Fair enough. I literally have almost no knowledge of his activities. I've heard a few rumors, and I've heard his general defense that the people involved in his activities were all "being paid" to go along with his schtick. And no, I don't endorse any of it of course. But I also don't get involved with telling consenting adults what they should or should not do unless they ask my opinion.
If he did in fact knowingly traffic one or more minors, he's going to have to pay the price accordingly, in this lifetime or the next. I
t's always difficult to determine if things come down to "he said vs she said" if that's the case. If the weight of evidence is convincing one way or the other, than so be it.
And don't get me wrong, I'm not in any way defending Tate. But it does appear to me that the cabal/establishment is trying to shut him up. My spidey-senses are on full alert to this fact. And that's why I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt at this stage.
Why would Tucker Carlson interview him if all this well known and undeniable? Seems like he made quite the strategic mistake in validating Tate if so. With all the resources and money he has, you'd think he would have been able to easily vet Tate and steer clear of him, wouldn't you?
And with the money and resources at the cabal's disposal, how hard would it be for them to pay off one, five, ten, fifty, heck even a hundred "witnesses" to testify against Tate? This is just standard daily procedure for them. Money, ethics and justice are of no concern to them.
And to wit, I do know full well that Tate made his many millions in the unsavory practice of convincing women to do sexual videos for TikTok. I don't support it in the least. But once again, what consenting adults choose to do is none of my business.
II don't know 1% of what you've heard and learned about Tate. If he's really as bad a guy as some are painting him, then Tucker, Valuetainment, Charlie Kirk and many other "truth tellers" in the alternative media are going to get a heckuva black eye for giving him a podium to state his case.
As such, I'm going to stick with innocent until proven guilty. Said another way, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". My 64,000 foot view take is, the cabal/establishment is very obviously trying to shut him up, and they can use their fraudulent LEGAL SYSTEM lawfare to take him out.
And further, Tate is out there openly talking about the charges and his situation, holding very little back. If he was undeniably guilty, I'm quite sure his attorney's would have him fully gagged until after his trial. The risk is far too great that he'll say something that can be used against him in court. This is basic legal advice 101.
All this to say, guilty or innocent, good person or bad person, he stated some heavy-duty truths in that valuetainment video. Basically, that too many people, parents, families, men, are "standing down" and letting the cabal "raise their kids" and fill their minds with poison. It's a message the masses need to hear, even if it comes out of the mouth of a "bad guy".
In short, let's not shoot the messenger before the message is even heard.
Fair enough. I literally have almost no knowledge of his activities. I've heard a few rumors, and I've heard his general defense that the people involved in his activities were all "being paid" to go along with his schtick. And no, I don't endorse any of it of course. But I also don't get involved with telling consenting adults what they should or should not do unless they ask my opinion.
If he did in fact knowingly traffic one or more minors, he's going to have to pay the price accordingly, in this lifetime or the next. I
t's always difficult to determine if things come down to "he said vs she said" if that's the case. If the weight of evidence is convincing one way or the other, than so be it.
And don't get me wrong, I'm not in any way defending Tate. But it does appear to me that the cabal/establishment is trying to shut him up. My spidey-senses are on full alert to this fact. And that's why I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt at this stage.
Why would Tucker Carlson interview him if all this well known and undeniable? Seems like he made quite the strategic mistake in validating Tate if so. With all the resources and money he has, you'd think he would have been able to easily vet Tate and steer clear of him, wouldn't you?
And with the money and resources at the cabal's disposal, how hard would it be for them to pay off one, five, ten, fifty, heck even a hundred "witnesses" to testify against Tate? This is just standard daily procedure for them. Money, ethics and justice are of no concern to them.
And to wit, I do know full well that Tate made his many millions in the unsavory practice of convincing women to do sexual videos for TikTok. I don't support it in the least. But once again, what consenting adults choose to do is none of my business.
II don't know 1% of what you've heard and learned about Tate. If he's really as bad a guy as some are painting him, then Tucker, Valuetainment, Charlie Kirk and many other "truth tellers" in the alternative media are going to get a heckuva black eye for giving him a podium to state his case.
As such, I'm going to stick with innocent until proven guilty. Said another way, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". My 64,000 foot view take is, the cabal/establishment is very obviously trying to shut him up, and they can use their fraudulent LEGAL SYSTEM lawfare to take him out.
And further, Tate is out there openly talking about the charges and his situation, holding very little back. If he was undeniably guilty, I'm quite sure his attorney's would have him fully gagged until after his trial. The risk is far too great that he'll say something that can be used against him in court. This is basic legal advice 101.
All this to say, guilty or innocent, good person or bad person, he stated some heavy-duty truths in that valuetainment video. Basically, that too many people, parents, families, men, are "standing down" and letting the cabal "raise their kids" and fill their minds with poison. It's a message the masses need to hear, even if it comes out of the mouth of a "bad guy".
In short, let's not shoot the messenger before the message is even heard.