Yeah, I've seen some of the videos before, but this was the first time I've heard the audio.
I still don't see or hear her admitting that she did anything illegal.
Let me try breaking it down why this doesn't convince me, and why it will likely not convince many normies.
This (georgiarecorddotco)seems to be a fairly new website. I can't find any information about who founded this site, or who funds it or who works and writes for it. I was looking for info about this earlier this week and found zero info about them. If this has changed or if anyone knows more about them, please share.
So we have a site that is sketchy as fuck. Completely anonymous. What credibility do they have?
I can't find anyone else who has reported on this, that doesn't use that site as evidence. Again, if this has changed, please share.
So we have only one source making this claim.
I watched all videos and listened to all audio files they uploaded.
Whoever wrote the article (byline is "staff") provided a transcript of what was allegedly said on the tapes. But the videos provided, while being correctly (or mostly) transcribed, don't include her admitting to anything illegal.
As far as I have heard on those tapes, the important part of the conversation where she admits guilt is missing. There are no recordings of her stating the "money shot". Why would they take the time to post some clips of her talking about unimportant things, but not share the video/audio of the smoking gun?
The audio files are random clips with zero context provided. She talks about needing a lawyer (well duh, it's a pretty serious allegation) so maybe some people think that only guilty people need lawyers?
She talks about "fraud", but the conversation was cut off just before, so we have no idea what she is calling fraud. From what I can tell, she seems to be saying the people accusing her of doing something illegal is guilty of fraud by posting YouTube videos of it.
It's difficult to understand what exactly she's talking about, not only because we just have a minute or two of muffled audio clipped from conversations with no context, but also because she rambles. She is not very good at expressing herself clearly when she speaks. Like most of the population, in my opinion.
The big question I have is why have they not provided all of the material they have, unedited? Why are they cherry picking the recordings they release?
I think people are seeing and hearing things they want. Assuming, of course, that they actually took the time to watch and listen to the clips provided. I am continually surprised at how many people just believe headlines and what others tell them happened, without looking at the info themselves.
The videos are mind numbingly boring, and fairly annoying to listen to people mumble and ramble on at length, but it needs to be done. 🤷♀️
So there are the reasons why I just don't see her admitting she's guilty. Again, if anyone has info that shows I'm wrong, please share it. Thanks. ✌️
I took a listen during my watching of latest ScottyFilms but only 1 pass. I agree that there didn't appear to be an obvious smoking gun, although the "help" they gave her to clean up her social media is sketchy AF
It's just a cluster fuck all around. And I'm not trying to be mean, but Ms. Freeman doesn't seem to be the brightest person around. That woman seems to live in stream of consciousness and just rambles on and on with no editing.
I think people heard her say "lawyer" and think only guilty people need lawyers. And then heard her say "fraud" (with no context provided) and thought she was talking about her doing something fraudulent, but from what I can make out of the word salad there, she was saying people posting untrue stories (as she sees it) was fraud.
That's assuming people took the time to watch/listen to it. Including the hour plus of a camera pointed at a blank wall that sometimes got muffled audio here and there.
I refuse to watch all that again, so if anyone says the incriminating evidence is on that video, please provide a timestamp. Thanks.
Yeah, I've seen some of the videos before, but this was the first time I've heard the audio.
I still don't see or hear her admitting that she did anything illegal.
Let me try breaking it down why this doesn't convince me, and why it will likely not convince many normies.
So we have a site that is sketchy as fuck. Completely anonymous. What credibility do they have?
So we have only one source making this claim.
Whoever wrote the article (byline is "staff") provided a transcript of what was allegedly said on the tapes. But the videos provided, while being correctly (or mostly) transcribed, don't include her admitting to anything illegal.
As far as I have heard on those tapes, the important part of the conversation where she admits guilt is missing. There are no recordings of her stating the "money shot". Why would they take the time to post some clips of her talking about unimportant things, but not share the video/audio of the smoking gun?
The audio files are random clips with zero context provided. She talks about needing a lawyer (well duh, it's a pretty serious allegation) so maybe some people think that only guilty people need lawyers?
She talks about "fraud", but the conversation was cut off just before, so we have no idea what she is calling fraud. From what I can tell, she seems to be saying the people accusing her of doing something illegal is guilty of fraud by posting YouTube videos of it.
It's difficult to understand what exactly she's talking about, not only because we just have a minute or two of muffled audio clipped from conversations with no context, but also because she rambles. She is not very good at expressing herself clearly when she speaks. Like most of the population, in my opinion.
The big question I have is why have they not provided all of the material they have, unedited? Why are they cherry picking the recordings they release?
The videos are mind numbingly boring, and fairly annoying to listen to people mumble and ramble on at length, but it needs to be done. 🤷♀️
So there are the reasons why I just don't see her admitting she's guilty. Again, if anyone has info that shows I'm wrong, please share it. Thanks. ✌️
I took a listen during my watching of latest ScottyFilms but only 1 pass. I agree that there didn't appear to be an obvious smoking gun, although the "help" they gave her to clean up her social media is sketchy AF
It's just a cluster fuck all around. And I'm not trying to be mean, but Ms. Freeman doesn't seem to be the brightest person around. That woman seems to live in stream of consciousness and just rambles on and on with no editing.
I think people heard her say "lawyer" and think only guilty people need lawyers. And then heard her say "fraud" (with no context provided) and thought she was talking about her doing something fraudulent, but from what I can make out of the word salad there, she was saying people posting untrue stories (as she sees it) was fraud.
That's assuming people took the time to watch/listen to it. Including the hour plus of a camera pointed at a blank wall that sometimes got muffled audio here and there. I refuse to watch all that again, so if anyone says the incriminating evidence is on that video, please provide a timestamp. Thanks.