BREAKING – EXPOSING THE CIA:
(twitter.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (22)
sorted by:
You:
Again, if you made the effort to inform yourself, you'd know PV have plausible deniability. They don't have to release the records themselves because Justin would have leaked them and be liable for them. They just have to give him back what's rightfully his but he naively entrusted to them. James lied to him the story would get released initially but got cold feet (someone probably contacted him) and started delaying. In 2023 he told Justin "it was a good story but it's been 2 years so it's not relevant anymore, so we won't be releasing it".
But even if PV and James were liable what does that mean for their whole fucking operation? That they can expose corruption but up to a certain point where the stakes are low? As I said they'd never release a real hard hitter. They got famous because of the gay Pfizer grunt and they milked that story dry but to what end? What did it achieve except preaching to the choir that Pfizer is a corrupt big pharma company? I know it was bullshit because of the lack of consequences. There's a bit of a rumble but it's always contained. This is not even the tip of the iceberg and they act as if they are heroes. No, the real heroes are whistleblowers who get hunted like dogs, prosecuted or straight on suicided for the crimes they expose.
That's lazy. Are you buddies with James? How many times have you met him? I'm not in a position to consider any one of them as being more trustworthy and neither are you. I'm just looking at the evidence. It's demonstrable Justin worked for James and they were pretty close. In fact, he's the honeytrap that got the Pfizer idiot to open up on their tinder date (identified through his voice and through his reflection in a mirror on the recording). If Justin made up all this crap (including falsifying the phone talks he had with him) James could have easily disproven him and taken him to court for defamation.
Don't you see the hypocrisy of your argument? You are saying to trust this person you've never met in an attempt to discredit another person you've never met. It also doesn't make sense in this digital age your brother Justin didn't have copies of his evidence. When was the evidence collected? 1996?
You're one of the worst sophists I've argued with here. It's like I'm talking to a wall. I don't trust one over the other, I didn't know about this Justin guy prior to his documentary. He makes a good case against James, that's all. But since you don't care I can't force feed you the evidence he's got. Believe whatever you want, I'm done arguing.