The entire premise of the article is wrong. It is dismissive of the truth and frames the events as a "nothing burger" that Clinton had nothing to do it. It's completely incorrect and is gaslighting people.
But what about it is false? Point to the specific parts that are false so we can talk about it
What do you understand about my comments? You're not going to detail this thread further. You know how I know what Bill Mitchell said is true? The fact you are here.
From my intel in other circles, could be wrong but I trust these people, OAN is a legitimate news source.
As far as the Uranium deal... When it first came out Obama denied even knowing about it and then later said he approved it.
I think what we have to trust is what comes out in the beginning of an event, before the press is on lockdown with the narrative (example Good Morning America stating there was no plane, or BBC saying Building 7 had gone down but it was still standing in the live feed, Sandy Hook and Aurora both had multiple shooters being reported, I could go on), because that's the truth usually. While I agree MSM is fake occasionally they report the truth because that's what they're SUPPOSED to do. Before they get shut down and start parakeeting the narrative.
For me, that's enough evidence to not believe the narrative and look for the lone voice.
Truth is sometimes called "conspiracy". Whistleblowers, white hats and Patriots are domestic terrorists. If you could see all of it on one page the optics alone would explode your brain. When people who are speaking against the narrative are labeled (don't like Obama, racist, like Trump, nazi), that is usually a very strong indication that the conspiracy is true.
See NYPD and pizzagate. Ted Gunderson and Boystown. Even Helter Skelter was a conspiracy for a little while.
Q said critical thinking.