I've never heard anyone say that the art is a hoax.

I've mostly just heard people say that spooky and disturbing art isn't evidence of criminal activity.

fair enough.

i try to stay away from pizzagate stuff because it involves way too much speculation for my taste, and people tend to get super emotional about it which clouds and distorts their ability to engage in rational discourse.

Well, it's pretty frustrating when a mountain of circumstantial evidence is often ignored and mocked by the close minded on this sub. Most people on this sub are well aware that there is enough evidence to warrant an investigation.

And yea OP, I saw some guy trying to muddy the waters on Tony's art collection the other day as well the the "hoax" claim.

How would an investigator approach an investigation based on art taste?

The accusations are that he has involvement or knowledge of some sort of organized pedophilia ring or human trafficking.

With this as context, the art (depicting naked adolescent children that are bound), sure as fuck fits into the investigation and would be taken into consideration by prosecutors....

That's called begging the question.

It's based on way more than just this.

And a napkin.

Hmm, I think we both know it's alot more than that.

Making snide remarks just tells me that you won't accept the info even if I were to go link you to a collection of it all. Shame.

(Anyone reading this can start with the list on Voat if you are actually interested).

More of nothing doesn't become something.

I'm sure he'd take one look at someone's predilection for collecting quasi-kiddie porn paintings and stylized prints of nude adolescents and say "Nah, it's only art, and not very likely this guy could really be into messing with underage kids, he just really likes the idea of it... duh!"

And yet there are investigators at every level of the law and pretty much none of them are investigating him or anyone else for art.

It really isn't people getting emotional. It's actually a heavily shilled topic, because pedophilia is an important way that politicians are blackmailed by donors and the deep state. I'm actually surprised that there aren't any shills in this thread, but I think they took the day off.

good job......the work is evolving.

Ha, I was thinking of that exact same gentleman. He's really good at the debunking game, and actually has some good points. Except, like you pointed out, he leaves out or glosses over the incriminating parts.

Looking back on it now, that post was full of shills or TMoR monkeys or some shit It wasn't natural, it was some weird coordinated effort by multiple people to drop shitty troll questions and upvote each other.

Arch of Hysteria has nothing to do with Dahmer

It doesn't. At least not according to the artist, art historians or the MoMA. It looks like the pose from Dahmer's victims, but it also looks just like this too. I doubt that the artist would duck the Dahmer label. But don't let that derail your narrative!

Here's the thing, if you had said "it sure looks a lot like Dahmer's photos" then you would have been correct. But you didn't. You just lept to the assumption that it was based off of it. If the artist had intended the resemblance, why don't you think they wouldn't have mentioned it? Clearly they're not above the shock factor.

Hell, the artist could have had their studio wallpapered with that photo. But you don't know that. You just assumed that it was the source with no information beyond 'gut feeling' which is why people don't take pizzagate seriously.

"Looks to be based off of"

Good job with the weasel words. If you wanted to be more accurate you'd write "We should persecute someone for being a pedophile because their art makes me feel icky"

Well your previous research was so thorough and accurate..

https://mindhacks.com/2008/06/30/arch-of-hysteria/

The sculpture, name and all is a direct reference to Grande Hysterie Full Arch, an illustration of hysterical epilepsy by Jean-Martin Charcot. Bourgeois is really into Freud, who was mentored by Charcot. She also does a lot of shit with sex...the sculpture is without a head but it's also missing a dick and balls. Funny that garbage pizzagate wiki doesn't even mention the illustration by name.

She did a lot of shit with both hysteria and creepy rooms over a number of years and she commonly sculpted isolated body parts and figures missing them. How confident are you an 80+-year-old Bourgeois was familiar with that single crime scene photo years before people started putting Dahmer evidence in books and the like? Remember this was the early 90s. And how come the arms and legs of the statue are oriented more like a hysteric's than that corpse's? I'm not saying Dahmer couldn't have been an influence (and so what if he was?) but it's not as certain as people are making out.

Alright, so you're just going to ignore the fact Bourgeois started sculpting it right after the Dahmer case and pictures went public?

She was working on arch of hysteria poses since before Dahmer was even arrested. See this work from 1989. Plus, the arch of hyseria pose has been drawn and commented on since the late 1800s. Are you just going to ignore that and instead believe a baseless claim?

It was from earlier and the whole arch of hysteria pose predated Dahmer by decades, so the fact that there's a picture of a victim in that pose is irrelevant. It's just a coincidence. (Or maybe Dahmer was influenced by the arch of hysteria.) Either way, the artwork was not influenced by Dahmer.

Still in torture chamber is just a metaphor.

As for his good buddy, all he wrote was that he'd kept in touch with him; he didn't say they were good friends. And of course he would have kept in touch with him – he was a political lobbyist and Hastert was a powerful political figure. He wouldn't have been doing his job if he hadn't. And did you bother to check the date of that email? It was before Hastert went to trial and months before the accusations of child abuse were made public. If someone you know and have emailed gets arrested for child abuse next year, does that make you also guilty of child abuse?

Contrast that sculpture with this so-called famous quote from Bourgeois...

"Art is restoration: the idea is to repair the damages that are inflicted in life, to make something fragmented - which is what fear and anxiety do to a person - into something whole."

Does that form strike you as being or leading any observer towards something restored and whole or into and towards something fragmented that induces fear and anxiety instead? Would you say it is in any way whole-some?

This is the same creepy woman that produced a huge oversized and nightmarish spider that when questioned about it said it was actually "a tribute" to her dear departed Mother and then proceeded to describe spiders in the most affectionate and endearing ways which she says her Mother exemplified.

This is how she exonerates and excuses the creations she inflicts on others in "the name of art". Retreating and hiding behind what she claims her own personal interpretation is as if she was completely unaware of how they would affect anyone with normal sensibilities. This is the kind of psycho-babble that supports and surrounds the complete and utter fraud that most modern art actually is.

Not once did I quote Bourgeois' claims about the sculpture in my argument. Not once did I say the sculpture isn't creepy. Hysterical epilepsy is pretty creepy.

Since when is this about the validity of modern art? (By "most modern art" you mean a subset of contemporary art BTW.)

I wasn't criticising, merely elaborating on your comment. There is also no such thing as Hysterical epilepsy, and by that I mean it isn't epileptics that suffer from it.

True enough it is a hysterical seizure but deemed to be of "psychogenic" origins... a seizure that results from some purely psychological cause. I suggest you bear that in mind in relation to what we're actually talking about or why the Podestas are attracted to and collect the kind of "art", if it can be called that, that they do.

As for the anything goes that I've seen in public galleries there seems to be a huge disconnect on what passes for art not to mention what is paid for some it. It's hardly a subset when it's given the same kind of legitimacy as pieces that actually have some artistic merit and if anything induces an even greater lack of that in those that do because of it.

i think the main thing you fail to understand about conceptual art is the concept part

You mean like the concept of five million dollars for a Rothko stripe? I can grasp the nature of that concept. Can you?

what's your grasp of the concept

You must give some indication of what the so-called "concept" you are thinking of and referring to is in this case and where it exists in the landscape of your own mind... what ideas lead you to it, what other ones are associated with it... and where that leads you to from there. Otherwise I have no idea of what you are actually referring to.

The whole process of "thinking" consists of moving through and between "concepts" all of which are linked by various "ideas" that make it possible to locate and more clearly identify and understand what any of them are or mean in terms of other ideas that are already known.

We operate and communicate with one another through a body of shared ideas and human feelings that we all possess for which the very words you are now reading are merely stand-ins for.

That is the underlying "concept" that you might call "the art of writing" and why it is an "art", only here we are painting, if you will, with the artifice of letterforms and words whose structured combinations and overall design and flow we mutually agree and rely upon in order to effectively communicate with one another.

If I have something worthwhile or that I think is important to relate and communicate to you that I want to you to grasp and understand I don't give you gibberish or nonsense.

I have to rely on some basic and fundamental conventions that I don't play fast and loose with or throw right out the window but must concentrate on more strictly adhering to in order to have any hope of actually doing that, unless of course, I really didn't really care about that in the first place.

Yet why would I even be bothered to do it if that was the case?

I can't put any ideas or concepts into your head that aren't already there, I can only give you some of the same sign-posts, these words that are stand-ins for all the ideas we already know, share, and have in common in order to accomplish that.

If you accept that the Art of Communicating our thoughts, ideas and feelings as accurately as we can to one another as the essence of all true art, then any and every art is defined by just how well it spontaneously appears to do that and to what extent we can mutually agree that it does. It takes a considerable amount of invisible thought and effort to achieve that kind of spontaneous communication, no matter what form it takes.

It's not supposed to take any effort or imagination on the receiving end if it's to achieve it's purpose. It's the effort and imagination that supposed to go into it that makes it what it is, not the other way around.

Does that make my grasp of it, as you put it, any clearer to you?

it does and also reveals to me a pretty small-minded view of art. Words may be signposts to direct meaning but colors are far more subjective, and the mark of a good artist is not at all what he consciously attempts to inspire very often making art is plunging into the aether returning with form and leaving that up to interpretation.

nah bro that's literally just art thinking about concepts in different ways it's very basic

I didnt think they looked at all like dead children, i thought they looked like dead or sick women.

No, he said that Podesta doesn't own the art that was shown in the OP's photo. Which is true.

investigators

Ha!

He doesn't mention anything about the picture of the toddler being groped or the two dead children in the marsh.

As I said, some of Podesta's vast art collection has disturbing themes. So what? The painting with the "toddler being groped" is supposed to seem menacing. That's the whole point of it. It's part of a series based on a disturbing fairy tale. Do you not grasp the difference between art and reality? Between fiction and nonfiction?

I've seen Little Red Riding Hood art in people's houses. Does that mean that those people want wolves to eat grandmothers?

I don't know about his buddy you mention, but I saw this floated the other day, like this shit is a genetic issue. You think being a perv runs in the family or something? Because that argument makes zero sense.

The other day it was stated like because they're brothers, they must both be pervs.. this argument is even worse.

Don’t really think you can compare little red riding hoods gran being eaten to a 74 old billionaire having an abusive, rapist, paedophilic art collection, cuddly toys in his bedroom and an underground noise cancelling basement ...

abusive, rapist, paedophilic art collection

A vast, vast art collection with many kinds of art. A small sample:

• Album 1 - Many from the National Museum of Women in the Arts
• Album 2 - From the Hirshhorn Museum
• Album 3 - From the Phillips Collection
• National Gallery Art pieces from the Podesta Collection

cuddly toys in his bedroom

Very revealing that you think this is evidence of something nefarious.

an underground noise cancelling basement ...

A basement movie theater (with screens on all four walls) ... which they showed off to reporters and photographers. Which nobody found suspicious at the time ... because there is nothing suspicious about it.

Have you debunked the guy's claims?

Why should he mention any of those other things? He was pointing out an obvious lie. Shouldn't you be in favor of people spreading the truth and calling out disinformation?

It isn't evidence, I have a picture of charles manson in my living room and have no criminal record.

How user name checks out

Not yet, but I don't know if being friends with someone matters or not, we don't arrest the friends of murderers.

Friends? Maybe, probably more likely to ask them alibis and where the main suspect was rather than bring in every friend of every suspect.

Friends? Maybe, probably more likely to ask them alibis and where the main suspect was rather than bring in every friend of every suspect.

No, not really. There is no precedent I can think of where friends of those accused of a crime are assumed to be involved for no reason other than knowing them.

You may think theyre plausibly culpable for not comings forward but nobody would or should assume that the thousands and thousands of people who've crossed paths with say Weinstein and Spacey are involved in the same behavior. What art or media they're interested in wouldn't add to that.

It isn't evidence

Rule 401 of the federal rules of evidence says:

"Evidence is relevant if:

(a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and

(b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action."

I think you meant to say it isn't conclusive proof on its own, and you would be correct. But it is circumstantial evidence:

"Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime...

On its own, circumstantial evidence allows for more than one explanation. Different pieces of circumstantial evidence may be required, so that each corroborates the conclusions drawn from the others. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more likely once alternative explanations have been ruled out"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence

You can imagine scenarios where someone could make a circumstantial case involving the creepy artwork. Say that some skeletal remains showing signs of having the meat cut off with knives were found in the basement of his home and they were dated to a range that partially covered the time period he was in the home, but partially the previous owner.

Neither the remains nor the artwork is proof on its own, but finding skeletal remains showing signs of cannibalism combined with his artwork depicting cannibalism is probably enough to convince most juries that he was responsible for the deaths.

Yeah but there is no evidence of a crime for him yet, only evidence you can attribute to certain crimes, something you can do for anyone at all.

Yeah but there is no evidence of a crime for him yet

I just spent like 8 pararaphs explaining how his creepy artwork is circumstantial evidence of a crime.

So arrest the artist? Arrest anyone who saw this art in a museum? This is thought crime at this point.

So arrest the artist? Arrest anyone who saw this art in a museum?

No. Do a proper investigation. The double-talk in his e-mails, alone, would be plenty of evidence to start an investigation on suspicion he is trafficking drugs or human beings.

I would think his tax returns would be better evidence than words in emails, and he doesn't seem to have unaccounted for money or the strange real estate deals that Trump & friends have but that isn't getting touched either, besides by the special counsel. And then still, you need to find a crime before investigating evidence otherwise we would investigate anyone who owns a gun.

I would think his tax returns would be better evidence than words in emails

That's something for an investigator to look at.

and he doesn't seem to have unaccounted for money or the strange real estate deals that Trump & friends have

If you want to talk about that, start a thread. This is about Podesta.

And then still, you need to find a crime before investigating evidence

It sounds like you believe that you must have proof that someone committed a crime, like a dead body, before you start an investigation. That's not the case at all.

Just look at something like IRS criminal tax investigators, who can come after you because you live in a million dollar house and work at McDonald's. They don't have to prove someone made a million dollars selling drugs and to tie it to the McDonald's employee.

In other words, no, you don't "need to find a crime before investigating evidence"

The IRS came because he has a reported income of 20k yet payed cash for a 1m dollar home, those are 2 things that together suggest a crime has occured. Podesta owns pictures and could have been talking in coded emails about drugs or children yet no drugs or children related crimes exist around him.

You're inventing a requirement that someone must find the drugs or children to launch an investigation into suspected drug or human trafficking.

We do have a 4th amendment.

Do you realize how dangerous it is to claim that creepy art is circumstantial evidence is?

You posting on a conspiracy forum is circumstantial evidence that you are a terrorist.

Do you realize how dangerous it is to claim that creepy art is circumstantial evidence is?

Not at all. There is absolutely no danger in objectively evaluating evidence. There is a lot of danger in refusing to examine evidence of child abuse. Ask anyone who was raped by a Catholic priest and experienced stone-walling because the abusers had key positions of power in the church.

You posting on a conspiracy forum is circumstantial evidence that you are a terrorist.

You literally sound like an FBI agent.

You literally sound like an FBI agent.

Ya that's the point- that somebody could plausibly think any given fact could make you more likely to commit a crime is not real evidence by any stretch of he imagination. You're asking for a fascist nanny-state but just assuming that everything that you think is a reasonable thought-crime is what would happen.

that somebody could plausibly think any given fact could make you more likely to commit a crime is not real evidence by any stretch of he imagination.

That is simply not what the laws of the United States of America say. If you want to change it, that's fine, but it's not how things work.

You're asking for a fascist nanny-state

No, I'm asking for an investigation of a high-level official who has more circumstantial evidence of his wrongdoing available (in the form of his e-mails) than anyone I can think of on the entire face of the planet.

No it's not- I would assume there has to actually be a ducking crime first. Again, you're asking for a nanny state. You are wrong if you think you aren't. You just think it's not because you reeeeally feel like this guy is a baddy even though there is no actual evidence of even a crime being committed. Investigators and judges uuuusually like that sort of thing.

As said below- should you be investigated for posting on /r/Conspiracy ?

Are you a lawyer or a detective?

Are you a lawyer or a detective?

Retired detective.

Trump was also friends with him and walked in the dressing rooms of underage girls. He talked repeatedly in ways, about his daughter, that are very suspect. Should he be investigated for the same charges?

Do you realize how dangerous it is to claim that creepy art is circumstantial evidence is?

You posting on a conspiracy forum is circumstantial evidence that you are a terrorist.

But by your definition simply having a child would make it "more likely" that you would commit the crime of abusing them or anything else. Simply making something literally plausible does not work when there is zero evidence whatsoever that a crime has eve occurred.

But don't you need to actually have some evidence that a crime is being committed? There are no victims to be found.

Sure. And that's why Podesta should be under investigation, so that we can get a lot more specifics on what he has been up to, or else find out he's just an innocent guy who likes disgusting artwork.

The only real lead that seems plausible is the McCann police sketches. People should be hounding the Spanish police

This is a complete misunderstanding of the Federal Rules of Evidence. First of all, Rule 401 only applies in a trial, where someone has already been charged with a crime. Podesta has not been charged with a crime. Secondly, Rule 401 is a very very general rule, and the rest of the Rules of Evidence heavily circumscribe what kind of evidence can actually be let in.

That's because the rules relating to a trial are the most strict out of anything in the are of criminal procedure.

When you're deciding whether or not to start an investigation, there are no rules of evidence at all. Generally, as long as you're not using evidence illegally collected by the government, or starting an investigation for an expressly illegal purpose (like because someone is a minority), you can start an investigation on nothing but a hunch. For example, if a cop thinks someone looks funny, they can walk over and ask them questions.

The level of evidence required is higher when you start talking about things like pulling someone over or demanding ID (reasonable suspicion) or searching someone's home (probable cause). But you don't need to have any of this to initiate an investigation.

If you took out the context of who the person was I would straight away call it out for being a peado. As someone who knows and likes art this shit is over my head. That photo of the toddler really is disturbing. Although I do like the idea of him really being into dressing up like a toddler and taking it up the back door. But unfortunetly I dont think thats the case. Its just so brazen and in your face. Thats what I dont get. Wouldnt anyone visiting his place or seeing this before call him out for it!?

His circle of peers are all into the same shit so i imagine that's why no one says "hey, wtf are you hanging on your walls here, pal?"

Just crazy. I mean, I have been to a lot of shows and seen some fucked up art in my time but not something that if it was found on a laptop you would be brought in for questions. I know a lot of people in family law that would walk into that place and instantly wonder where the fuck the dungeon is. I bet he has one, Girl With The Dragon Tattoo style. I bet the journolists was like ....what was that ? "Oh just the wind" I have been on this subreddit for about a month and in that space of time I went from just looking for some pulpy conspiracy to being completely shocked and appalled this stuff is so out in the open.

I know a lot of people in family law that would walk into that place and instantly wonder where the fuck the dungeon is.

https://i.redd.it/tv2wg5ei6poz.jpg

He does have a sound proof theatre in his basement. He said it's for watching "complicated videos" that are "difficult to display."

FFS. The more I see the more I get angry. Its not just hiding in plain sight, he is literally doing everything actually fucking them in front of our face. arggggggh

Yea man, that's a normal reaction to this disturbing shit. They've been protected for so long that they got complacent and barely tried to hide it.

Check out who bought a house next to him..

http://archive.is/IBGyz

Obamas’ Next Home: 9 Bedrooms in a Wealthy Washington Neighborhood

“It’s a very quiet neighborhood; that’s part of the reason why all of us like it there,” said Tony Podesta, a well-connected Democratic lobbyist and brother of John D. Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman.

Mr. Podesta, who lives two doors from the house the Obamas will rent, invites neighbors for pizza parties in his backyard, where he has a pizza oven. Several times a day, a line of parked taxis snakes down the street, their occupants drawn to the Islamic Center on the block for Muslim prayers.

If I had a pile of papers Id throw them in the air right now. Ive lived in the UK for most of my life and watched the BBC stuff unfold. I always thought that was a front to keep the wolves at bay and protect the higher ups from being exposed. I now think Weinstein/Spacey/Hollywood are the expendables and people like Podesta etc....are being spared .

But there are ZERO accusations. Not even whispers. At least with Weinstein/Spacey there were stories. How do you say someone is clearly a fire when there is no smoke, just a lighter and a newspaper?

I get you. The Podesta thing is new to me but others seemed to have been theorizing about this for a while. The same way Edward Heath and Mountbatten were part of something bigger. There were people looking into their connections with paedo rings but then the BBC situation happened. I was just relate something I experience in the UK to what I think could possibly be happening now.

I just get weary with people rehashing the same old shit, all of which is easily explained away in some way. People connecting a lot of dots except for any dots to indicate a crime has taken place.

Good points. Unfortunately, logic doesn't thrive on these kinds of threads, so your words of truth will fall on deaf ears.

Just because the stories of weinstein and spacey were exposed doesn't mean there isn't kids/people with stories of podesta...

they dont let the kids they rape live after

I mean that there were stories available about both already

I'd agree if the sick art didn't exist. 5/10 $0.02

They didn't make the art and nobody is calling for the artists to be investigated for crimes.

Howbout you hang em in your home then. You know why you won't? Cause you know people will assume you're a pederast as they should. Someone that has art like this is MUCH more likely to be a kiddie diddler.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_qCmuJWiAQ It's been going on for ever

Godfuckingdammit!

“Ta-dahhhhhh!!!!!”

i've been to an art installation that required like 12 projector screens and multiple speakers to provide directional sound as multiple movies all played at once that made it appear as if it was a single movie playing across all of the screens.

that was the first thing that came to my mind when i saw that picture, as it's somewhat similar to what i saw at a museum.

hidden in plain sight..that's how they've always pulled off their shit. While everyone is expecting what's hidden to be Really Hidden, no one notices the political figure who just likes him some "art".

Exactly. The media's reaction alone was very telling. They slammed the door on it so hard and fast. But they never extinguished the fire yet. We even forced them to stage a shooting in the stupid pizza place...

It's getting bigger and bigger

Yea it's a limited hangout so far, but eventually they will run out of stooges to sacrifice. We need to big dogs at the top to go to prison for life.

The media's reaction alone was very telling.

the MSM is CIA/Deep State and the CIA will control people however distastefully they need to do so. The CIA has an atrocious history of what the org will do. From Mossadegh to Viet-Nam to inner-city crack to 9/11, it seems the CIA's moral boundaries are pretty maleable. There's little reason to think the CIA isn't mixed up in child trafficking and sating pedos.

Actually, lots of journalists have asked Tony Podesta about his art. That's how you know about it. And the Podestas' collection was the focus of several exhibits. It is a widely admired collection.

That's the normal reaction to his actual collection by people who haven't been conditioned to see it as evidence of pedophilia. We don't need to speculate about people's reactions because there were numerous articles and exhibitions as well as the many parties at the Podestas with hundreds of guests.

In addition to the wikileaks proof that Tony Podesta remained friends with Hastert, here's some more info for you on the Podestas' relationship with "Denny" Hastert.

From https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/1497611

Tony Podesta
Tony Podesta, John Podesta's brother and the guy who has a "pasta" obsession according to many e-mails did a 3 to 4 month trip to Japan with Dennis Hastert where they both taught students. In his first year of graduate school, Hastert spent three months in Japan as part of the People to People Student Ambassador Program.[29] One of Hastert's fellow group members was Tony Podesta (then the president of the Young Democrats at University of Illinois at Chicago Circle).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Hastert
Hastert admitted to molesting kids when he did work as a teacher.
http://archive.is/h6Xwl
Tony Podesta still keeps in regular contact with Hastert.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/48488

From https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/1645566/8041824

This is from the Chicago Mag Interview: Politico’s Glenn Thrush says that your brother can have a “short fuse;” that he has “a sulfuric evil twin [named SKIPPY] so fearsome that even the brash Rahm Emanuel scrambled for cover.”I think that John has high standards. And I think that the people who worked for him in the White House and people who worked for him at CAP love and respect him. He has moments when people disappoint. He sometimes can make that clear. And just for Gits & Shiggles Tony Says: Are there other people from Chicago who went on to run for office whom you knew when you lived here, went to school here?I went to college with Denny Hastert, Carol Moseley Braun, and Steve Schiff, who became a Republican congressman from Albuquerque, New Mexico. We were all in student government at the U of I. In 1965, Hastert and I were part of a two-month student delegation to Japan. We traveled around the country, taught at an English camp for two weeks, met with local YMCA leaders. We were there for the 20th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima. Hastert was not like Clinton or Rahm. I did not see the seed of political power. We’re still friends. I knew him when he was Speaker. His personality has not changed at all from 1965 to 2013. He’s a decent, wonderful guy. People like and respect him. I was surprised to see him elected to Congress, but, once there, I was not surprised to see him become Speaker of the House. HE SAYS ABOUT HASTERT: He's a decent wonderful guy. Has not changed at all. Whoa!

From http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/podesta093098.htm

"My feeling is that John has a good moral point of view -- and he certainly has a tough job to do," says Rep. Denny Hastert (R-Ill.), the chief deputy Republican whip and an old college pal of Podesta's brother Tony (the Podestas grew up in Chicago). "He's tried to do it with as much dignity and honesty as he could possibly bring forward."

Hastert even wrote about Podesta and their time together in Japan in his book https://books.google.com/books?id=k_maI6BGFA0C&pg=PT33

• Tony Podesta, president of the Young Democrats at the University of Illinois (Chicago Circle), was a member of our group. We didn't see eye-to-eye politically, but the trip was interesting. During my nearly three months there, I really fell in love with Japanese culture. We were part of a People to People program…

And some useful info about Nose and pedophilia in Japan.

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/5t93nn/the_nose_knows_and_its_all_coming_together_the/ https://www.quora.com/Why-is-pedophilia-common-in-Japan

thanks TIL

Man you ain't even trying to be casual about it anymore are you?

Honestly what's your connection to the Podesta Bros.?

If you truly represent fairness and accuracy in the coverage of their role in US political power games then who are you, what is your connection to the Podesta bros, why do you turn up in darn near every single thread?!

Why do you chime in like clockwork on every note worthy thread on the podestas always to defend them?

Every time always with the pro-podesta, defensive, reframing of the narrative?

What's your deal man? Why do you care so much and never comment anywhere else on r/consp.

You're shady AF I can feel it and in fact looking at your posting history you simply appear to be an apologist for the state/Official NarrativeT™

Wow. You are 100% right. His comment history is very telling of his job to put out fires.

There's several of them here that seem to show up in damn near every thread that talks about this stuff. Your questions are completely legitimate, and I too would like like some answers.

Wouldnt anyone visiting his place or seeing this before call him out for it!?

Most of his friends are also perverts. Read his e-mails, and search by "spirit cooking" or "Moloch." Yes, Moloch, the ancient Canaanite deity that was condemned in biblical times for the cult of child sacrifice.

Been learning a lot about this Moloch stuff lately. Jeffrey Epstein of pedo island fame apparently has some kind of "temple" looking thing on his island with owl statues. (There are drone photos of said temple). Owls are a symbol of Moloch. From this followed finding out about "Bohemian Grove", which I had never heard about previously. Apparently the world's power players all gather in the Northern CA woods for a creepy ass culty gathering once a year? Some kind of Moloch thing involved there as well. All this of course is completely legit. Nothing to see here.

Yeah it's too late for me. Send help 😂

go ahead and check out the owl shaped roads in dc, the owl on the 1 dollar bill, and the political buildings that make up the points of a satanic star

its really fucked

Yikes. The bible does say, we do not war against flesh and blood (people) but the powers and principalities (demons, spirits)

I believe it.

when you're at the top i cam only imagine what sort of hive mind religion they have going on that trickles down to us.

I don't follow many of these conspiracies I just read from time to time, never did follow the pizzagate one either. Still not sure who the Podesta's are, but hear their name often.

But I am a big fan of art. I have a very open mind when it comes to art, very little offends me and I have a fairly broad taste. When I saw these pieces of "art" though it made me a bit nauseous. If I went into an art collector's home and saw just one of those pieces I would be grossed out and shrug it off, but he seems really into it and at that point I would have a lot of questions to ask before ducking the fuck out the back door and never returning.

Ditto!

He has the stuff on the walls for a reason. You either know you are in the right place, or should leave. I doubt you want to "call him out for it."

Thank you, we need to bring common sense back into this sub. People were literally defending Podesta and dismissing his interest in art completely. I bet his underground vault has much more perverse material, otherwise why is it underground? Whilst googling Katy Grannan I came across some other photos by different artists. Lets just say if you Google image search "Saatchi kids on the beach" you will see two completely naked kids, no censorship or anything, just wearing masks. I don't give a shit about "edgy" art, this is all sick.

Haha where would I be without my bowl man. We'll soon find out if Podesta bros make it or break it, I've gotta be high for that.

I found an article about the photo you mentioned, it's got the photo just highly pixelated. The photographer defends her photo, and explains her reasoning. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2001/mar/13/childprotection

Honestly, they were overseas at a beach where nude kids are the norm. I'm an American, but I also realize that nudity isn't bad which seems to be what she believes too.. most of the world doesn't see nudity as inherently sexual, but that's something I see a lot of Americans communicate. I think it's mostly the religious type who've been taught nudity is wrong.

If you read the article, I'm curious if you still see it the same way, after seeing how the mother explains it. She even mentioned she'd never take pictures of they were making suggestive poses, which I think is important.

Is nudity inherently sexual? I didn't get that vibe from that picture, seems more like innocence to me, which is what the art critics made mention of as well.

No nudity is not wrong, nudity is not sexual. Those pictures shouldn't bother anybody or turn them on, but we live in a world where paedophiles and rapists are rampant, so we need to protect children from this bahaviour.

My parents have plenty of polaroids of me and my siblings naked, up until age of 6 or 7. Now of course they were only capturing memories, its normal. But those pics never went up online or been shown to everyone, so thats fine.

But now with the use of internet this material can be wide spread, it can end up in the wrong hands. I'm really glad the kids are wearing masks, I can see she is a sensible enough photographer to protect them. But it only takes one sicko who sees the photos and decides to track the kids down, which is very easy now with all social media profiles and personal information stored online. Slim chance of it happening of course, but deffinitely not impossible.

I know these threads won't always get much exposure, but I think it's important to repost all this info every couple of weeks to make sure some amount of people always know what has been discovered previously.

I like Breaking Bad, should I be under investigation for meth trafficking?

So he's guilty of what his friends do? Does that make sense to you?

Ain't no judge nowhere giving you a warrant based on that; and that's a good thing.

You have a laughably simple idea of what detectives actually do.

This is just stupid. That’s like saying I watched dexter and other shows about killing people so now i should be investigated for a murder in my town

I’m not saying the man is innocent I’m just responding To the comment

Agree with that. Most you can say is where there is smoke,.....

If you had a bunch of art pieces depicting people smoking and selling meth, and a best buddy who trafficked meth, it would (in my opinion) warrant an investigation.

Is that a joke? Because it absolutely would not. I've got friends who've done and sold hard drugs. I've spent a lot of late nights and Comet and have known and dated people who worked there and have been there for closing, very late, and opening, very early. I've gone to shows put on by some of the poor people who make cool art and got jumped on by a bunch of losers who don't know what art is because they were associated with Comet Ping Pong and that meant that their art was pedophilic "satanic" (in fucking 2016). There's a reason why people don't take these theories seriously. You're not helping your case with your laughably simple idea of how investigations work.

I don't know anyone who worked there 8 years ago. I know people who've worked there (and people who've played very late shows there, or worked very early hours next door) within the past 6 years. Do you have a source on this that isn't a deleted Reddit AMA?

That's... exactly the same stuff I already read. None of this is "proof." The idea that it comes anything close to proof, especially when every single non-anonymous employee doesn't back up this story, is sad. No other victims have come forward--hell, even this alleged victim didn't, short of penning and then deleting accusations on Reddit. It's probably also worth noting that Comet CANNOT LEGALLY HIRE 17-year-olds, per DC law, because they sell beer.

You have friends who sell hard drugs? That tells me all I need to know about you.

Yes, it makes sense to me. I'm with you on this and on your side.

According to the Email he said, "Denny should vanish to an undisclosed Japanese island." This email is dated one fucking day before Dennis Hastert was busted for it. So, he knew about it and clearly wanted his pedo friend to avoid any legal problems.

If you stay friends with a pedophile you're a piece of shit.

According to the Email he said, "Denny should vanish to an undisclosed Japanese island."

No he didn't, a completely different person wrote that.

This email is dated one fucking day before Dennis Hastert was busted for it.

That is also not true. It was written on May 28 2015, the same day Hastert was indicted. There is even a link to the news in the email chain.

Do you people actually read the Podesta emails?

It was not his brother, it was A. Jake Siewart. Podesta didn't even reapond to the email. The entirety of Pizzagate is centered on people claiming John Podesta is using "pizza codes" in his emails and yet Pizzagaters haven't found a single "code email" written by him. So now they are falsely attributing other emails to him.

Did you read this Wikileak email from Tony?

It's a list of people from a camp Tony Podesta has had contact with over the past 50 YEARS. He never refers to Hastert as a friend in that email, or any email. He also never he has says he stayed in contact with Hastert after his arrest, considering this email was written only 3 days after his indictment.

Birds of a feather flock together.

Lol, Let's say "yes".... Do you honestly believe that everyone who is friends with a meth dealer who also likes Breaking Bad is worthy of investigation??

Insane.

It's a great analogy, sorry dude.

Eh I will say if there's anything to him knowing about the crimes of this other guy that may be something. I don't know if that bit of email would be enough or what the actual crime would be and I would need to know a shitload more about the context of the emails once sooooo many of these supposed Pizzagate things have been utter bunk.

But maybe possibly knowing about a crime is a completely different matter than being plausibly accused of it yourself or any type of art you have.

If this whoooole Pizzagate bullshit was about "Hey I think Tony Podesta knew about Dennis Hastert's crimes" that maaaay be something. Maybe not.

But it's not- it's an insane assumed pedophelia ring based entirely on one association and more primarily art and instagram posts that are maaaybe in poor taste. Oh and a whole lot of bullshit and confirmation bias

THERE ARE WIKILEAKS DISCUSSING HOW JP KNEW HE WAS GUILTY and how he should escape to a "remote Japanese island". That in itself is enough to suggest they KNEW he was molesting children and they didn't alert the authorities.

You mean the email where they discuss his guilt AFTER it was announced to the public?

Birds of a feather flock together.

A metaphor not yet mindlessly accepted by the US justice system, I'm happy to say.

But it is usually true.

...Not really. This would mean in every instance of every crime, the majority of people one knows are also committing that crime. Absurd. People have friends, relatives, mothers, sisters, etc etc.

Think of any person you know who is the only (or one of very few) people who do, I mean, literally anything... Do you do that thing?

I do not have friends who do "anything". Sorry to disappoint you. But you can definitely judge me by the company I keep.

Everyone does... or a family member, or priest...

Remember, shills always show up when we talk about pedophilia or sex crimes of the elites. Don't just scream back at them, make sure you prove them wrong using facts and logic.

Elite pedophilia for blackmail purposes is not a conspiracy theory. It has been proven on many occasions, from the Catholic Church's abuse scandal, to Jerry Sandusky, Dennis Hastert, the Dutroux Affair, and Jeffrey Epstein.

Even if you don't think Podesta is a pervert, there is overwhelming evidence that there are perverts in positions of power, and they do abuse their power to cover this up.

This is part of what blows my mind. Political/elite pedophilia rings have already been found to exist in the UK. One of the first comments I ever saved. Is everyone forgetting about that? Why would they think the U.S. is immune to it, especially given all of this circumstantial evidence?

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

I'll wait for https://www.reddit.com/user/twsmith to come around and defend Podesta eloquently, like he is probably paid to do or has convinced himself to do. Sorry, /user/twsmith, you're very convincing, except you're not.

listen_to_this_man

Fucking A. I've been calling this guy out for two or three threads now.

He is suss and shady AF, always with the same defensive, reframing of the narrative, apologising for the state/podesta/Official Narrative™.

Removed. Rule 5, 10.

I'm not following them I just notice them in many podesta related threads always with the same stance.

I've simply asked them on two occasions what's with their dogmatic defense of podesta.

I have not abused them.

I have not PMed them abuse.

I have not followed them about wider reddit threads.

Look at my posting HX and you can clearly see I'm not engaging in any trolling behaviour.

Removed. Rule 10.

Apologies. Noted.

Am I going to end up on a list from looking at this?

Naturally. Welcome to the club.

Why the fuck is Podesta so into all those gross ass statues of Monsters playing with Little-Kids? Fucking freak!

Who the fuck could even think of something like that shit?! Let alone sculpt it into Art!

it's about "blood over intent".........a form of magic similar to the east african style of "muti".

this is how they got rich in the first place!

Art is always used to transfer illegal money

If you believe your groin is ABOVE your belly button, you need a lesson in biology.

I was going to read your post, but whrn your very first verifiable statement is so blatantly incorrect, I know I need to go no further.

Honestly, that picture looks more like someone holding up a toddler trying to walk.

Given what the picture is, I don't.

It's a toddler being held up at the waist. With only one hand, as the other hand looks like the child's.

lets say you collect art

would you really buy a piece that somehow has a connection so negative

lets say i like music

I'm not going to buy a Chris brown album even it sounds good. he beats women.

him and the album is the same as the painter and the painting.

any replies that are attacking me and not my statements don't apply.

That is the most absurd, forced piece of logic I've ever heard.

There is a separation between art, the artist, and the viewer.

Tom Six probably doesn't like eating feces at home, but he made Human Centipede.

People still cheer for the Ravens, even after the Ray Rice video.

Yes, people are still listening to Chris Brown. Ever listened to Miles Davis, cause he beat his wife too.

There were tons of editorials about Bouguereau and his 'perverse' pieces yet he is still considered, and fundamentally is, one of the greatest French artists of the 19th century.

Saying that an artist is the art they make, or a viewer is the art they view, is absurdly ignorant of the concept of imagination and what art is as a whole.

I probably won't listen to miles davis now that you told me. I don't need to give anyone that's done bad things any time in my head. I only have room for so much and its not them.

anyway thank you for replying about my comment, not sarcasm.

You need to take a step back and rethink your relationship with art. Davis is dead and doesn't give a shit if you listen to his music or not.

Michael Jackson is, without question, the most prolific and influential musician in the last 100 years by creating the pop genre.

He did a lot of weird shit with kids.

None of what he did changed the impact his music had on the world.

If you keep crossing off artist in your mind because you can't separate them from their works your not going to much to enjoy.

so for me, I'm already separated from the mainstream pop flow. its as easy as picking what I want for dinner.

can you back up that the arch of hysteria is dahmer's victims pose? it looks like an exaggerated representation of someone having an orgasm honestly... and there's also one in a gallery in Canada. also, was that a video of an art exhibition at his house or something? do you have proof he set it up / it's connected to him?

the child "groping" picture doesn't seem to out of the ordinary on it's own... isn't really groping

but yeah, the dennis hastert email is very hard to explain. as is the torture room email... people say things like that as a joke (like maybe if it were an exercise room or something?) but in the context of everything else, it's unnerving.

the dead-ish kids in the marsh is also unnerving, especially in the context of everything

that other art (that he doesn't own) is totally fucked up and looks like a recreation of actual sexual abuse

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

thanks TIL

I'm not going to make a post describing why a lot of this list is speculation and outright fantasy, because it's something I've done on various accounts in different places on the internet. It always ends with me being called a shill and a pedophile defender.

But for people who stumble across this post and are on the fence about the whole Podesta art stuff: do you think the government should investigate people for thought crime?

Even if this guy has the creepiest art in the world in his house, there is no victim or evidence of crime. People here feel that his taste in art is evidence enough that he's has to be molesting children.

Would you be okay with the FBI investigating people who post here in an effort to find the next Tim McVeigh?

I agree with you. You can tell a person by the art they have in their home, as well as how they decorate (furniture, etc.).

If you came to my home, it paints a clear and vivid picture of who I am. My home is furnished with antiques. On the walls are still life pictures of rose gardens and beautiful landscapes. What does this say about me? I'm old fashioned and love roses (which is all true).

If I walked into somebody's home and saw art depicting children in underwear, I would leave immediately. I certainly wouldn't be friends with somebody who liked art like that.

I can't believe the people on here defending this artwork either! Sick!

they have been caught in a search-light and they are afraid!

Who? The Podestas? I hope so!

they may "die" and get plastic surgery to continue on their way.

So I'll ask again: If the FBI started investigating random people from this subreddit on the pretense that people who subscribe to conspiracy theories and are generally distrustful of the government are more likely to commit domestic terrorism, would you be okay with that?

I think that there's definitely something to the claims of large-scale pedophilia/human trafficking among elites, but I think people should shut up about this art shit because liking weird/creepy/disturbing/transgressive art does not make someone a sick person. I'm into lots of pretty out-there, transgressive cinema, literature, music, art, etc. And I have plenty of friends who are into similar art and are great people, warm, soulful, compassionate human beings who wouldn't lay a finger on a child in an inappropriate or harmful way. This type of thinking gets way too close to like "thought crime"/witch hunt-level hysteria for me. "Whoa, you like weird art, what are you a kiddie fucker?!?!"

You do realize that having a controversial art collection is in no way a direct indicator that you diddle children right? Correlation does not always equal causation. I'm not taking either side in this question. I am not privy to the proper information or knowledge of the lack of information. All I am saying is that if you levy a claim as devastating to someone such as the accusation of pedophile, you better have more self evidence than just their art collection. Other than that you are nothing more that a smear campaign to ruin someone's life.

Stable not self...

I did read it and you are suggesting that it appears odd that the man has this controversial art collection and collects stuffed animals. I'm saying that the accusation of pedophile is a devastating one and you better have more solid proof other than it appears he could be one based on his taste in art and collection of dolls. Even your proof that his uncle was a pedophile is in no way direct evidence that this man is one too. Like I said, unless you have solid evidence to present you are nothing more than part of a smear campaign to ruin someone's life.

Ok. And all I am saying is that all you are doing is providing speculation on a serious accusation and I think you need to provide more solid proof than that for such a devastating accusation.

Putting that statement in doesn't clean your hands of the potential smear campaign of a maybe innocent person. Imagine I found out some odd things about you that had no direct connection to something illegal, but u highly suggested that it does, but I put draw your own conclusions as a way to clean my hands off the accusation I just suggested. That isn't fair to you. Like I said before solid and direct evidence.

I agree that if the man maintained a friendship with a convicted pedophile that is poor judgement and bad friend strategy. I do not think that there is a direct link between what your friends do and what you do, though.

yea, sounds reasonable for "one of Washington's most powerful lobbyists and fundraisers."

-Lobbying, persuasion, or interest representation is the act of attempting to influence the actions, policies, or decisions of officials in their daily life, -

Maybe factor in the position and influence this individual has.

I don't even get what point you are trying to make. Sorry.

It's some food for thought. I think its fair to be concerned and question an individual who has that much power based on these findings.

Based on what findings? That he has questionable taste in art? That he has supposedly maintained Relationship with a convicted child molester (one who is a member of the republican party for all of you out there who think the dems are the ones that are all child molesting Satanists.)? The fact that he is an influential lobbyist? In what way do any of those things directly connect to this man being a child molester? "food for thought" is nothing more than conjecture. I said it before and I will say it again, I am making no claim either way on this man's guilt or innocence. All I am saying is that if you are going to levy a claim that serious against someone I think you should present more concrete proof other than three things that could appear odd but offer no direct links to your claim.

Most of us are on the side on questioning these concerning details about his background and want to discuss how deep it can go. Questionable taste in art? Is it just questionable or can more reasoning be applied. So on and so forth. The claim isn't being made other than the most obvious is being pictured here.

That's the thing with this information you and op provide, you can't deduce a single thing other than a) you and op don't like the podesta's taste in art. That's your opinion, but I don't recall anyone ever anointing you or op the morality police of artistic expression. You have no right to accuse someone of pedophile simply because you don't like their taste in art. Are you also accusing the artists who produced the works that the podesta's collect of pedophile, too? I admit that not all of it is my personal taste, but nothing this post has shown make my mind jump to accusations of pedophile. In fact it's a bit disturbing and perhaps unfortunately telling to me that seeing that art automatically makes you think of sexually exploiting children. That's scary. Too be honest, I think the work of the artist Patricia Piccinini is quite awesome and weird. If I ever got a chance to see her work in person exhibited some place near me, I'd definitely go. But, this isn't the first time you self righteous morality warriors have accused artists of various forms of degeneracy. The artist Sally Mann produced a photographic series in which she documented her daughters growing up and being children. She has a photo of her four year old being naked and doing what four year olds do. Of course the self proclaimed, "religious warrior" Pat Robertson accused the artist of exploitation, suggesting child pornography. Here is the thing though, for a majority of us normal people, there is nothing sexual in any way about a four year old even if they are naked. They are just a little kid without clothes. Little kids run around naked all the time. They are innocent and haven't developed society's shame toward the human body yet. To look at something like that and automatically have your brain jump to exploitation and pedophile is disturbing to me. B) op suggests that because the Podesta's knew and had a relationship with Dennis Hassert it would be logical to assume that they too are child molesters. Are you also accusing every other person who has ever known the convicted republican pedophile of also being child molesters? Because if you apply that logic to the podesta's you have to apply it to anyone Hassert had a relationship with and I'm guessing that is quite a lot of individuals. Then op posts an email in which an individual sugests to John podesta that the convicted republican child molester might need to run off to Japan. The same supposed Wikileaks Page also includes a blurb that shows that the day after the email was sent individuals testified that Hastert had molested them. It also has a partial highly zoomed in email that says what might be sexual allegations, but that email is dated the day after the first one and shows no addresses to prove that it was sent by our received by a podesta. Also, in May of 2015 Hastert has been indicted in bank structure fraud. It is easy to assume that is what the individual writing to podesta is referring to that because even though the first testimonial accusations against the convicted republican pedophile were made the day after the email was sent, the charges weren't brought up until October of 2016. I don't see any evidence that anyone involved in that email correspondence were privy to the knowledge of the testimonials the day before or even day of them occurring. Usually the prosecution is pretty tight lipped on things of that nature. So unless you are accusing everyone who ever knew Hastert of being in on his sexual abuse or perhaps you know of more information that the rest of us don't have access to, I don't see how one can deduce a connection that one is also a pedophile simply because they knew someone who was convicted of being one. Do you and op have a relationship with Hastert? Did you know he was a pedophile? Why didn't you alert the proper authorities? Sounds like aiding and abetting to me. C) I believe it was you, but it might have been op suggest that one should be concerned of supposed pedophilia because Tony Podesta is a high powered lobbyist with a lot of influence. Again, are you also accusing all high powered lobbyists in DC as being pedophiles because their are quite a few high powered lobbyists in the capital. If I am going to deduce that one could be a pedophile because of the level of his career and influence, should not I also deduce that all are also? D) I didn't touch on this one before, but I will know. Op links to a thread on another site that accuses the uncle of the podesta's of also being a pedophile. Yet, and maybe I missed it, there is no proof of evidence to the accusation. It's nothing more than hearsay. Now should I deduce that anyone making accusations against anyone even with out proper evidence should be believed? Again, I'm not arguing for or against the innocence of either of these men. I just don't think that you can deduce anything based on the supposed evidence you provide. Sure you can "theorize" all you want, but without any more concrete evidence al you are doing is speculating and if we are going to speculate I could theorize that both you and op are also pedophiles.I'm not accusing you of being pedophiles, but I'm not not accusing you of being pedophiles. It just that the fact that you both view art and automatically start thinking of child molestation and you have seemingly inside knowledge of the knowledge the podesta's had of hasterts child molestation exploitations suggest that you too, may have also known hastert and I am deducing that you too knew of his crimes before the general public. That's disturbing. Perhaps others in this thread could dig into your lives to see what we can find so we can all make our own deductions and Theorize our own views on your pedophilia. I'll leave it up to everyone else to make up their own minds on your pedophilia. Just food for thought, eh?

You seem to have mislead yourself here. My point from the beginning wasn't about pedophilia accusations, but rather giving you my intuitive outlook on approaching the matter (in defense OP's evidence from your full dismissal of the evidence/red flags). Furthermore, you have mentioned correlation does not always equal causation, we can all agree with that but to dismiss the evidence and subsequent theory entirely isn't objective. The consensus most people have is the argument you're debating towards (as I haven't disclosed my conclusions thus far). I find OP had more to say than just someone's art, it is the entire profile of the individual that creates the conspiracy. The scope of corruption being displayed in the current political climate is why these posts are popping up more often than not.

And I'm saying your so called "theorization" is nothing more the speculation and your so called evidence is nothing but conjecture. You have no proof of knowledge that either man knew of Hastert's molestation. Op provides accusations that an uncle was a pedophile without any actual evidence. You attest that his position of influence should certainly raise a red flag without giving any solid reason as to why. You provide no real evidence that this man is a pedophile other than the fact that viewing his art work makes you think of child molestation. That, to me, is more telling of you and op than it is of the people who created the art or collected the art. Sorry, but put up some actual evidence that this man or his brother are pedophiles. What you present now isn't objective. In fact it's the opposite of objective reasoning. It's completely subjective.

OP implying correlation, I'm implying objective outlook, no one is implying artwork = child molestation. However, the interest in this type of art being apart of his profile makes it more significant towards a more sinister theory rather than just speculation.

Do you know the definition of objective because everything you are suggesting and the reasons why you think these so called pieces of evidence should be viewed in a way that makes us "theorize" if this man is a pedophile is completely subjective?

Well you aren't going to get all the evidence in one post among many. That's why these findings just add to to it.

Yes, friend, but none of these "pieces of evidence" presented objectively points to anyone being a pedophile. What other solid objective evidence do you have? And I will say that no, I don't consider Internet stories and rumors of #PizzaGate to be solid objective evidence.

You missed my point then, the reasons why theories like those pop up is because we've heard of people in higher positions abuse their power. Who knows what resource they have at their disposal, using money and influence to suit their agenda. The correlations are noteworthy and can matters more (especially for a guy who's under federal investigation) because they're apart of incriminating social circles (haster/manafort). I wouldn't dismiss any correlations but I'd certainly keep an eye on it.

That's all subjective reasoning. To say that there have been people in positions of power have been known to abuse their power and then use that to jump to the conclusion that we should consider the possibility that someone else in a position of power could be a pedophile isn't objective reasoning. You keep bringing up the fact that the podesta's know Hastert as if that logically means they, too, could be pedophiles, but like I said before if you apply that thinking to one person, you have to apply it to anyone who knows Hastert. Are you suggesting everyone who knew Hastert should be considered or "theorized" a possible pedophile? What about people who know the people who know Hastert? Should they, too, be considered possible pedophiles? If you argue that someone who knows a pedophile could also be a pedophile it would be logical to then assume that anyone who knows that person is also a potential pedophile. Keep applying that logic and you have to consider anyone and everyone as a maybe pedophile. Now you bring up Manafort as a reason why one should consider that the podestas could be pedophiles, but unless you have some insider information, I have never heard of him being accused of or investigated regarding pedophilia. Tony podesta's lobbying firm is being investigated regarding their relationship with manafort and a pro Russian Ukrainian group. The is no objective reason there to suggest that you should also consider the guy a pedophile.

Its a conspiracy, not a pedophile accusation. You connect the dots, line them up or group them together but you don't rule out possibilities that like red flags or popular evidence based discussions (some dots are closer than others).

What's the conspiracy then of it isn't that of pedophilia?

https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/7bp926/dont_take_a_single_persons_word_for/

Okay. Hope you stay true to your words:

“I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy. He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life.”

Good. I hate it when someone brings up pizzagate and then go on to claim Trump is going to clean out the "Clinton-Podesta pedophile ring". Double the level of retardedness.

I fully expected to click a link and shrug it off, because I like some disturbing art, and I'm pretty open-minded. What I just saw, however, seems criminal to me. I'm completely appalled.

I'm glad you were able to look past your appreciation of art and see that this has nothing to do with open mindedness or being accepting of differences.

It's fucked thru & thru.

/s

Now people have to justify their art collections to the tinfoilers

I feel like someone needs to stand up for the artists here. Art is often subversive as it acts like a mirror forcing society to have a good look at themselves. Visual artists much like film makers are telling stories and some of those stories are hard to stomache but important none the less, if you took stock of art throughout the ages you’d find that a lot of it (besides portraits) are grotesque. And maybe one of those artists were inspired by crime scene photos, but that is the job of the artist, to find beauty where others dont and use it to create. predetory behaviour is abhorent but so is war and yet if he had art work of gory war feilds no one would be upset. Also you clearly cherry picked pieces that suited your argument and ignored all the other art work he owns. I dont know weather he has done the things you say he has but i know for sure that his artwork and pizza parties dont make him a guilty person. Please try to stay objective

I don't think anyone is faulting the artist here, rather, the collector.

It's art you fucking nerd.

I spend so much time investigating ''pizzagate'' these people are sick, I mean this art collection alone is just bizzare, no matter how you spin it...

Same artist's Wikipedia page describing the art series where the children are literally running away from their father who wants to have sex with them

hide from the matrimonial desires of her father

This is very misleading. The king wants to marry their children off, not have sex with them. Fairy tales are full of such stories.

And the arch of Hysteria has nothing to do with Jeffrey Dahmer', it's about Hysteria, as in the (pseudo-) medical condition. It was based on an illustration from a book published in 1881, called 'Lectures on the Diseases of the Nervous System'.

https://mthumbs.buscape.com.br/livros/grande-histeria-jean-martin-charcot-antonio-quinet-8586011673_300x300-PU6ec800cf_1.jpg

The Podestas are scum that need to be arrested.

It looks more like an adult woman in almost like a diaper with her hands on her hips. You can definitely see her boobs at the top of it.

Yeah but there is no evidence of a crime for him yet

I just spent like 8 pararaphs explaining how his creepy artwork is circumstantial evidence of a crime.

Are you a lawyer or a detective?

Retired detective.

Given what the picture is, I don't.

It's a toddler being held up at the waist. With only one hand, as the other hand looks like the child's.

I do not have friends who do "anything". Sorry to disappoint you. But you can definitely judge me by the company I keep.

Based on what findings? That he has questionable taste in art? That he has supposedly maintained Relationship with a convicted child molester (one who is a member of the republican party for all of you out there who think the dems are the ones that are all child molesting Satanists.)? The fact that he is an influential lobbyist? In what way do any of those things directly connect to this man being a child molester? "food for thought" is nothing more than conjecture. I said it before and I will say it again, I am making no claim either way on this man's guilt or innocence. All I am saying is that if you are going to levy a claim that serious against someone I think you should present more concrete proof other than three things that could appear odd but offer no direct links to your claim.