Infowars reporter Millie Weaver ‘arrested’ mid-premiere of her whistleblowing investigation into ‘shadow government’ Investigative reporter Millie Weaver and her husband have reportedly been arrested at the same time her documentary on the US “shadow government” was being screened on YouTube, sending Conservative Twitter into theory overdrive. Weaver’s “arrest” at the couple’s home – which has yet to be confirmed by authorities – was initially reported by Infowars on Friday, shortly after the YouTube premiere of her documentary film “ShadowGate.” The film purports to expose the secrets of the massive ‘Deep State’ intelligence apparatus manipulating politics within the US and beyond its borders, based on the reports of two private intelligence whistleblowers. Video of the couple’s apparent arrest, shot by Weaver herself, was posted to Twitter by her Infowars colleague Adan Salazar, opening on Weaver asking in disbelief if “a grand jury indicted [her].”
Treppen wrote: » So anyone got a link to the video?
King Mob wrote: » Again, you are misrepresenting me. It's very dishonest.
Yea. A "reporter" from Infowars. There's no way she can be lying... We just gotta take her word for it...
The documentary can't be a good one because it's about fantasy, produced by known liars.
enno99 wrote: » your first post in the thread
King Mob wrote: » it's very unlikely that the documentary is very good or factual.
enno99 wrote: » So your a conspiracy theorist now LOL
King Mob wrote: » No thanks. You're doing a great job of demonstrating. I haven't weaseled out of anything. I just corrected your misrepresentation of my position directly and clearly. For example you are misrepresenting my post above. Perhaps because you did not understand the operative part: Meanwhile you are actually avoiding my points and questions, which could actually be defined as weasely. For example I asked you directly: are you denying she has a profit motive for falsifying things? Rather than googling the definition of words, you could try answering points directly and fully on the first try. Ya know, for a change...
Therefore by the logic you guys use all the time, she's doing that.
enno99 wrote: » Do you want the definition of weasel
King Mob wrote: » I'm not sure what you're asking. What's wrong with spreading false conspiracy theories for profit? That should be very obvious. She has a profit motive for falsifying and sensationalising things in her documentary. Therefore by the logic you guys use all the time, she's doing that. Follow the money, right?
enno99 wrote: » falsifying (Snip quoting form a dictionary cliche)
King Mob wrote: » But I haven't accused her of lying. You are once again misrepresenting my position. My position is that given she works/worked for Info Wars and is proposing a theory that inherently silly on the face of it, I see no reason to take her at all seriously. I make the additional point that you guys are applying a double standard. This forum is full of conspiracy theorists accusing any number of people of all sorts of shady behaviour based solely and purely on the notion that they stand to make a profit. Yet here, we have an example of some one with a profit motive and every opportunity to deceive people on a number of levels. We also know she doesn't have any journalistic integrity as she works/worked for Info Wars. In this case you guys are jumping to her defence and suddenly understand that this argument is illogical. When it's someone you guys don't like or want to accuse, then an appeal to motive is more than enough to accuse them. When it's someone you like, you say that appeals to motive don't apply That's the double standard.
She has a profit motive for falsifying
enno99 wrote: » Pathetic you accuse someone of telling lies then refuse to point out where she lied how can anyone take you seriously
Dohnjoe wrote: » She doesn't profit from work, she profits from selling lies and disinformation, like Alex Jones.
enno99 wrote: » As for a filmmaker/journalist profiting from their work
Overheal wrote: » It should be noted the 60 mins segment is from 2011. Congress passed the STOCK act 5 months later:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STOCK_Act#:~:text=291%2C%20enacted%20April%204%2C%202012,Congress%20and%20other%20government%20employees.
In a bizzare quirk, we’ve permitted our politicians to do things that we can’t. Prior to 2012, Congress members were not prohibited from insider trading. Senator Richard Burr from North Carolina was a fierce opponent of a bill that ultimately banned this practice. In an interview at the time, Burr said about the potential new law, “It’s ludicrous.” He voted against the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act and said, “I mean, it’s insane.”
King Mob wrote: » But why should I? She has profit motive for doing so as well as exaggerating facts. Isn't that enough to assume that she is doing those things? It is usually enough for you guys when it suits you. Also, again, she worked for Info Wars, thus we can conclude she has no journalistic integrity.
enno99 wrote: » What is wrong with getting paid for your work ? What crap ?
Not until lurid headlines damned Carter Page as a traitor to his country in September 2016, six weeks before the presidential election, did he realize someone was using him to play a dirty political trick. Reporters had been hounding the energy investor with strangely detailed questions about his ties to Russia. Page told each of them that he was a former US Navy lieutenant, a graduate of Annapolis, an Eagle Scout — hardly a likely protagonist in some cloak-and-dagger drama. But he had also served as a foreign policy adviser to Donald J. Trump. And secretly, within a collection of Democratic opposition-research memos soon to be known as the Steele Dossier, Page had been cast as the GOP candidate’s liaison to Vladimir Putin.It was the launch of the collusion tale that nearly destroyed a presidency. And the little-known Page, now 49, had an unsought starring role.
In fact, as he repeatedly informed FBI investigators all the way up to Director James Comey himself, Page was a longtime CIA informant, not only on Russian affairs but on China and the Middle East. His status as a trusted US intelligence source extended beyond the CIA. Only months before, Page had helped the FBI itself make a case against an accused Russian spook. That should have been enough to clear Page’s name. Instead, the FBI painted a target on his back.
In August 2016, documents show, the CIA told the Crossfire Hurricane team that Page had been a trusted informant for years. That explained all of the Russian contacts the FBI saw as suspicious — two months before agents filed the first warrant against Page.The FBI illegally withheld that exculpatory evidence from the FISA court. Later, in June 2017, Clinesmith — by then a member of Mueller’s staff — made the offense overt by altering a CIA document that confirmed Page’s status with the agency, Durham told the court. Clinesmith took a guilty plea on Aug. 19.
enno99 wrote: » Should be easy for you to point out the falsifications so enlighten us
enno99 wrote: » What is wrong with getting paid for your work ?
King Mob wrote: » Well it will when some idiot does something stupid, like how it happened with the pizza gate stuff. Not sure what your post has to do with my point though. Qanon is obvious nonsense, so anyone spouting it, especially for profit, can be dismissed out of hand. And the documentary you are defending promotes the same crap as Qanon. It's not different. The point remains also that this bull**** artist worked for Info Wars, which is another reason to dismiss her out of hand. Again, you guys are doing our job for us by defending this obvious bull****. Please keep going.
enno99 wrote: » How long before Qanon start to be blamed for violence
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » Qanon started in Nov 2017. The DNC hack was 2016. Qanon stuff worked because debunkers can't tell the difference now, as you see above.
King Mob wrote: » Because it's from someone who worked for Info Wars. So either they are profoundly dishonest or they are profoundly dumb. And because it's based off Qanon bull****, which is an obvious fantasy. It's very easy to tell.
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » How would you know?
The Nal wrote: » Yes it can. It can be proven as misleading on first watch. Whats interesting is that you're defending a documentary that you havent even seen! lol. Incredible scenes. You are the target market for grifters.
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » Her video can't be proven to be misleading in less 24 hours
Cheerful Spring2 wrote: » R Qanon whatever that is probably a disinformation campaign to make people who question Russiagate look foolish.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/867a9f20e705add43a3ada2e4f4480cc.svg)
