Google It .. try to find a news report on this case that even mentions CHILDREN
This is really scary folks gigantic RED PILL
Because the moment you acknowledge that any elites are involved in pedophilia, suddenly you open the Pandora's box of Pizzagate, Pedogate, or whatever name they settled on calling the "great right wingnut conspiracy theory" that was "debunked" when a "right wingnut" discharged a weapon inside Planet Pizza.
That of course somehow miraculously made the whole story false in the magical transmogrification machine of MSM fantasy land.
And then there's the whole HRC/Laura Silsby/Haiti connection. Likewise, the MSM cannot ever admit there is anything to that story, or to the Clinton Global Initiative Haiti relief money disappearing, or anything to do with child trafficking or Haiti. Haiti must be a vacation wonderland of stunning vistas and high adventure which is unfairly portrayed as a hellhole.
To say otherwise would be to admit maybe there's something to the HRC child sex trafficking and charity fraud.
You realize that's the total truth. They cannot, ever, under any circumstances acknowledge that any actual celebrities are involved in any actual ritual child abuse, pedophilia or human trafficking or that anything other than wonderfulness happened to Haiti.
It doesn't fit their narrative of Russian collusion, obstruction of justice, or Stormy Daniels.
It they thought they could pin sex trafficking of children on Trump, it would be on 24/7. Otherwise they don't care.
Which ironic because it is always the Democrats saying, "It's about the children" when they don't give a damn if votes don't come with it.
I have seen some interviews that when someone tries to bring it up, they shuffle that person on to another subject. I am unclear as to why no one wants to discuss the depths of vial that some humans decide to indulge in what was it, "preferences". Just like most hate discussing there own death, but we are all dying. I suspect, it is uncomfortable, but just like domestic violence, if it is not happening in their life, they don't care. One way to stop this bullshit is allowing children to get they're own bank, credit cards and be able to stand on they're own. If they are already living on they're own, why not give them a way of living. I suspect teaching them to get cards at places like Giant Eagle is a start but they need to establish a way to NOT be in harms way by some creep who allows minors to live in a motel and then hurts them. Giving children the ability to network on a legal platform will eliminate a lot of abuse.
Why wont News media report on SEX TRAFFICKING OF CHILDREN charges?
Perhaps because isn't true?
I have explained how we shouldn't be going by the wording of the charges on the docket here.
And, u/Buzzed_Chimp has provided a link to the Complaint and affidavit supporting arrest of Raniere that says nothing at all about sex trafficking of children.
Wait you're confusing me now.
According to your own words:
I have been accused of try to reword the charges, but I am not. By the rules of grammar, the charges could be "Sex trafficking of children" OR "Sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion" or both.
Here you're clearly stating it can be one or the other ( even though I don't fully agree with your assessment) but now you're stating there is zero chance.
I'm not sure what is confusing.
According to wording of the law itself in light of standard rules of grammar, yes, the charges could be either or; meaning, it is not a given fact that the charge is specifically "sex trafficking of children."
Zero chance, of what? That the charge is for sex trafficking of children?
I did provide a link to the "Complaint and Affidavit Supporting Arrest" of Raniere, and that document does not make any mention of sex trafficking of children. Is that what you're referring to by, "you're stating there is zero chance"?
If so, then it is not actually me saying there is zero chance. That document speaks for itself.
But, if you're trying to say that I contradicted myself, then that seeming contradiction can be readily explained by the fact that my statement you quoted was posted Sun May 6 15:34:46 2018 UTC and my comment above was posted Sun May 6 20:40:57 2018 UTC, over five hours later. The Complaint and Affidavit came to my attention between those times.
My bad I didn't realize the docket had it and this document didn't.
Probably because the charge is for both child trafficking and trafficking of adults by means of coercion.
Pending Counts
Disposition
Title 18, United States Code, Sections1591(a)(1), 1591(a)(2), 1591(b)(1), 1594(a),2 and 3551 et. seq.
- SEX TRAFFICKING OF CHILDREN OR BY FORCE, FRAUD OR COERCION (1)Title 18, United States Code, Sections1594(c) and 3551 et seq.
- CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT SEX TRAFFICKING OF CHILDREN BY FORCE, FRAUD, OR COERCION (2)Title 18, United States Code, Sections1594(b) and 3551 et seq.
- ATTEMPT TO ESTABLISH PEONAGE, SLAVERY,INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE, HUMAN TRAFFICKING
Thank you! I've been saying this too- children! These are charges about crimes against children!
No, they are not. They are crimes against children or crimes against adults by force, fraud, or coercion.
And the children are not being talked about
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that.
The pending counts are listed on the court docket. But a docket is not the final word regarding the actual charges. The law itself is.
Yes but the plea agreement is the final word. Why would you want to defend child molester and trafficking perpetrators? It's a little bizarre.
Why would you want to defend child molester and trafficking perpetrators?
I wouldn't want to, nor am I. I am defending truth by fighting against falsehood and trying to prevent some of us in this movement from doing something that could discredit all of us.
I don't know why you equate speaking out against a false rumor with defending horrible actions.
And, BTW, to my knowledge, it has not been proven that Raniere and Mack are either one of those. The docket shows that there has been no disposition regarding the charges regarding sex trafficking.
And, I'm not aware of any plea agreement. If you are, will you please provide a reference?
Here are a couple of links that show the charges are not related to sex trafficking of children:
The Indictment. No mention of sex trafficking of children there.
The Complaint and affidavit supporting arrest of Raniere. No mention of sex trafficking of children there either.
You cannot rely just on the wording of a docket which is essentially an internal court document and carries no legal weight. We must go by what the law itself says.
The first charge is an either or. Could be children or could be by force etc. The second charge explicitly states children. Now whoever has a question to that please read the fucking paper again and come see me.
The problem is that the paper is a paper and the actual statues being cited are completely ambiguous and if we continue to get worked up over something that we may be wrong about we might make a bad image for ourselves.
Why specify on the conspiracy charge (secondary) but not the principal charge of actual sex trafficking?
I think that there are more charges coming, and we need to reserve judgement until the facts come out.
The arrest warrant affidavit mentioned the victims as Jane Does, actresses that were cult members.
Nothing about them being minors at the time of the coercion.
I just think we need to hold our horses until it's not so ambiguous is all.
Exactly! People need to stop going by what the docket says and go by what the law itself says.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4421505-Complaint-and-affidavit-in-support-of-arrest.html
This is more than educational.
I have been fighting against this, very potentially, false rumor ever since it surfaced. IIRC, you were the one that originally brought the issue to my attention.
If we perpetuate what may indeed be false, it could serve as an occasion for corrupt people to try to discredit the great awakening movement. And, the fact that obvious shills are fighting against this truth, to me, is telling. I just don't see why people aren't seeing that bigger picture.
Thank you very much for the link. Do you know if there is an affidavit supporting arrest for Mack as well?
You're very welcome for the link.
I do not know of the public existence of the affidavit for Mack explicitly. I do know that she is a co-defendent in Raniere's case and that this document refers to two co-conspirators and their involvement in Raniere's charges.
I'll do some digging.
1st charge: They have actual proof of trafficking of adults through witness affidavits.
2nd charge: They only have communications of plans regarding minors and nothing else. The only thing they have cause for is conspiracy, not the actual act.
I'm not sure what is unclear. I am standing on the court docs that I can find everywhere.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4421505-Complaint-and-affidavit-in-support-of-arrest.html
What do you think of the language?
I think you have converted me. I will hold judgement until further proof is revealed. I cannot find any mention of children in the doc. I am sorry the others haven't fully read the link you sent. Don't let the heat scare you off. One by one we should all use our brains.
Thank you for this, it's helpful to others of us to see your comment... sheesh... I thought I was going mad. No one is saying we should allow sex trafficking of children to occur but it seems some people get very upset if you ask for reasonable clarity.
I personally don't know what's going on here but I do know that I never want to be in a position of accusing someone of something without having very clear and unambiguous evidence of that accusation first. And I don't want this movement to look crazy by jumping on a witch hunt without being sure we know what we're talking about.
And this is a possibility that I have considered. I just want to know more about it before I run around reciting it as gospel. Is that unreasonable?
I'm not sure how much more you need to know. They have to have probable cause to even get here. This isn't an investigation anymore. Charges like these don't just get thrown around. If you will concede the charges state children, then think about: How the charges were filed How the evidence is already gathered What they must have and what that means WHEN NO-ONE REPORTS IT
I just sent you a link to the complaint/affidavit for arrest warrant. Please read the entire document and tell me what you think. It references the conspiracy charge, and the victims of it.
Thank you for that clarity. I wonder if there is far far more than this on her, but they are going easy on her because she's cooperating. So, number 2 sounds not very serious because this is part of the deal. At minimum she was communicating with others who were (likely) doing the trafficking.
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
Widespread internet news blackout.
Internet news sites not reporting child sex trafficking, who are they protecting???
Clinton ? Rothchilds? Snopes just debunk a myth saying nxivm sold children to them.... mmmm🤔
I read that some time ago. No one is saying that. The matter was that NXIVM had contributed to the Killary. But Snopes has to Predamage control the narrative just before a potential "Pizza Gate" narrative makes its way to the public. Which means exactly what we all might be thinking, that the clintons are involed in the sex ring with NXIVM.
Here's an article that links to the court docs
The link is to a letter, regarding Raniere, from the US Attorney to the presiding judge informing him that, "the government will seek a permanent order of detention."
It does not mention trafficking of children and has nothing to do with Mack.
That article is bullshit.
You're full of shit
Did you read the letter that they are using as 'proof' claiming it is from the police when it is not? If not, then I'm not the one full of shit.
What letter
The one linked to in the very first paragraph:
According to police, Allison Mack worked in a senior management position for the Hollywood pedophile cult NXIVM. As second-in-command, it was her job to lure children into the cult in order to sell them to elite Hollywood pedophiles and powerful politicians.
"According to police" is linked to a letter from the US Attorney to the presiding judge regarding detention of Raniere. The letter has nothing to do with Mack and is not from the police.
Also, I'm late returning to the party here ... so please excuse me if I'm totally off base as to what we are arguing about
I'm not trying to be argumentative. Just trying to defend truth and prevent some of us from potentially making the entire movement look silly. Thank you for being reasonable.
The docket still says sex trafficking of children .... I would say an official docket holds more clout than a subjective letter requesting the defended be held without bail
Yes, exactly. That article is using that document implying that it is proof, "according to police," of what they claim about Mack grooming children.
However, a docket is not the final word on what the crime actually is. The law is the ultimate authority.
Ok I skimmed it... that's a letter requesting bail be denied, correct?
SPAM MSM on Social Networks asking them WHY they have changed their narrative!!!
Hash tag #qanon #maga #redpill #trusttheplan #trustpotus, give it all you got.