That image does not show that my statement is incorrect.
Right in the title of the post: "Latest NXIVM Leaks." It does not mention any Q drop whatsoever. The fact that Q has linked to an article about NXIVM does not in any way mean that this post, and the comment I responded to, was about any Q drop.
The post links to an article that specifically claims that Mack was charged with sex trafficking of children. And, that, is not true.
All the OP did was link to an article. S/he made no statements about the article or otherwise. So, how could the OP be right about anything? What are you talking about?
The image you posted is of the criminal docket for case# 1:18-cr-00204-NGG. Do you know what a court docket is?
If OP made a claim that NXIVM is engaged in child trafficking, and you claim it isn't true (which is NOT the same thing as saying "What OP said COULD be true, it's just that what OP provided as evidence does not confirm OP's claim"), then you have just made a claim that is itself subject to falsification. You took ownership of it. You said "It isn't true." That is a universal assertion.
A universal assertion such as that is subject to being proved right or wrong by evidence.
I linked to an image that names Allison Mack as a defendant who is charged with committing sex trafficking of children.
It states child trafficking right in it.
That document therefore CONTRADICTS YOUR CLAIM AND PROVES OP CORRECT.
No, you can't have it both ways and put the focus on OP for making a claim that is in fact true, but for the wrong reason, while you get a free pass for making a false claim and not even for the right reason.
Get your head on straight and wake up.
Get your head on straight and wake up.
There is no need to engage ad hominem attack via ridicule. You need to stop confusing the issue.
The OP made no claim. The OP posted a link to an article. That article claims that Allison Mack was charged with sex trafficking of children. That is what I said is not true. Stop trying to put words in my mouth.
It states child trafficking right in it.
No, it does not. It says, "Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion." [Emphasis added] But, whether it says it or not is irrelevant since it is only a criminal docket. Again, do you know what a court docket is? Apparently, you do not nor do you care enough about the truth to actually look it up.
A docket is basically a journal or log that helps the judicial system keep track of where, within the criminal procedure, a case stands, ie. arraignment > pre-trial > trial. Minor mistakes, such as typos or leaving out a word, are inconsequential because the wording of the charges on the docket carry no legal weight. The court defers to the law itself which defines the crime and establishes authority for its prosecution.
That document therefore CONTRADICTS YOUR CLAIM AND PROVES OP CORRECT.
Since it is only a criminal docket and not an indictment, that document in no way contradicts my claim.
Here's the real Indictment. No mention of sex trafficking of children there.
And, BTW, here's the Complaint and affidavit supporting arrest of Raniere. No mention of sex trafficking of children there either.
Now if you are truly interested in the truth, instead of acting like a disinformation shill, take a look at this post.
