Witness Hoax In Trayvon Martin Case

Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Monahorns, Nov 7, 2019.

  1. Monahorns

    Monahorns 2,500+ Posts

    • WTF? WTF? x 1
  2. 4th_floor

    4th_floor 1,000+ Posts

    If this is true, how can the prosecution get away with that? How can a witness commit perjury like that and not be prosecuted?
     
  3. Monahorns

    Monahorns 2,500+ Posts

    It's absolutely true. The documentarian interviewed the real girlfriend. Before that reviewed all Trayvon's hundreds of texts to the real girlfriend. She told him everything.

    They got away with it because nobody in power wanted to know otherwise. I haven't watched the video but listened to an interview. Obama's administration was somehow involved in the public narrative.
     
  4. Horn6721

    Horn6721 Half of seeming clever is keeping your mouth shut.

    The hubris of obama should be stunning but isn't.
    After he said if he had a son blah blah blah it is easy to see this crap happening.
     
  5. Horns11

    Horns11 5,000+ Posts

    Joel Gilbert is an Infowars clown.
     
  6. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    Really? Verified or simply an unverified claim?
     
  7. Monahorns

    Monahorns 2,500+ Posts

    Joel Gilbert read the tweets and interviewed the girl.

    Do you believe first hand data or only deep state narratives.
     
  8. Horns11

    Horns11 5,000+ Posts

    I'd believe nearly anyone over Joel Gilbert. This is a guy who basically made a living off of "Paul is dead and Elvis is alive" until he switched to politics.

    It's the same thing he did with Obama. "That's not his dad... THIS is his dad!" and pulled a bag off of some no-name communist's head. There is no "real" Diamond Eugene. It always was Jeantel's nickname.
     
  9. Monahorns

    Monahorns 2,500+ Posts

    But when he reads actual evidence and has some backup you can't see past your bias. Good to know I can lump you in with SH and LH.
     
  10. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    I'd first want to know the bias and credibility of the author. I don't know this author from Adam or Ann but if he works for InfoWars then that should automatically cause the reader to pause.

    Those are the only options?
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    The problem is that you can't trust that the author isn't omitting facts detrimental to their desired narrative, especially if they have a reputation for doing that previously.
     
  12. Garmel

    Garmel 2,500+ Posts

    While I agree with you on this i wish you'd have the same attitude toward the MSM in general. They lied about Sondland a few day ago and they're lying about the whistleblower. However, you gobble it up as 100% fact.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  13. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    Who lied? I posted the exact quote where Sondland stated a quid pro quo was occurring. Meadows is not being truthful in his defense of Trump. Then again, the Freedom Caucus which has gone all-in with Trump hasn't been the bastion of consistent debaters.
     
  14. Garmel

    Garmel 2,500+ Posts

    Meadows points out that Sondland is unsure in his assertion of quid pro pro which is completely true and the media comes out and says that Sondland said there was a definite quid pro quo. You and I fell for fake news. Read the transcript.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Seattle Husker

    Seattle Husker 10,000+ Posts

    Sondland literally told Yermak on 9/1 that the aid was dependent on Ukraine pronouncements of the investigations. While you and the Freedom Caucus try to play word games the rest of us will operate in the real world in which Donald Trump's declared point person for working with Ukraine put forth the quid pro quo to Ukraine. This is the quid pro quo that you and the Freedom Caucus said didn't exist and now hide Mulvaney and the OMB from testifying why the aid was held up.
     
  16. Garmel

    Garmel 2,500+ Posts

    Mark Meadows says the media is getting the story WRONG, that Ambassador Sonland is NOT testifying that there was a quid pro quo!

    There are no word games here. Look at the transcript. Look at paragraph 4 and 5. I'll paraphrase Meadows.

    1. Sondland clearly says he doesn't it know why aid was held up. (paragraph 4)
    2. Sondland presumes it is because of corruption. A guess on his part. An assumption. (paragraph 4)
    3. Sondland told Yermak his assumption (paragraph 5)

    You know what a logical mind thinks after reading this? Sondland made a guess with ZERO facts to back up his assumption. Read it. Btw, Zelensky still says that he didn't know about the aid.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2019
  17. Monahorns

    Monahorns 2,500+ Posts

    Keep the impeachment talk on the other thread. Keep this one on Trayvon Martin witness hoax.

    Look at the evidence and any counter evidence and form your conclusion, but source selecting is self censorship. That leads to ignorance.
     
  18. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    Summarily dismissing the evidence isn't wise, but heathy skepticism of something coming from one of Alex Jones' monkey boys is hardly unreasonable.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  19. Monahorns

    Monahorns 2,500+ Posts

    I wasn't aware this guy was crazy. I listened to an interview and he has a very compelling story that comes straight from first hand accounts.
     
  20. Mr. Deez

    Mr. Deez 10,000+ Posts

    I'm not saying he's full of ****. What he's portraying may very well be entirely accurate and fair. The Left certainly isn't above making **** up to fit a racial narrative. See Michael Brown shooting. See the initial picture they painted of Trayvon Martin - that he was just a little boy in a hoodie who got shot by a white dude, when he was almost six feet tall and basically looked like an adult man trying to beat a Latin dude's ***. Look at the myriad of fake hate crimes we've head about in the last few years. I have no doubt that people would make crap up. They do it all the time.

    However, if you want this story to be taken seriously, somebody from Infowars isn't a very good messenger. I understand why CNN or MSNBC wouldn't touch this story. It destroys a favorite narrative and money-maker for them. But why isn't Fox News pushing it? Or even some of the more overtly conservative media outlets like Daily Caller? Why is only an Infowars clown pitching it? If it was solid, I'd think someone else would pick up on it.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  21. Horns11

    Horns11 5,000+ Posts

    I don't think Gilbert is crazy... I think he's a liar.

    He has spent his entire career pushing conspiracy theories and this is no different. In his Obama "expose" he showed a link-chain from Obama's mom to this strange communist guy from Chicago and then "proved" in a roundabout way that it was Obama's dad. No records, just interviews of "firsthand knowledge," if you could call it that. This seems to follow the same exact formula. He fishes for people that want to give their 2 cents about those who surrounded Trayvon, and came up with a stripper (who was supposedly dating a 17-year-old, so more power to him I guess) who says that she's the "real" Diamond.

    Jeantel's testimony on the stand might have showed how mentally slow she is/was, but there is no "real" Diamond. She even said she never considered herself Trayvon's girlfriend. So if you think that the prosecution was grasping for a narrative from Jeantel about Trayvon's final phone call (which did go to her according to phone records), then Gilbert's version of the story is way more far-fetched.
     
  22. Statalyzer

    Statalyzer 10,000+ Posts

    I tend to be skeptical of any claims by anyone who throws around "oh, so you believe the deep state" type of stuff.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  23. Monahorns

    Monahorns 2,500+ Posts

    I have no reason to defend this guy specifically. I had no idea who he was. Only heard an interview. If he is lying, then ignore him. However, comments like the one below show me that people are commenting on something else other than this documentary.

    He specifically mentions going through the phone records where there was about a month of text messages between Trayvon and his girlfriend.

    I don't know what will convince someone who isn't convinced by interviewing people who were personally involved in the situation. If he is lying I get it, but where is the evidence that there is a lie? No one has produced any here but claims that he is a nut. Well, if he is a nut he must be for a reason not because you don't like his message.

    In the interview he does try to link some things to Obama. That is the weakest part of it all, and didn't hear any direct evidence to make such a claim. I too am skeptical about that.

    But going through phone records and finding the girl who Trayvon was texting with sounded very dense with support to me. Whether she considered herself his girlfriend or not, the texts were there which links her to Trayvon during that period of time. They had some kind of relationship with him.

    But that is the whole point, right? The girl behind the texts and phone calls was not the person who went on stand to testify. That is the most interesting part to me. Lawyers would put someone on the stand they knew was not the person they claimed she was.

    It sounds like reasonable evidence points to that being true. In your comment about the phone call to the girlfriend. I think that is the point. Trayvon called the girl he has a relationship with. It was the girl Joel Gilbert interviewed, not the girl who the prosecution called to the stand. The phone message itself didn't say anything intelligible which is why they needed a person on the stand.

    Or maybe he is wrong? I don't know. He has a good case if he started with the phone records. Either way, I would be interested to hear why he is lying.
     

Share This Page