>>4623658 lawfag notable saying darkoverlord is a slide

i don't have the capacity to refute what a lawfag would suggest. what I can say, however, is that they've admitted there's much more to these docs and that this is just stage one.

why the hell would they dump anything of real value this early? they'd be fools to release anything truly damaging in the way of conspiracy. you know, it's funny that this "anon" says these documents could account for negligence and not conspiracy. wouldn't the development of such things hint at a progression that would necessitate a process that would take steps to uncover, like negligence being the first step which would lead us to uncovering conspiratorial actions by the parties involved?

maybe i'm just spinning things here. I get that could be a possibility. I'm good at it. but that's not my intention. maybe i am just playing devil's advocate, but the POSSIBILITY of what they could uncover coupled with the reaction from known bad actors to their public statements thus far really has scratched my itch.

I'm of the firm opinion that this "lawfag" is jumping the gun. we should be more patient.