I was in Mena investigating the future losers before our first Gay African president. I am your earlier link.

Shilling is supposed to be less obvious than reciting Hillary's CV.

In various places, I've already addressed nearly every point you made.

The press release Craddick found among the email archives at Wikileaks is shown there as an email, with a date of 2001-01-01.

Yes. You are correct on the date. (The document is not a press release, it's more a mission statement/recruiting document for the organization.) This is a complete error on Wikileaks part

However, Craddick is still a liar, because he used this error dishonestly. Craddick is not an idiot and there is no way to read that document and he did read the document and conclude it's an email from 2001.

For one, have you ever seen an email with no sender and no receiver? How does it get from from a computer in Idaho to Clinton's server without being sent? That's a big clue.

From: To:

Perhaps he missed that, but there is no way a non-idiot could read that document and think it was composed in 2001. There's simply no honest mistaking that the document was reading after the Haitian Earthquake in January 2010. The clues are everywhere.

New Life Children's Refuge

Haitian Orphan Rescue Mission

Purpose: Rescue Haitian orphans **abandoned on the streets, makeshift hospitals or from

collapsed orphanages** in Port au Prince and surrounding areas, and bring them to New Life Children's Refuge in Cabarete, Dominican Republic.

The Urgent Need: The number of Haitian orphans is estimated to have increased by 300% **as a

result of the catastrophic earthquake this past week.** Thousands of children have lost their parents, and are injured, hungry, thirsty and alone with limited chance of survival without help.

The Plan:

Rescue Orphans from Port au Prince, Haiti

22nd: • Friday/Saturday, Jan** NLCR team fly to the DR** • Sun Jan 23 r1: Drive bus from Santo Domingo into Port au Prince, Haiti and gather 100

orphans fromthhe streets and collapsed orphanages, then return to the DR

I am not sure of your point here

You also ignore the fact that Wikileaks retweeted Craddick's Reddit post, saying it was a "Significant, if partisan, find."

Are you surprised at Wikileaks jumping at the chance to make Hillary Clinton look bad? We know they reached out the Trump campaign last year.

Even if the thesis that Silsby had a preexisting relationship with the Clintons is wrong.

It is absolute proven to be wrong. Again, I point to the original email thread of how this case worked its way up to Clinton and where that document came from. It was downloaded from the website of East Side Baptist Church in Twin Falls, Idaho by a low level state department employee. East Side Baptist was one of two Churches the Baptists who went to Haiti came from.

Wikipedia still points to this url, but the church has taken the PDF down. http://www.esbctwinfalls.com/clientimages/24453/pdffiles/haiti/nlcrhaitianorphanrescuemission.pdf

The fact that there was no preexisting relation completely kicks the legs out from his entire argument. The whole thing collapses in a heap.

you have not proven that the Clinton intervention was normal diplomatic work standard for the SOS.

I have mentioned this several times. The actions taken by the State Department were part of standard consular services available to any American citizen or AMCIT in State Department speak and Clinton did not intervene personally.

https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/international-travel/emergencies/arrest-detention.html

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/09/haiti.clinton.arrests/index.html

The state dept memo discussing possible options is suspiciously almost completely redacted (a fact you also ignore). Why redact something that is completely normal?

This is not suspicous at all. This is standard. And I have not ignored it. Someone pointed it out to me the other day and I explained why it was redacted. If you read that document it explains why it was redacted: B5. This refers to one of the exemptions in the Freedom of Information act, it specifically said legal work product is not to be released under FOIA. The part that is redacted is a legal memo from Harold Koh the Legal Adviser State Deparment.

I am not clearly wrong. You're citing the same guy I debunked. Pleading the Yiff is William Craddick is Disobedient Media. All the same guy. He's been lying about Clinton and Silsby for 13 months now.

If you think any of the below if false, please point me to it, but you'll need to do more than cite Craddick, he's made claims that are easily proven false.

The claim that Clinton knew who Silsby was before the Baptists were arrested is completely false. Craddick claims Wikipedia has an email from 2001 showing this. It's completely false because the emails wikileaks has are from Clinton's time at the State Department which began in 2009 AND the document he cites was clearly written after the Haitian earthquake of 2010. There is no way he could be making an honest mistake here. He is lying.

The claim that State Department got involved in this case because of some personal connection to Silsby is completely false. Helping Americans overseas is one of the highest priorities of the State Department. This includes Americans who get arrested. Sometimes this goes up the level of the Secretary, sometimes it does not. This was an international incident.

This email thread shows how the State Department got involved. They got involved because 10 AMCIT, that is American Citizens were arrested. They didn't know how the 10 AMCIT were or what their organization was. The document Craddick talks about is not even an email, it's an attachment to this email. https://www.wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/3765

There is a single news report that Bill Clinton was sent on a diplomatic mission the Times of London. However, there is a ton of evidence against this news report being true, the key one is that is was never confirmed by anyone including the reporter who made the first claim. There was no followup whatsoever including by the paper that made the claim. Craddick also cites a law professor, but doesn't seem to realize the law professor has no original information and just refers to same article in the Times of London. And the Law professor makes another claim that is false.

Here the comment I made previously on this article.

https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/2255382/11153241

Harvard University researcher says you're wrong. http://harvardhrj.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/King.pdf

Yes, I believe that Shani M. King is completely wrong here. First of all, he doesn't work at Harvard. His paper makes clear he is an Associate Professor of Law University of Florida's Levin College of Law or the 41st best Law School in the country. https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-law-schools/law-rankings/page+2

And it's clear that King did not do original research on Clinton in Haiti, because that is not the point of his paper. You should follow his footnotes and find the original sources. He relies on a single news story.

He also makes a factual claim that is not at all supported by his footnotes. He claimed that Bill Clinton was negotiating with Haiti for a month. He claims this AP news report backs him up, but it doesn't mention Clinton whatsoever. http://www.cleveland.com/world/index.ssf/2010/03/haiti_frees_1_us_missionary_bu.html

In reality, Clinton left Haiti after a few days and in fact was hospitalized in NYC during that time. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bill-clinton-hospitalized-in-new-york-city/

The original news report is wrong and here's why I believe that.

It's based on a single report in the UK press https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/clinton-brokers-deal-over-haiti-orphan-abductions-v63ld395r7b

No other news reports have this. The UK press didn't claim this is a secret effort on behalf of Bill Clinton. An actual diplomatic intervention would have been reported by multiple sites if it actually happened. Haitian newspapers would have been all over this. The international press would be all over this.

The paper that reported it never followed up on it at all. So the original report had no confirmation and zero follow through.

The Clinton quotes they used were reported by other outlets 2 days before. Clinton openly spoke to reporters about what the US and Haitian governments should do. He never claimed anything first hand or that he was working on a deal and not a single other source claimed he was intervening in any way. In fact, in CNN's report on it, Bill Clinton doesn't even appear until 22 paragraphs in. http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/02/05/haiti.arrests/index.html

There was no press conference about having a reached a deal. Again this was not reported to be a secret deal.

Bill Clinton left Haiti with all the Baptists were in jail.

The Obama adminstration and the State Department were being criticized in the conservative press and by Baptist leaders FOR NOT INTERVENING. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/08/free-the-baptist-10-in-haiti/

Even with this the State Department went out of its way to say it was not intervening and Secretary Clinton would not be getting involved at all.

At the time, no other media even did a story following up on the The Times's report. This happens all the time when papers confirm another a paper's reporting. They do not do a followup story when their sources cannot confirm this. And reporters from around the world were on this story for months.

Nothing in the 7 plus years since the Haitian earthquake suggests this was true and the Clintons, of course came under intense scrutiny during this time. Haiti's AP reporter who worked this story stayed in Haiti for years writing a book and never had anything on this.

In short, there's nothing at all to suggest the Times got their story right. And there's a lot to suggest they got their story wrong, including the fact that they never even followed up on their story. The writer of the Paper relied on them and did not do original research/reporting into this.

We have to keep this type of info in the forefront to combat those who would hope it fades away as they push other nonsense in MSM.

There is an effort afoot to turn Pizzagate into Russiagate and pizzagaters into a Republican cheerleading squad. Thank you for combating it.

So he is a real person?