Snopes just BTFO Jow Forums. This place is never going to be credible again

Kike

Attached: FB_IMG_1562830228499.jpg (720x385, 51K)

>pretending he doesn’t quote snopes when it fits his narrative

Go back to plebbit, faggot!

Imagine gloating about defending pederasts

Attached: 1560205975354.png (640x274, 109K)

they're gaslighting the straw man they made up.
the picture is of clinton on a plane with his arm around an attractive visibly young teen.
it's also the FAA flight logs listing clinton as on epstein's plane

Attached: logs.jpg (684x406, 46K)

I've never quoted Snopes in my life because it's a repository of disinformation. Anyone who quotes it, left or right, can have their opinions safely discarded.

How did Epstein make all that money without education?

Was he a legit genius?

I don't believe any glowies are this based

radaronline.com/exclusives/2016/07/bill-cilnton-sex-fiend-pal-jeffrey-epstein-security-camera/

Attached: 20B10745-310A-410D-90B4-C8D30E4A2CC0.jpg (640x400, 50K)

You know, I want to see who really runs that site....if its really that ex convict cat loving couple, I want to see the deal between them and Google.

where are the pictures of them actually standing next to each other? not just bills head in a bubble next to epstein?

Nepotism and hedge fund trading. Even a dullard can succeed.’

I’m not saying that it did exist. I’m saying that Trump’s inside team had access to the information before we did. I was confused by why they needed it or were even granted it. We likely think they are covering for Trump or his close allies.
The Epstein case is nothing more than underage girls acting as massage / prostitution and Jeffrey secretly video taping high profile figures. There’s thousands of hours of videos and hundreds of well known figures involved.
There’s also dozens of videos and photos that were destroyed or “lost” before we were able to get our hands on the files.
I can say Clinton is no longer under protection and will probably see an untimely health related death within the next two months.

Snopes discredited itself long ago.

So I guess snopes was right.

Lmao at anyone who ever considered Jow Forums credible

Where are the pictures of them at all on google, it only has Epstein and Trump, when every other search engine has dozens of them from the dozens(hundreds?) of news stories about the plane ride?

News sites are priorktized fairly high in googles algorith, yet not for this.

>Even a dullard can succeed.’
No.

if every other search engine has dozens of them from the dozens(hundreds?)
post one

I’ll just drop same names
Andy
Woody
Hanks
Bill
You’ll see at least 1/2 of this list + dozens more being either arrested or information being made available to the public in the coming weeks.
Switching VPNs again, have a good one boys. Back to lurking and reading your autistic thoughts

Responding to a Freedom of Information Act request for the materials , FBI section chief ((((David Hardy))) told Radar that “Mr. Epstein’s relationship with” the Clintons, as well as their “possible participation in and knowledge of his activities” “do not outweigh Mr.Epstein’s privacy interests.”

radaronline.com/exclusives/2016/07/bill-cilnton-sex-fiend-pal-jeffrey-epstein-security-camera/

Attached: 3E124BB9-A151-4E54-8C78-6EDDC6B96BB3.jpg (867x490, 122K)

checked
if you're larping may you rot in hell

I've seen misleading things on Snopes, but I can't think of a single example of a blatantly untrue fact being allowed to remain up. Can you provide an example of one?

Attached: Untitled.png (800x469, 429K)

If the images are real, how did google delete them off peoples PCs?

X-keyscore

which clinton?

is this serious?

Dunno why I lost my shit at this gif of alex jones kek. He is an absolute madman

>mfw my phonefag screenshot reappears hours later
Hehe, it’s like I’m retard famous

Attached: 86D7A119-FCF6-439B-BF8E-3566610ECA42.jpg (723x345, 134K)

>canadian shitposting

never disappoints

They usually don't post something blatantly untrue. What they do, for example, is say something true mixed in with something false, and whatever they want to deny, they focus on the false thing or the true thing.

So for example, their headline could read "Claim: Trump said at a speech in Dallas that he hates blacks".

They will then look at the claim (which actually may not be part of the original claim at all) that it was said it was in Dallas. And they'll say it's true. Trump did have a speech in Dallas. But he didn't say he hates blacks. But it was in Dallas. Verdict: partially true.

put it in their twitter?
twitter.com/snopes/status/1149091446701678593

They created this conspiracy to debunk it.
They're trying to distance Epstein from Clinton.
They're faggots and I hope there's a hell so they burn there for eternity in pain and agony,

Attached: i-checked-snopes-my-research-is-complete-this-is-snopes-3575849.png (500x507, 103K)

Retards on Jow Forums will NEVER recover from this. Drumpf knew Epstein was a pedophile rapist and did nothing about it (kicking him out of his golf club for hitting on kids doesn't count as doing something as he didn't call the police.) Frantically trying to throw him under the bus under threat of being deposed doesn't count either as Drumpf's information didn't help lead to a conviction.

Epstein raised funds for Clinton's philanthropic efforts. That part is true. Epstein used his charity as a shield, but Snopes and the paper of record both confirmed that Clinton knew nothing about Epstein's predilections ahead of time. Putting them in Google images together to spread a false narrative is disingenuous at best, criminal at worst.

Attached: image.png (345x198, 26K)