“through reputable sources”
Like what? You just criticized the media and internet crowd sourcing. Who’s left?
The only viable way to investigate is to vet the sources as messy as that might be in those forums. Possibility #2 could mean that someone creates someplace to distract from fire someplace else. The fact that Podesta and his brother had sick tastes and the Clintons had unsavory (at best) connections was the real smoke.
Inforwars sure isn't it, I've seen their 9/11 truther garbage. They're a bunch of UFO nuts that decided to start branching out.
How about a court case instead of gossip mongers?
Some, not all. My definition of “reputable” would include many of the Fox News “hard news” reporters such as Lou Dobbs, , some independents like Sheryll Atkinson, and some of the well-known talk media figgers like O’Reilly, Limbaugh, Hannity, or Laura Ingraham.
These people have something to lose if they spread rumors and innuendo based on no more than we saw about Pizzagate. Their reputations, mainly, but they also run the risk of libel and destroying their own (very profitable) careers.
So when one of them talks about Pizzagate, I’ll listen a lot more carefully than when some blogger hiding behind an ISP does.
And we all know that if there is fire behind the smoke, it’s going to take law enforcement type investigations to track down the leads and follow the money. Guys like Epstein are not sloppy, and you can figure that people who are alleged to have associated with them who have much to lose (i.e. Bill Clinton) have been even more circumspect.