you're editing your comments all over the place. But in regards to your last lines, I'm not necessarily denying any of the evidence I'm simply asking you to be clear about where that evidence points.

Look at the evidence, not the claims. If you think Tamera Luzatto's blog tagline sounds inappropriate then call it inappropriate. But I'm afraid you're working backward from the claim and trying to prove it. Simply because there is evidence toward a claim doesn't mean there's evidence for a claim. For instance here's a claim: the sun is a giant firefly. Evidence for the claim: the sun and fireflies glow. How closely does that evidence get me toward proving my claim? What does the evidence really say about the claim?

Also you're falling into the trap I mentioned in the other comment thread of running away from one claim when pressure is put on it. You say that you could see my point if it was just the blog but it's also all the other stuff about hillary and podesta. But this is seriously clouding your critical thinking. You're building you're case on a mass of extremely superficial evidence and thinking altogether it must mean something. I can provide a bunch of positive evidence towards proving fairies exist but it doesn't mean shit if the evidence is shit. I'm telling you focus on one part of the pizzagate claim and really think about how much evidence there is for it.

My main point about the Tamera blog and most all of the pizzagate claims is summed up in the first part of that comment:

Which is not to say that the phrase is definitely innocuous but if something sounds odd say it sounds odd until something substantive can be found.

I just want you to think about actually what is the evidence for any single person . Really pick any person you like and bullet point the evidence for them. For Tamera Luzzatto it is

1. The tagline to her blog :"Evelyn is growing up, soon she will be the Queen of the entire US of A, right now, for a limited time only, you can spend some time with her online, raw and uncut. Take advantage of this now, as in the future she will have the power of life and death over you. ". Which I'm guessing your claim about that line would be that it isn't a joke? I don't know that sounds like a really silly argument but I'll count this as evidence while also noting that I have never seen anyone provide evidence from the actual blog of any wrong doing.
2. The 'uber' email which people here think she is explicitly stating that she is delivering her grandchildren to be some kind of pedophillic entertainment. This again heavily relies on a use of a phrase being malicious instead of joking. And the practicalities of the theory has many, many holes.

Really look at the evidence for this stuff, it might surprise you how little there is. For instance would it surprise you to learn that there is * absolutely no proof that the emails contain "known pedophile code words". And that John Podesta, who is supposed to be a kingpin in this theory, never even mentions a single one of these claimed 'code words'. In fact in the decades worth of emails he only ever types the word 'pizza' one time and that is in response to someone else talking about pizza. And that the only phrase that is actually known to be tied to child pornography (cheese pizza) is never mentioned once in the thousands of emails.

Look at the evidence and think about whether the claims are appropriate.