[VIDEO] Hillary Did It Despite Snopes' Analysis

Politics

It Takes a Village to Damage a Child

Circumstantial evidence suggests that Hillary used a child to further her agenda
Snopes.com correctly refutes the allegations as lacking factual evidence
MarketSlant offers its own observations on why the allegations are likely true

Background

written by Vince Lanci- Both candidates are clowns in our opinion, narcisists with sociopathic tendencies. In the spirit of disclosure: We may vote for Trump. We hope to rupture the 2 party system's complacency and controlled opposition. Trump winning may mess both parties up to the core. Then perhaps the GOP and Dems will start representing the people.

Something is Not Right Here

If you have children as we do, we urge you to watch this. If it is true, odds are it is, based on information and belief, then parents should be appalled.

Take the 6 minutes to watch it without thinking of Hillary v. Trump. Think of what was said to this young girl to get her to comply with someone's wishes.We believe that Hillary has no qualms using a child, just as she has used her sex to further her own ambitions. If you are not concerned for that child, then read no further. We won't chase you to make a point.

The Analysis

At a micro town hall with only maybe 200-300 people in attendance and hosted by actress Elizabeth Banks in Haverford, Pennsylvania Oct 4th, 2016.

Hillary, her daughter, Chelsea, and Banks opened up the stage to ALLEGED impromptu questions.

Sacrificing Values for Ambition

If the analysis is correct, this child is learning at a young age that her acting skills can be used for unethical reasons. And as a child who is good at and loves her trade; How can she refuse such an exciting opportunity when asked in the proper (deceptive) context? Think of the manipulation this girl is undergoing. Her father used her in his own campaign ad, Hillary uses her. What values is she being taught?

Use your skills for advancement under false pretenses.
The ends justify the means?
White lies are ok?
It's all relative?

From Zerohedge- At a Hillary Clinton town hall yesterday in Haverford, Pennsylvania, a 15 year old girl was supposedly "chosen at random" to ask a question of the former Secretary of State. But, the well-scripted performance raised some suspicion with a YouTuber named Spanglevision who decided to dig a little deeper. Pennsylvania democratic , whose father just happens to be Brennan Leach" participant was none other than child actor, random. And, wouldn't you know it, the "State Senator Daylin Leach. Oh, and in case it wasn't obvious, Daylin supports Hillary for president...shocking.

It is shocking, and not just for the effect of getting a reader's attention. The implications of using a child for self interest is repulsive. But It gets worse. Daylin Leach had used his daughter 2 years prior in a campaign ad front and center with Bill Clinton as backdrop. We have to one up ZH here and say "creepy" with regard to the next video.

It Gets Worse

We looked some more and found this. We think it is the same girl in the Town Hall above

2014: A child, shilling in a campaign ad for her father. Complete with Bill Clinton backdrop

What child wouldn't love to sing her Daddy's praises? A child is being used as a tool for her father's ambitions. That is his right we guess. Actually no, it isn't his right. It's more like the mother I saw using her child to panhandle on the 2 train yearsago. Only then, a social worker took the child from her right in front of me. I confronted her, knowing her rank and legal responsibility. I asked her why? And she schooled me.

Why? The child was being objectified, devalued and used as a tool for financial gain. Just like Brennan is.Because the quarter didn't go directly into Daylin Leach's outstretched cup doesn't mean he wasn't looking to benefit financially. Of course he was!

That path puts this girl on a short list for Hillary Clinton's own ambitions. Can you hear her father saying, "It's ok that we are pretending that you were randomly called on, think of the fun. Don't you want to be on TV?"

We continued to dig and found an anti-gun ad in which the same child was seemingly used. At that point we had to stop. We had enough evidence for a reasonable conclusion. Anyone who can, seeks to curry favor with the Clintons because of the payback. Whether it is CT Governor Malloy being promised a cabinet seat or the AG for his loyalty, or some local state senator looking to get connected using any resource he has at his disposal, Hillary did it. Facts? There are none. But facts are a byproduct of truth, not a cause of it. And nobody has a monopoly on the truth, especially those that would impede its discovery by hiding facts.

Snopes.com Weighs In

Author Dan Evon at Snopes.com concludes that the allegations are UNPROVEN

WHAT'S TRUE: Brennan Leach, a 15-year-old who asked Hillary Clinton a question during a Town Hall event in Haverford, Pennsylvania, once played a small part in a short film.
WHAT'S FALSE: There's no evidence that Brennan was "hired" by the Clinton campaign and "planted" in the audience with a specific question to ask during the Town Hall event.

Snopes is Right

No Conclusive Evidence. Using deductive logic they cannot prove the allegations are correct. There are no observable facts.

Evidence- there is no hard evidence- agreed
The conclusions drawn from the circumstantial evidence are not fact based- agreed
The believers of the story are susceptible to hyperbole, bias, and sensationalism- our personal point

Full Snopes article HERE

Snopes Finds Facts, Not Truth

and as such can only use deductive logic as a lawyer does.

Facts are a lawyer's tool, the tool of a deductive logician
Absent facts one must use inductive logic to derive probabilities of truth
Since no-one can know what is going on in the heads of people involved, and polygraphs are unavailable and unreliable, we must use different means to handicap the truth

So what does a person do when they have an imminent decision, with imperfect information and deductive reasoning offers no conclusion that gives comfort? They make inferences using inductive logic.

Inductive Logic: Making decisions with Imperfect Information

-how to choose when facts are not readily available .

Inductive logic is the basis for scientific knowledge. It is used to create observable, deductive facts. Without inductive logic, we would still via deduction the earth was flat in the 15th century, as no conclusive facts were present to prove otherwise. Tools of induction are Conditional Probability and Consilience of Evidence from independent sources.

Conditional Probability- Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck. It's PROBABLY a duck

Conditional Probability ( Bayesian, Subjective) Example

Highly Cognitive but inexperienced Caveman wakes up, goes outside.
Sees the sun traverse the sky and set.
Goes to sleep thinking; " It's 50/50 the Sun will come back"
Sun rises and sets again: 60/40? and so on....
At some point he uses subjective probability and assumes the sun will come up

Applied to Hillary. She is truth challenged and has been caught in lies, obfuscation, and inveigling the truth. Is this alleged act beneath her? No. Am I sure she did it? No. Does she have any good faith credit on which to stand and me to trust her? NO. Would she rather choke than defend herself for fear that it will show signs of weakness? Yes, probably wisely so. Conclusion using Subjective Probability: odds are she did it.

2. Consilience- where measuring a situation with 5 different tools is more reliable than using the same tool 500x.

From Wikipedia-Consilience In science and history, consilience (also convergence of evidence or concordance of evidence) refers to the principle that evidence from independent, unrelated sources can "converge" to strong conclusions. That is, when multiple sources of evidence are in agreement, the conclusion can be very strong even when none of the individual sources of evidence is significantly so on its own. Most established scientific knowledge is supported by a convergence of evidence: if not, the evidence is comparatively weak, and there will not likely be a strong scientific consensus.

Consilience in Measurement Example

A poorly calibrated tape measure will give precise results 500x, all wrong.
Using 3 different rulers from different makers may not be precise, but will ensure accuracy.
Using independent methods of measurement, each governed by different laws or perspectives ensures accuracy much more reliably than using the same tool repeatedly.

In Hilary's case, using the sole yardstick of facts is not enough. It assumes facts are readily available. They are not. One must decide (did she or didn't she) under uncertain conditions. A decision is needed here because an action (voting) will be taken based on that decision. Tools used here since the yardstick is unavailable include: measuring methods like track record, behavior patterns, and circumstantial evidence including the child's previous acting work. Admittedly an overlap exists with Subjective Probability. Conclusion using Consilience of Methods : She probably did it

Inductive Logic in Law

-to dismiss inductive reasoning out of hand is to ignore the humanity of law.

"Based on information and belief..." is an inductive phrase that compels a judge to consider pursuing a line of thinking for purposes of deducing facts. It is useful when a person is lying about the facts.

"Based on information and belief we believe Hillary Clinton, her agent, and/or the child's parent willfully deceived a child for purposes of furthering Hillary's own agenda." And no Judge dismisses human intuition out of hand. If the "information and belief" merit further investigation in the Judge's eyes, that Judge would then put Hillary, the child's father, Hillary's staff, and possibly the child herself on the stand in search of Facts or contradicting evidence that would be used to elicit facts

Snopes Deems the Claim "Unproven", Not "False"

Snopes does not say the allegation is false. It says there is insufficient evidence. The claim is UNPROVEN.

We use Snopes frequently to verify if evidence presented by some loon is all conjecture to much success. For example, we used Snopes to discount the "Hillary has Parkinson's" rumor. The author was clearly biased and that hurt his case. Again, that doesn't mean she doesn't have Parkinsons. But our own inductive reasoning says it is highly unlikely. And if we are wrong, then there are far worse things to worry about.

Fact Checkers are Being Exploited

We think Fact Checking as Religion is an outgrowth of the rampant falsehoods perpetrated by both sides this election. Worse, we are disgusted with the use of sites like Snopes by the candidates as citation of their honesty. The absence of Facts does not constitute Falsehood. On the contrary, it demands investigation. But politicians and the press are making incompetent lawyers of us all.

"Look it up on Snopes" is frequently heard in the MSM and by the candidates. As if citing your firm absolves them from truth-seeking. It has in my opinion discouraged Investigative Journalism. Who wants to pursue a bit of inductive reasoning when they get shouted down by the Church of Fact checking?

Journalism has been dumbed down. And Snopes can raise it higher. I'd like to see a Snopes representative address some MSM acolyte who equates an absence of facts with a falsehood. Who is left to ask the questions that will be pursued for validity? Are we all now just resigned to the cognitive dissonance spewed forth as fact by our leaders?

An Offer to Dan Evon and Snopes

Undisciplined inductive thought leads to rumors, superstitions, and flat planets to be sure. But the pendulum has swung to the other extreme. An extreme where facts = truth. And our leaders are using your service to justify their misdeeds. Your niche is a good one, and your service valid. Do you not care then that public figures pervert fact-checking information as truth? If you are content to remain neutral that makes sense for objective fact checking. But your content is being misused.

Liars Lie. Inductive, deductive, it doesn't matter. They don't let facts get in the way.