Frank Giustra and Pizzagate: An Examination of the Pizzagate Wikipedia Page

This is part two of the Frank Giustra series.

In Frank Giustra’s 2019 lawsuit against Twitter, covered in a previous article (1), two of his specific complaints were that he was labeled a pedophile and involved in Pizzagate (2). Since he is bringing this up himself, it is necessary to explore exactly why Giustra was accused of these things. Did people just randomly decide to call him a pedophile? Was there any evidence of his involvement with Pizzagate? Why did anyone say these terrible things about poor Frank? To find out, it is first necessary to examine Pizzagate to determine if it really has been proven false.

In almost every reference to Pizzagate in the media, words like “debunked”, “conspiracy”, and “fake” are smeared everywhere, including on Wikipedia. On their Pizzagate page (3), the answers in the FAQ section stress that they must only use information from “reliable sources”, and not anything that is original research (4). That sounds great, but only if you use actual reliable sources. This article uses Snopes as one of the main references, which seems to not be reliable at all (5)(6)(7)(8)! Does this error apply to their other sources? The Washington Post, perhaps? The New York Times?

Next, there is Wikipedia itself.

You can just search Wikipedia to learn that Wikipedia is unreliable, especially if the subject is contentious (9)(10):

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time could be vandalism, a work in progress, or just plain wrong. Biographies of living persons, subjects that happen to be in the news, and politically or culturally contentious topics are especially vulnerable to these issues. Edits on Wikipedia that are in error may eventually be fixed. However, because Wikipedia is a volunteer run project, it cannot monitor every contribution all of the time. There are many errors that remain unnoticed for days, weeks, months, or even years. Therefore, Wikipedia should not be considered a definitive source in and of itself.

It’s not just Wikipedia that can tell you that it’s not reliable, there are many other sources that also confirm that fact (11)(12). This is not to say that everything on Wikipedia is wrong, it just means that it should be looked at as a starting point for more research. While it is true that certain pages require approval for edits, such as the Pizzagate page, this does not mean that the people who can access it are neutral and may be biased (13). Many are very critical and angry at any hint of credibility about the topic (14)(15). Do these people have an agenda?

Unfortunately, since many people still consider Wikipedia to be reliable in itself, the claims against Pizzagate must be examined. The article begins with a sweeping sentence stating that Pizzagate has been “widely discredited by multiple sources.” Meanwhile, upon careful inspection, it was discovered that out of the 91 references in the article, 68% of them rely on only five sources: The New York Times (26%), The Washington Post (21%), Snopes (9%), PolitiFact (7%), and NPR (5%). Others do not include sources at all or are barely related and attack Donald Trump instead. Snopes, as already mentioned, is not credible, but what about the other sources?

The New York Times article (16), widely referenced throughout the media to discredit Pizzagate, is a complete joke (17)(18)(19). It begins with two opening sentences, in which the reader is informed multiple times that the theory is false, without providing a shred of evidence as to why. The article then moves on to a numbered list, a timeline of sorts, detailing how Pizzagate came to be. The first five points seem on track but are extremely simplified, but then at the sixth point, suddenly from out of nowhere, everything becomes fake! Perhaps it seemed like a good place to just drop it in there without any evidence or examples. The list then of course, goes into the gunman incident, which does not debunk anything at all, whether it was a “false flag” or not.

We are then told in the article that the “the police refuted the claim.” Did the police really refute the claim? Their statement indeed calls Pizzagate “fictitious (20)”, but did they actually perform an investigation to come to that conclusion? Unfortunately, they did no such thing. That conclusion was made without any investigation, a fact confirmed after Brian Richmond from Afterhours Podcast (24) filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. He obtained proof that there never was any investigation conducted to back up the claim that the theory is fiction (21)! After attempting to update the article with this new information, a Wikipedia editor was denied the ability to add in the results of the FOIA request (22). To this day, the lie is just sitting there to fool the masses. Also, the “secret signage” that the article refers to is not secret at all, since it actually comes from a declassified FBI document (23).

**Screenshot from the reply from the DC Metropolitan Police to Brian of** **Afterhours Podcast** (25)

It is interesting to note that former BBC Director-General, Mark Thompson, is now the CEO of the New York Times (26). Shortly before beginning his new job at the Times, Thompson was accused of lying about his role in the apparent cover-up by BBC relating to pedophile Jimmy Savile’s decades of abuse, involving hundreds of underage girls and boys, while he working for the organization. Apparently, many of the assaults took place at Savile’s dressing room at the BBC. Thompson was accused of playing a role in the decision to not air an exposé about Savile that was to appear on BBC’s Newsnight. Of course he maintains he didn’t know anything about anything despite evidence to the contrary (27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32).

In her article about Thompson, “Mark Thompson: From Pedophile Cover-Up to the New York Times”, Dr. Lori Handrahan had this to say (33):

As long as Mark Thompson holds the Old Gray Lady’s reins all the news that’s fit to print may not include exposing elite pedophile rings. It didn’t at BBC under Thompson’s leadership and there is no reason to believe this has changed.

The next most cited source for the Wikipedia article is The Washington Post, which again, is not a reliable source according to many (34)(35)(36)(37)(38)(39). The owner of the Washington Post is Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon. He has been involved in sex-related scandals too! He has also been accused of having questionable ties with the CIA (40). He was one of the main people involved in the Harvey Wenistein debacle after actress Rose McGowan called him out for defending Weinstein (41), and he was involved in another huge scandal involving sexual selfies (42):

It’s a made-for-tabloid-news scandal and then some, involving the world’s richest man, Jeff Bezos, and one of America’s most notorious publications, with links thrown in to President Donald Trump and the Saudi royal family, plus the most expensive divorce in history and — what else — sexual selfies.

It seems highly unlikely that Bezos does not know what’s going on in his newspaper, just like Thompson and the BBC! The media wants to make sure it can’t be known just as Pizzagate anymore. Now it is named “the false, fake, wrong, malicious, debunked Pizzagate conspiracy theory”. Falseness must be further asserted at least once per paragraph, and there must be mention of “alt-right”, “nazi”, “white supremacist”, or Donald Trump. There can’t be a shadow of a doubt, in case someone actually starts to think about what they are reading for themselves!

The other two sources from the Wikipedia article are Politifact and NPR (4 3)(44). PolitiFact is believed by many to be false or biased (45)(46)(47)(48), which also seems to be the case with NPR (49)(50)(51)(52).

One of the only sources on mainstream media with fair Pizzagate coverage was by journalist Benn Swann of Atlanta’s CBS affiliate station (53). Although corporate tried to distance themselves, CBS is generally considered trustworthy (54). Even though Swann repeatedly said he was not accusing anyone of a crime, he got blacklisted anyway (55)! It was likely because he discussed the lack of investigation and the usage of pedophile symbolism. This is where Frank Giustra enters the picture!

We don’t have to prove Pizzagate is real, we have to prove that the evidence is real.

Part 3 of this series will examine Pizzagate in more detail and describe how Giustra’s name became attached to the theory.

References:

Frank Giustra and Pizzagate: An Examination of the Pizzagate Wikipedia Page

Molly Chan

One thought on “Frank Giustra and Pizzagate: An Examination of the Pizzagate Wikipedia Page”

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Molly Chan

You might also like

Frank Giustra Seeks to Silence Twitter Users

Frank Giustra’s Pizzagate History

One thought on “Frank Giustra and Pizzagate: An Examination of the Pizzagate Wikipedia Page”

Leave a Reply Cancel reply