Pizzagate Subverse Network
/v/AskPizzagate – Pizzagate-related questions
/v/pizzagatewhatever – anything Pizzagate-related
/v/PizzagateMemes – Pizzagate memes
/v/pizzagatemods – meta concerns and Pizzagate moderation discussion
For Newcomers
Submission Rules
See also "subverse best practices"
Policy on linking dangerous research
1: Relevance: Posts must be directly relevant to investigation of Pizzagate: the sexual/physical abuse and/or murder of children by elites, child trafficking organized by elites, and/or cover-up of these activities and/or the protection/assistance provided to the people who engage in said activities. See definition of Pizzagate and examples of relevant posts.
2: Empiricism: EACH factual claim that is not common knowledge must be sourced with a link. If you ask a question: Explain what led to your question and provide sources. If you present opinion/argument, connect your dots and provide sources for them. Avoid baseless speculation. ALL posts must include at least one link.
3: Clarity: All titles must adequately describe post content and must establish direct relevance to pizzagate. EACH link in your post must include a description of content and how the link relates to the post (except when markup is used to embed links in the specific text they support).
4: Meta submissions and general discussion submissions without sources will be removed. Please submit indirectly relevant posts to /v/pizzagatewhatever and unsourced questions to /v/AskPizzagate. Sourced activism / publicity posts and memes are allowed. Posts about the subverse itself go to /v/pizzagatemods.
5: You must label NSFW posts (“Not safe for work”; for example gore, nudity etc.) as such when submitting.
6: No Link Posts -- Only editable submissions made with the "Discuss" button are allowed. "Link" submissions have been banned by the community for the reasons described here. Link posts will be immediately removed.
Adspam, illegal content, and personal info about Voat subscribers will be removed, and the offender will be banned.
Moderator Rules and Removal Explanations
Submission Removal Log
WARNING! Due to the nature of this investigation, clicking some links could result in opening incriminating material. Always practice common sense before clicking links, and make sure you're browsing safely.
Use archive.is to archive sources.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] Mrs_Ogynist01 1 point 7 points 8 points (+8|-1) ago
Wrong. First Lady Melania Trump just sued (& won) a libel case against a blogger for calling her a prostitute.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/melania-trump-settles-lawsuit-against-9774769.amp
He doesn't sue because he's a rapist.
[–] matheasysolutions [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
yup.
[–] AreWeSure ago (edited ago)
She didn't "win" because the case never went to trial. They settled. The blogger tried to get the case dismissed on 1st amendment grounds and the judge said, the case could go forward. Then they reached a settlement of an undetermined amount and he retracted and apologized. However, Tarpley.net is still publishing. This suit certainly didn't "shut down" this website overnight.
Since we don't know what the amount of the settlement is, it could have been less than what his lawyer costs would have been to fight the suit. As noted above Jones would have more resources to fight a suit and would love the publicity of it.
The question for the blogger becomes is it worth it to me to spend $200,000 in legal fees to "win" my case? Is it worth it to risk losing?
Trump once sued the author of a book for $5 billion dollars because the author wrote he was not a billionaire. The book was published by Warner Books, so they had to resources to fight the case all the way down the line. It took three years. The case was dismissed and then Trump appealed, Trump finally lost the case, because he wouldn't comply with the discovery requests and kept trying to draw out the process. So this blogger understood he could fighting this for years.
[–] DarkMath 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
"She didn't "win" because the case never went to trial."
Melania Trump sued the blogger. A short time later he retracted and apologized. But that's not technically "winning". Epic.
Of course technically you're correct AreWeSure. But that's not the issue here. The issue is you are so dogmatically precise about some things but not others.
Where's your dogmatic precision in labeling Laura Silsby a child trafficker after she was, duh, convicted in Haiti of child trafficking?
Technically Laura Silsby is a child trafficker. Hillary intervened and got her out of jail. Technically that means Hillary Clinton condones child trafficking.
Working to get a child trafficker out of jail is technically appalling is it not?
[–] Mrs_Ogynist01 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
She was the plaintive and SHE accepted the settlement, therefore she won. The amount of the settlement is irrelevant. What is relevant is the fact that she shut down anyone else calling her a prostitute - because she wasn't. Your whole point was that it is too hard for a high profile individual to prove libel/slander - obviously, it's not. A lot of people have called Clinton a rapist. He could have picked someone without as many resources as Alex Jones to make an example of, but he hasn't. Bill Clinton does not sue because he is a rapist and a statutory rapist.