Part of an extended decode on DOJ, Russiagate, Comey, and related topics (Flynn, Pence)

Prior segment start points, pb: >>115813, >>116087, >>117057

Most recent, pb: >>117060

In the prior installment, I started arguing for the proposition that Comey is a straight-up white hat.

Several anons replied...

>>117080 pb

>>Comey a white hat

>hmmm....he's got a lot against against him

>acts like a jerk, among other things

>and bff with brennan

>but i'm sure there will be surprises at the end

>we'll see.

>>117081 pb

>corney ain’t no white hat

>>117082 pb, >>117086 pb anti-Comey memes

I have much more reasoning to provide, in this and in coming installments.

But let me explain my basic strategy for replying to the objections.

First, the vast bulk of the "hard evidence" against Comey has to do with his active fostering of the attempt to take down Trump via the Russia hoax.

But this totally failed and humiliated the enemy.

Earlier posts pointed to the idea that our team intentionally directed the enemey towards precisely this counterattack, and if I am right, then Comey was a key player in leading them to debacle.

This means that any "moves" Comey made to support the Russia hoax do not count against him.

Second, the positive evidence for Comey as a white hat utterly hinges on the fact that his actions with respect to the HRC email inquiries seem to have actually swung the 2016 election to Trump.

I have more on this shortly.

But it is crucial to isolate the issues.

Did Comey contribute to the Russia hoax? Yes.

Did Comey contribute to Trump's Electoral College victory? Yes, almost certainly.

How do we reconcile these two apparent facts?

I am progressively building a case that the best way to do this is to read Comey as a player on our team.

Third, I grant that many anons see Comey as a jerk.

Consider that this negative perception arises partially from the apparent mismatch between his cultivated innocence and the seemingly duplicitious stuff that he has done.

But I think much of this duplicitious stuff turns out to benefit our team.

Still, I think it also worth considering that strong personalities do not always do every little thing as we might wish.

The most obvious case, of course, is Trump.

But that actually goes for most of the top players on the white hat team.

For instance, contrast Trump, Bannon and Flynn.

They have three totally different personalities, but they all strive to bring it to the game in their own way.

Maybe Comey just has his own way of doing things which might in the endgame prove rather attractive to some who have been duped.

>>118140

>>117084 pb

>bet he was the first deal they made to kick this off, fired doesn't begin to describe what he's gone through

>kek

>walkin ded

>he loves his kids

>what a father won't do

>flip

This anon suggests that Comey is not a white hat, but was nonetheless flipped to act for the white hat team, what some call a grey hat perhaps.

I will mostly hold off an examination of that issue, since I want to note the underlying presupposition, that Comey has indeed acted for the white hat team.

The most obvious way in which he seems to have done so was in his treatment of the HRC email inquiries.

This would seem to be the view that Q directly pushes, especially in Q36.

I have highlighted the portions most directly relevant.

Recall that the Bill Clinton/Loretta Lynch "tarmac meeting" was June 27.

Loretta Lynch was Attorney General, and Bill Clinton "just happened" to run into her on airplane tarmac where he claimed he chatted about grandkids.

The speculation is that he offered her a seat on the Supreme Court if she could make the email case go away.

Then on July 5, Comey pops up and announces that Hillary will not be charged.

Did Lynch "get the message" and get Comey in line?

Think this out very carefully.

On the surface, letting Hillary off the hook seems like a bad thing.

But suppose Comey had done the "right" thing and fired all missiles in order to prosecute and convict.

Would Andrew Cuomo be in his second term right now?

The black hats could have "sacrificed" Hillary just like they seem to be sacrificing Ghislaine.

In July, they had time to replace her with a "new face" who could go head-to-head with Trump.

It seems like a bad joke now, but at the time, I think Cuomo might have seemed an excellent replacement candidate.

A brusque and "alpha male" New Yorker, but one from a traditional political family who didn't have all sorts of outlandish "baggage".

I wonder if he was being "held" for that very role.

But Comey said that Hillary should not be charged.

Jumping ahead, Q insinuates that Comey was then "forced into the spotlight" just before the election.

He is talking about the reopening of the email inquiry on October 28.

To say that this "cast suspicion" on Hillary is a great understatement, I think.

But look ahead... Q suggests that the prospect of a Hillary victory would have required military action.

The insinuation is that white hats in the military would have sought to take power in an outright coup.

That would have been an extremely risky venture, so it makes sense that they would go all out in order to win at the ballot box.

Q is saying that forcing Comey to reopen the HRC inquiry was part of that plan.

Obviously, Hillary took a big hit from the very fact that this topic was again in the news so close to the election.

But when Comey closed the inquiry and stuck to his original claim that she should not be charged, this was outrageous.

If the "new evidence" had been so serious that Comey had to "risk" swaying the election by announcing that she was again under investigation, then nobody with any sense would believed it had been adequately examined in just nine days.

It seemed quite obvious that Hillary was getting "special treatment".

I mean quite obvious to any halfway intelligent potential voter.

Remember that Hillary fully expected to win, even on election night.

She did not concede until Obama told her too.

Q says that the white hats somehow warned Obama that he better do so.

I have no idea how literally true that is if true at all.

But I do think Obama's role in this points to the value of the very late move against Hillary.

The deep state (morons with credentials, connections and cash) was seemingly oblivious to the actual state of the electorate and did not seem to have an effective countermove prepared.

(They fixed that in 2020.)

But Obama shut that down when he got Hillary to concede.

It seems to me that he might well have done this of his own accord.

They seem to genuinely dislike each other (BO & HRC), and perhaps Obama, being a very self-absorbed guy, simply wanted to prevent his reputation from getting tarnished.

And he very likely underestimated Trump.

I am speculating on a few points, and perhaps getting some things wrong.

What isn't wrong is that Q really does suggest that white hats used Comey's reopening of the HRC case to swing the election.

Whether Comey was forced or not is a separate question.

>>118141

The idea that Comey, and especially the Oct 28 letter, swung the election to Trump has not received adequate attention, and I suspect that is largely because the person

most associated with promulgating this idea is Hillary Clinton herself.

The most "objective" analysis that I know of is by pro-Democrat stats guy Nate Silver:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/

https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/855800824567562240

Hillary herself has cited Silver's analysis to justify her whining.

Here are some other pro-Clinton discussions that "blame" Comey:

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/1/11/14215930/comey-email-election-clinton-campaign

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/02/james-comey-fbi-director-letter archived: https://archive.ph/spc71

Here are some critiques of that view from an anti-Clinton leftist:

https://mtracey.medium.com/comey-cost-hillary-the-election-is-a-groundless-liberal-myth-9a8957051b65

https://medium.com/theyoungturks/why-we-cant-quit-hillary-the-comey-delusion-b64fb98a3877

Here is my take on that back-and-forth:

It seems likely to me that Silver is basically right when it comes to the statistical analysis.

I did not at all scour his reasoning for fatal flaws, but it seems viable.

It certainly fits with what I have come to believe for a number of other reasons that I am presenting.

But then Silver makes some dubious jumps.

Having apparently established that Comey did swing the election, he thinks there is something wrong with that.

He seems to think that Clinton is actually innocent, and so Comey's actions should not have influenced voters.

But he realizes that they did, and so Silver assigns blame.

He blames the media for being obsessed with exciting stories and stuff like that.

The other guy Tracey fires back at Silver and points out that Clinton is guilty as hell.

Even if she was not legally guilty in the email case, she was guilty of doing all sorts of things that any normal person would see as corrupt.

And the DNC was guilty of allowing this compromised candidate to become their nominee.

The upshot is that the really interesting thing, the fact that Comey seems to have swung the election, ends up getting buried in leftist infighting.

Hillary says Comey is to blame for her failure.

Semi-reasonable leftists slam back and so no, the problem is that Hillary is a corrupt profiteering politician.

None of them really undertakes to investigate how it came about that Comey swung the election.

On the flip side, not many in the pro-Trump camp seem to delve into this either.

I suppose some might think that according Comey a key role amounts to calling the Trump victory a fluke, and so disparages the vast grassroots effort that many know made it happen.

But I don't think there was any fluke at all.

>>118142

It is utterly central to the case I am building that we take seriously the idea that Comey's email shenanigans swung the election, so I'll try one additional argument route.

I will very loosely describe my own personal recollections of how these things went down, and then consider a variety of "characters" who might have been swayed by the same events, but not exactly in the way that I was.

My political background is somewhat eclectic, so I'll skip that.

Let's just say I was not particularly enamoured of Trump at first.

I was following all of the email stuff: DNC leaks, Podesta/Pizzagate and Hillary's servers.

When Comey first let Hillary off the hook, my main reaction was perplexity.

I was still pretty naive then, I guess.

I slowly warmed to the idea that maybe Trump was really the guy needed to smash the corruption.

When Comey reopened the case I was ecstatic.

I thought they were going to nail that bitch for sure.

And then came the rage.

On Election Day I had a small window in which I could vote.

And I went out there and pulled the lever for DONALD FUCKING TRUMP!!!!

When he came out for the victory speech, I was drunk as hell, but I was ECSTATIC!

From that point on I felt like I had ALWAYS been part of the team.

(And in my case I think that mattered, since "the work" was just beginning...)

But that's me.

Let's invent some characters.

And remember that many people hated both major-party candidates, and thought they were the two worst ever.

Also remember that there were three somewhat prominent third-party candidates: Jill Stein (Green), Gary Johnson (Libertarian) and Evan McMullin (Never Trump).

(McMullin could have theoretically won had he won Utah, placing third nationally, and so putting him in the mix if the House had to decide the election.)

Consider a somewhat intellectual social conservative. He is not thrilled with Trump and all the strippers and casinos.

Maybe McMullin or a write-in seem viable.

He is not into "conspiracy theories" about hidden cabals, when so much can be explained by people being raised in a society that cares very little for cultivating virtue.

But letting HRC off the hook again is a travesty of justice that signals an utter abdication of the government's duty to enforce the law.

He goes and votes for Trump.

Consider a guy not really into politics since they are all losers.

Maybe he spends a lot of time online with music, games, videos, etc.

He can't stand the obnoxious SJW's and is somewhat into meme culture and trolling and larping.

He follows some of the political stuff but it is all still somewhat of an online game.

Maybe being a Trump fanboi is a little too cringe but how the fuck are they letting that bitch escape justice again?!

Why not go vote? For TRUMP.

Consider a guy who maybe has an IT job.

He is pretty good at his job and married with kids.

He is non-political.

But he can't stand HR and their bullshit.

The diversity hires and the total morons and absurd rules just seem to accumulate.

He sometimes votes out of duty and sometimes doesn't bother, but letting her off is just too much.

He knows he would be fired IMMEDIATELY if he ever tried to pull something like that.

He goes to vote for Trump.

>>118143

(had to chop that post into two)

Consider a guy who hates Wall Street and knows they are corrupt bastards who don't "earn" their wealth in any meaningful sense at all.

He supported Sanders and knows the DNC screwed him.

Maybe he's a bit peeved that Sanders didn't find back more.

He knows he "should" support Hillary because... reasons.

But that Goldman Sachs speech... and they're letting her off again!

She is JUST AS BAD AS TRUMP.

He does NOT go to vote for Hillary.

Consider a nice lady who goes to church and always votes for Democrats since they care more.

She watches a lot of TV news.

She knows that Hillary seems to be a not-so-nice word.

But she always votes for Democrats.

She has some errands to do and some Kohl's cash.

If she doesn't spend it today she will lose it.

She has to watch her expenses and there are some deals.

Now it is getting to be dinner time and she doesn't have the energy to go stand in line at night.

Hillary: -1.

I am trying to be fair.

Consider a self-pitying bitch.

Everyone tries to get her even though she is always trying to do the right thing.

She usually doesn't vote because she hates those shysters but the persecution Hillary endures....

She goes to vote for Hillary.

I think you can get the picture.

It is MUCH easier to construct characters who gave Trump a net +1 due to Comey's actions.

You don't need to suppose that many actually switched their vote from HRC to Trump.

Comey got the job done with the +1's and -1's.

I'll pause there for today.

All my posts in this installment aimed at building the case that Comey's actions in the Clinton email case swung the election.

Did white hats aim to use Comey for this purpose? Probably yes.

Did the actual events support the view that this happened? Seemingly yes.

Does this all intuitively make sense? I think so.

I haven't yet tried to build the case that Comey acted freely as a white hat (as opposed to being forced), but I think both Comey and Q have dropped some clues relating to this and I hope to post some very interesting decodes soon.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

(but we've got to win in 2022!)