My point is to just be wary of these “truthers”. They do often provide some truth but it is designed to make you only go so far.
Always do your own research and go with your own instincts.
The beginning was chopped up and likely edited. Sidney can't say too much as she is in the middle of a legal battle but what they did was edit it to make it look like she had no real answers rather than she was just being careful to not say too much due to her lawsuit.
Who ousted her? Sidney has a solid background. I knew of her before all this election bs. She was all over pizzagate telling us about the files on the Weiner laptop.
Something is definitely off about her. I mean, ". . . no reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact."--right? What I want to know is this: Why didn't she ask Sidney what her legal team meant by that, and how does that square up with her mission at hand? Makes you wonder what she actually believes and what her motives truly are.
This probably won’t be well received but I always got Alex Jones, controlled opposition, vibes from Powell.
It’s not that everything they say is untrue but it is controlled. Designed to stop you from going too far and leading you in wrong directions.
Just my opinion, no hate!
My point is to just be wary of these “truthers”. They do often provide some truth but it is designed to make you only go so far. Always do your own research and go with your own instincts.
The beginning was chopped up and likely edited. Sidney can't say too much as she is in the middle of a legal battle but what they did was edit it to make it look like she had no real answers rather than she was just being careful to not say too much due to her lawsuit.
That could honestly be a result of editing though. We don't know what questions really prompted those responses from her.
Who ousted her? Sidney has a solid background. I knew of her before all this election bs. She was all over pizzagate telling us about the files on the Weiner laptop.
Something is definitely off about her. I mean, ". . . no reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact."--right? What I want to know is this: Why didn't she ask Sidney what her legal team meant by that, and how does that square up with her mission at hand? Makes you wonder what she actually believes and what her motives truly are.