First, of all, you accused Milo of having nasty photos on his wall. That wasn’t true and, indeed, it was an accusation. I assume you’ve now backed off that because you’ve researched it.
Anyone who knows anything about photography - and babies - knows the greenbacks were posed prettily - take another look and get back to me.
You can't refer to your own assumptions as proof of guilt. i.e. my knowledge of babies chewing things is no more "proof" of Podesta et.al.'s innocence than your knowledge of photography is of their guilt.
I, and many others, have said - you may be entirely right. This MAY, God forbid, be a global sex trafficking ring. But what's been presented so far is hardly enough to make a legal case. As I pointed out, it was Drudge who broke the Lewinsky story. He's not "holding out" on pizzagate because he's blind.
Can we at least agree that more substantial proof is warranted? Does doubt make someone your enemy? I don't believe that.
you take another look and tell me about the babies eyes.