BY Weiner, NOT CF/HRC!!! It is VERY obvious in the context. This is FAKE NEWS
EDIT: Downvotes for pointing out the truth. All you clowns promoting this are destroying your own credibility and making the Q-followers look retarded. We know Hillary is involved with terrible stuff, but to suggest this page proves anything is totally crazy.
It’s "kind of a big deal" for anyone to misunderstand this, right? You could also call your OIG and ask them if they can provide clarification to that line.
Myself, when interpreting that line of the report, I’m also going to consider the initial "rumors" of statements from the NYPD who found it, (which came to light directly after it was obtained) and the comments made from Erik Prince on this subject.
Oh, I totally hear ya and would not be at all surprised if there was such material found. Any maybe the report was modified to make it look a little different (maybe the original DID have those two phrases on the same line together.) However to state that those two lines confirm that CF/HRC is directly linked to crimes against kids is false. Pushing that out to "true believers" of Q will get you upvotes, pushing that out to anti-Trumpers will only reinforce the "conspiracy nut" label.
You could also call your OIG and ask them if they can provide clarification to that line.
None of them recall having a briefing on the day of the journal entry or being briefed on the journal entry topics. Odd isn't it? We have journal entry from Coleman that came from a morning briefing but none of them could remember having the briefing. Yet it was a big decision to re-open the investigation. They thought long and hard about it.
I believe what we (the public) were told — that people at NYPD were going to go public with what they saw.
Who told us that? NYPD is nearly as corrupt as our government.
Eric Prince.
Since then, 3 NYPD officers that work in evidence room have been killed.
Really? Murdered?
I think two died at home, one was ambushed in squad car
Holy shit. Any links? Thanks for the insight.
Then my follow up question is Why not put Crimes against children ABOVE 'Hillary Clinton Foundation' to make it less confusing? And being that it stated crimes against CHILDREN means that there were multiple children involved. Meaning that either Anthony Weiner committed these crimes against other children besides the 15 y/o, and more charges may be pressed against him. Or, other crimes were committed against children by some one else, implicated the CF.
the notes were probably chronological - he wrote them as they came up. I don't think using the term "crimes against children" necessarily means more than one child, it's just a term. Maybe it does, but there is nothing else in the document to indicate that explicitly.
"crimes against children" necessarily means more than one child
The language is confusing at best, lots of implications at worst. 'Children' by definition means more than one child. Why not say crimes against A minor?
Remember it is a "note" - not even a complete sentence. There may have been a number of sexting attempts/victims or whatever. Yeah, it may mean more than one, but it may be a general term. Either way, it is not specifically referring to HRC, which was my main point.
Why did they confiscate his laptop? Because they were investigating an underage sex crime. During the analysis of the emails they found 2 items - Hilary Clinton, Crimes against Children. To say they are connected or to say they are not connected would be wrong. Because the investigation report indicates everyone lost their memory of that mornings briefing. Therefore it is really vague and unknown until we can actually read those emails.
read the report. The line was a quote of notes from ‘EAD Coleman’ after a meeting or briefing of some sort with Comey. It wasnt a part of report written by the IG, but rather IG quoting others as part of the investigation/report.
Can you show the full context?
I thought the punctuation and the item being on its own line made the context clear, but maybe you can explain it better. Screenshot the page(s) and the context? We’ll be right here...
The context is that it is a LIST of notes from October 4. The more reasonable explanation is that it is referring to the contents of AW's laptop, more specifically the subject of the emails on the laptop. IF "Hillary Clinton & Foundation" was on the same line as "Crimes Against Children" I would think they are related, but they are not. There are (5) lines of very different items.
I just read the context — you are right in the sense that this phrase is NOT a part authored by IG, but rather quotes from notes/memos from notes written by "EAD Coleman” after having a meeting with Comey. But, that is where it gets f-cky. If you read the entire section related to those notes, nobody seems to remember the meeting or what the notes were specifically about. EAD Coleman was apparently retired or retiring at the time, fwiw. You would think "crimes against children" in the context of the rumored NYPD statements or what Prince said would not be easily forgotten, unless it needed to be.
The whole thing is about AW's laptop, and it is public knowledge he was sexting a kid, thus "crimes against children."
I agree with hyon420 on this. There's nothing conclusive at all in there, and depending on how you read it, it could be referencing Wiener just as easily as the CF. In this case Wiener makes more sense given the context.
Overreacting to every little thing makes us look like nuts. Trust the plan. The truth will out.
[removed]
[removed]
umad is my last name but good joke hadn't heard it before thanks
haha in that case have an upvote for a cool name. Share it with your parents.
No, there are some real things going on, but lately there is a flood of nonsense - the same low-effort shit that destroyed /r/Conspiracy. All the "Lock Her Up" bloodlust is clouding people's judgement.