehand knowledge of how the election would go…

[PatColo]

Pizzagate has been a good "wake up" catalyst, as well as the (((FakeStream Media's))) "performance" around the recent election...

curious accent on this guy... but some good titles at his channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCx3...qw-jFeg/videos

• https://i.ytimg.com/vi/1_gJV2U7h-A/h...0bxhru9l4S9ZYA 3:43
• 
  Will corporate fakestream media survive 2017?
  
  • 50 views
  • 20 hours ago
  
  
  
  
  
• https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ajeaK_Rvq5o/h...GS3-LKZFkECfsk 10:12
• 
  How to convince people about #Pizzagate (hint: you shouldn't)
  
  • 318 views
  • 3 days ago
  
  
  
  
  
• https://i.ytimg.com/vi/6P44OndVB5A/h...nD5ugXqs1Sovm4 3:10
• 
  Amazing Wikileaks 2017: "Prepare for final showdown!" #pizzagate
  
  • 309 views
  • 4 days ago
  
  
  
  
  
• https://i.ytimg.com/vi/XglKju48yu0/h...5e7ybIICbLQuP4 6:57
• 
  Why I'm following David Seaman to Vid.me #pizzagate
  
  • 131 views
  • 4 days ago
  
  
  
  
  
• https://i.ytimg.com/vi/dQKFVjbt2Uk/h...qTszLec9bBSpHQ 17:59
• 
  Why the Pizzagate-elite worship Lucifer and the only way to end the battle
  
  • 629 views
  • 5 days ago
  
  
  
  
  
• https://i.ytimg.com/vi/-fzJRgfuRLc/h...kQJbMoujYsAmrw 6:36
• 
  The Great Paradigm Shift of 2016 / 2017
  
  • 126 views
  • 1 week ago
  
  
  
  
  
• https://i.ytimg.com/vi/qKXiZxcdBRc/h...gQTRsc7pZntJfA 10:42
• 
  5 Ethical Guidelines for Pizzagate investigators
  
  • 202 views
  • 1 week ago
  
  
  
  
  
• https://i.ytimg.com/vi/9hz8UVdxgkg/h...f38NQQbTXU79mc 5:36
• 
  Did Pizzagate just turn into Tortillagate also?
  
  • 574 views
  • 1 week ago
  
  
  
  
  
• https://i.ytimg.com/vi/zXKYveOBHjo/h...akYfAFMjIpzH5g 6:00
• 
  Where is Pizzagate going in 2017? Anyone?
  
  • 895 views
  • 1 week ago
  
  
  
  
  
• https://i.ytimg.com/vi/cq_ixIPFUwo/h...mricD-0WGBRNdo 14:45
• 
  How to de-program yourself and fight the pizzagate-elite also on the metaphysical level
  
  • 377 views
  • 1 week ago

[PatColo]

D.Seaman apparently recorded a Daily Show interview on Friday. He seems naive here again in imagining they will do anything but a hatchet job, no matter what he really says.

Up'd Jan 3rd:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01R5fPDy9SI

surprise, surprise:


https://i.ytimg.com/vi/m7kgLfORyOk/h...lH-klg7SdYfaVg
7:58
Daily Show Cancels Wikileaks/Podesta Segment

• 5,487 views
• 50 minutes ago

[cheka.]

nyc.dc russia hacking revelations....and not a single word about the massive batch of killary campaign manager emails that were leaked

http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...a-donald-trump

Missing from the Intelligence Report: The Word ‘Podesta’

There is a word missing from the non-classified report issued Friday, in which three intelligence agencies assess “Russia’s Influence Campaign Targeting the 2016 US Presidential Election.” The FBI, CIA, and NSA elide any mention of . . . “Podesta.” Seems like a pretty significant omission — not just because of how the 2016 campaign played out but also in light of the intelligence community’s recent history of politicizing its analyses.

The vaporous assertion that Putin’s regime was up to “espionage” and “covert ops” in order to “denigrate” Mrs. Clinton might naturally be presumed to imply that Putin was promoting smears. Such an impression — if that’s what the agencies were aiming to create — would have been contradicted by mentioning “Podesta,” as in John Podesta, the top Obama White House and Clinton-campaign official whose private e-mails were hacked. To bring up Podesta might remind the public that this was not a disinformation campaign.

What was revealed here was true information that Podesta and his correspondents would understandably have preferred to keep private. As President Obama likes to say, let me be clear. I am not endorsing hacking, cyber-theft, and the publication of private information. Unlike some conservatives now infatuated with scoundrels like Julian Assange (and even Putin!), I continue to regard enemies of the United States as, well, enemies of the United States. They are not to be trusted, regardless of whose ox they happen to be goring as their allegiances and calculations twist and turn. My point is that Putin did not plant a slanderous story that top Clinton aides were, say, spouting anti-Catholic bigotry.

What he did was orchestrate the release of authentic e-mails, in one of which top Clinton aides were in fact spouting anti-Catholic bigotry. I will give Democrats the benefit of the doubt that, if the shoe were on the other foot, they would condemn the theft — a benefit they probably do not rate given their praise of Edward Snowden and their historic efforts (the Carter administration, Ted Kennedy) to seek Soviet interference in the American political system when it stood to help their electoral prospects. But I am quite certain Democrats would have no sympathy for Republicans over any political damage if the latter were caught saying unsavory things.

In such an instance, victorious Democrats would not tolerate a suggestion that the “the election had been hacked”; they’d say, “Republicans got caught being Republicans.” The new report may be right that Putin tries to meddle in American and European elections. Yet it is written in a way that enables the Left to spin it as support for the fallacy that Putin ‘hacked the election.’ The new report may be entirely right — I think it is — that Putin tries to meddle in American and European elections and that he has preferences about the outcomes.

Yet it is written in a way that enables the Left to spin it as support for the fallacy that Putin “hacked the election.” It gives Democrats ammunition to continue prattling about how the Russians used “espionage” and “covert operations” “aimed at the US election” in order to “influence” the result; and that Putin wanted Trump to win, according to our “highly confident” agencies. The Left can even cite the agencies’ intriguing but inchoate conclusion that the Kremlin “accessed elements of multiple state or local electoral boards” — a conclusion that a cynic, believing the intelligence community might be just a teensy bit political, might figure was included in the report to undercut Trump’s refrain that the hacking had nothing to do with the electoral process.

The agencies, of course, would deny any political agenda. And perhaps they don’t have one — personally, I don’t have “high confidence” that I can read their minds as well as they can apparently read Putin’s. Nevertheless, when you read the report carefully, it is like a media report: It feeds the “hack the election” theme, but it does not actually say Putin hacked the election. Indeed, when you look for the fire under all the smoke, you find the agencies saying, “We did not make an assessment of the impact that Russian activities had on the outcome of the 2016 election.” And while the report repeatedly asserts that Russia wanted to “influence” the election, it elaborates that Russia’s main aim is to “undermine the U.S.-led democratic order” and “faith in the US democratic process” (an unremarkable finding that, by the way, is of a piece with the contention of Trump national-security adviser Mike Flynn that the Russian regime is anti-American principally because it opposes democracy).

The report concludes that while Putin appears to have been rooting for Trump, the Russians assumed Clinton was going to win and were mainly trying to undermine the effectiveness of her anticipated presidency, not swing the election to Trump. And even the conclusion that Putin was rooting for Trump is partially based on speculation (“Putin most likely wanted to discredit Secretary Clinton because” he blames her for protests against his regime), along with heavy doses of hypothesis (Putin is said to have: liked “Trump’s stated policy to work with Russia”; seen Trump’s election as a potential pathway “to achieve an international coalition against the Islamic State”; “had many positive experiences working with Western political leaders whose business interests made them more disposed to deal with Russia”; etc.).

Note: all this agency guesswork appears to be based on publicly available information that you and I — without any access to super-secret intelligence sources and methods — could have done on our own. It doesn’t really tell us anything we didn’t already know, or couldn’t already have surmised. And what about those dark suggestions about Russian penetration of “multiple state or local electoral boards,” and that “since early 2014, Russian intelligence has researched [ooh!] US electoral processes and related technology and equipment”?

Well, if you read on, you find that the report is at pains to concede that the Department of Homeland Security “assesses that the types of systems we observed Russian actors targeting or compromising are not involved in vote tallying.” In other words, Putin did not hack the election. Most of us knew already that Russia is an adversary obsessed with America, that it aggressively spies against us and endeavors to influence any aspect of American affairs that could advantage it. In light of the report’s emphasis on Mrs. Clinton as the “espionage” victim, it is worth noting a couple of other nuggets. The agencies acknowledge that Kremlin spies “conducted cyber operations against . . . targets associated with both major US political parties” (emphasis added).

In fact, Russia “collected against” anyone and everyone “viewed as likely to shape future US policies” — including “US primary campaigns, think tanks, and lobbying groups.” In making the concession that “Russia collected on some Republican-affiliated targets,” the agencies are quick to caveat that, whatever Putin may have done to Republicans, it was not “comparable” to his “disclosure campaign” against Democrats. But is that necessarily because he wanted the Republicans to win? Again, reading the report closely, we learn that while the Russians apparently “targeted” the Republican party, they actually succeeded in “gain[ing] access to Democratic National Committee (DNC) networks” — access they maintained for about a year. And note that, just as the agencies refrain from any discussion of the Podesta motherlode, they also choose not to tell us anything about the quantity or quality of the information obtained from Republicans.

We’re just vaguely told that Russia’s Republican disclosures were not “comparable” to its Democratic disclosures. But that might be indicative of a motive only if the information acquired from each party was comparable. Isn’t it possible that the disclosures were not comparable because the stuff Putin got on the GOP was not nearly as copious or juicy as what he got on the Dems? Or . . . let’s assume for argument’s sake that the information Russia acquired was comparable — let’s assume that they have something on Trump, or on some Republican as relatively high-level as Podesta, that would stoke the same kind of press frenzy as the tens of thousands of Podesta e-mails.

If the report is correct that Putin was convinced Hillary would win and wanted to cripple her presidency from the start, wouldn’t it be logical that he’d more heavily disclose what he had on the Dems? What would be the point of trying to cripple the anticipated Republican loser? Wouldn’t Putin keep his powder dry on the GOP — hold whatever he’s got for future damage or blackmail purposes, save it for a time when it would be more useful? I’m speculating about Putin’s motives, and I don’t have “high confidence” that I know what they were. But that’s kind of the point, isn’t it? Before the agencies’ report was issued, most of us knew that Russia is an adversary obsessed with America, that it aggressively spies against us and endeavors to influence any aspect of American affairs that could advantage it. We also knew Russia did not “hack the election.” The underwhelming intelligence report on Russia’s meddling in our election changes none of that.

[PatColo]

rense has up this PG news section now; just went up in the past couple days; wasn't there when I passed through his site last. Be curious to see what the FFWN articles are about, as I generally like them.

PizzaGate - What The Globalist Psychopaths Fear The Most

http://rense.com/1.mpicons/pizzagatecompilation.jpg

Newsweek Editor Viewed Child Porn 22 Times
'False Flag Weekly News' CENSORS 'PizzaGate' Reports 1/2
'False Flag Weekly News' CENSORS 'PizzaGate' Reports 2/2
Capriccio For A Sausage Fest By Chef Alefantis - PizzaGate 8
The Latest - Roger Stone Concocted 'PizzaGate' !
Shimatsu Exlclusive - Pedophile Savile Haunts NY Times - PizzaGate 7
Shimatsu Exlclusive - Strange Days In The Snopes-DHS-ICE Underworld - PizzaGate 6
Shimatsu Exlclusive - For Anyone Who Still Believes Snopes Is An
Abuse Victim - PizzaGate 5
Podesta's Body Language = GUILTY

More...

[PatColo]

RUH-ROH!! (think: scoobie doo ); "False Flag Weekly News" produced by noliesradio.org has gutted 4 weekly shows through Dec; these 4 shows temp/guest hosted by Jim Fetzer & Scott Bennett; gutted of all PG discussion & source links.

From Fetzer:
'False Flag Weekly News' CENSORS 'PizzaGate' Reports 1/2
'False Flag Weekly News' CENSORS 'PizzaGate' Reports 2/2

I can't recall if I mentioned it in this thread, but I was disappointed when regular FFWN host KBarrett (not explicitly implicated in the above "Lie of Omission" atrocity) came out as a PG skeptic, suggesting PG may be a big honeypot/hoax, or some other deception... Oh, ditto that for Meria Heller & host Richie Allen,


https://i.ytimg.com/vi/iZkNFrDFYEs/h...49UxPI8uoxlSpI

31:19
Meria "Pizzagate Is A Hoax Created Up By Donald Trump's National Security Adviser Mike Flynn."

• 7,030 views
• 1 month ago

[PatColo]

REmember the lady that was killed in Haiti

and back in October this happened

Plane crash in Malta kills French anti-trafficking team on board


http://www.france24.com/en/20161024-...ate=2016-10-24

So we will start seeing more people killed re Pizzagate

In those Fetzer/FFWN articles I linked above, someone commented:

Sir Real
January 9, 2017 at 11:31 PM

Interesting times, no question. I see that you have links to international reporter. In relation to Pizzagate they wrote about a bizarre shooting incident in Imatra Finland in early December 2016. A gunman allegedly shot and killed a local council member and 2 journalists outside a restaurant in Imatra. It was widely reported internationally on 12/4/16 but the stories were all identical. All stories made quick reference to motive being not politically motivated. Just random shooting victims. 3 women shot in head and or torso randomly with hunting rifle by suspect firing no more than 5 shots. Very strange story.

The reason I bring it up is that International Reporter mentioned that 2 of the women killed were investigating child trafficking rings in Scandanavia and were returning from a briefing with Russian FSB in nearby St Petersburg(?)The reporters were not identified by name until 12/6, two days after they were gunned down. Struck me as odd.

I have been trying to pick up the story again but every link I come across just brings me to original 12/4/16 stories. It seems nobody has followed up on this very strange and perhaps incredibly relevant story. Professor if there is any additional info concerning Imatra alleged suspect and victims could you direct me to it?

And please keep up your pursuit of the truth. I agree with you that this is the scandal that ends all scandals.