This chilling link was sent to me by a reader.
“On YouTube Gabrielle Gifford has a channel called “Gifford2″ . If you scroll down to the two people, of the channels that Gifford herself “subscribes” to, you’ll see that they number only two. One is a fellow congressman, and the other is named “Classitup10′s Channel” and is owned by non other than “Jared Lee Loughner”, the bloke who allegedly shot her.
Wonder why the MSM has missed this connection? Too busy trying to blame Palin…
Just….damn.
That’s very odd, is that HER subscription though? Not sure how that works, has anyone capped it before it gets deleted?
Yes, whoever owns the channel has subscribed to Classitup10′s Channel (now removed).
It’s gone. VERY odd.
I’ve capped them both just in case
The subscription has been removed from the page already. So is it fake or not?
A quick bit of googling suggests it may not be.
This yahoo site discusses it and a commenter writes (truthfully or otherwise) “Yes if it wasn’t for the fact that she joined apparently an hour after she was shot and in the hospital… “.
Another says (credibly, because you can see he’s right about her age and she is highly unlikely to have used just her Christian name), “I believe that’s his page as well. It looks fairly official, but she already has an official channel (Giffords2010AZ8), her listed age is wrong, and the name field says “Gabrielle” (not very professional). I wonder if this guy was stalking her.”
Early days, but (if it isn’t Loughner’s own doing, which is a possibility) it looks like a very, very sick stunt to me rather than the real thing.
Also making me sceptical is the pulling of the story from Free Republic’s website. Do they also think it’s a hoax?
But why has only THAT subscription been taken down? and why is it able to link to the nutters video, Youtube can remove any video they like in seconds these days. All that twats rants should be taken down.
My first post originally began “‘Extraordinary…if true. A quick bit of googling suggests it may not be.” My cut-and-paste went wrong. Following on from Martin’s comment, it looks like an answer to his question. It wasn’t. I think it’s a fake.
“Yes if it wasn’t for the fact that she joined apparently an hour after she was shot and in the hospital… “.
It says on the account that whoever created it did so on 27 February 2008 and has been making regular video postings since then. If by saying ‘joined’ means last visit date that could be because someone else has visited.
Why hasn’t Loughners rants been removed from Youtube?
I read somewhere that Loughner had worked for Gifford in 2007 as a campaigner. In 2007 no-one outside of Alaska had heard of Palin.
I do suspect that Gifford and Loughner go back further than the media want to tell us that’s for sure, but of course that won’t fit the “it’s all Palin’s fault” crap pumped out by the BBC.
Is it me or has the Kennedy twitter on Sarah Palin disapeared?
http://twitter.com/rachelkennedy84/status/23837450350624769
I capped Kennedy’s Tweet and uploaded it to my esnips account for eternity.
http://www.esnips.com/doc/44d75ad2-9c19-4861-89cc-956e07ab85b1/2011-01-09-Rachel-Kennedys-Tweet-on-Palin
Is this person really high up at the BBC – impartiality? How can he be, he seems to be the most opinionated left winger on Twitter ( which he thinks is a good source for news).
Tweets by browntoby
The more I read the scriblings of what seems like illiterate youth rather than senior journalists, the more I know that the BBC are finished. They are not the Home Service followed avidly in the 1950s and 60s but a gang of nasty dangerous people who think nothing of spreading rumour and inuendo.
This shooting in Arizona and the reaction to it by the BBC “twitters” (because they are not journalists) has really sickened me to the core.
I see the BBC is still making maximum political capital out of the murders, reports still state that “many people are blaming the tea party”. Exactly who these many people actually are is not explained of course, funny that eh? They are political enemies of the tea party but the BBC are not forthcoming for some strange reason.
If the BBC refuses to explain who these “many people” are and what political beliefs they hold then what other conclusion can we draw other than that they are biased and helping to spread political propaganda. Just heard it again and they state the violent rhetoric comes from both sides BUT many people are blaming the tea party movement and pictures of tea party protests are being shown, no pictures of violent/angry leftist demos are not shown, if that is not bias then I really dont know what is.
The BBC are going to town on this story, I have not seen such determination to pimp a narrative so hard.
Typical BBC, if they ever have to report something that goes against their views then it’s swiftly followed by “but critics say”, “but opponents say”, “but experts say”. . . .