Anonymous ID: ab5661 March 23, 2019, 4:21 p.m. No.5852674   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>2739 >>2932

>>5852583

Thhat's the problem. They judge for themselves then decide that those judgments are fact. They are not. They are conjecture. You just called it yourself. That's not logic.

 

You people sit in here day in and day out drawing inferences from incomplete evidence then you decide those inferences are facts. That's not logic. That's the definition of conjecture.

 

Even the so-called "proof" listed above is full of redactions. Redactions completely change the context of whatever evidence is contained within. This is a simple concept yet you and your so-called "logical" anons can't seem to figure that out.

 

YOU and those that do this are the reason we get called a conspiracy theory.

 

Weissman was on Mueller's team for the entire ride minus 1 week. If he was dirty, then poof Trump's exoneration gets kicked to the curb and we start over. You logical anons can't seem to figure out that simple truth because you aren't actually using logic. You don't even know what logic is.

Anonymous ID: ab5661 March 23, 2019, 4:26 p.m. No.5852756   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>5852717

Sigh.. do you really think they don't already know what he's posting?

Seriously?

If anything, particularly after his "predictions" been coming true in a

"future proves past" sort of sense, we should be trying to figure out

what he means. He's been giving hints. Like it or not, he knows

things.

Anonymous ID: ab5661 March 23, 2019, 4:52 p.m. No.5853200   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>5852932

Yet still not actual proof, just your conjecture. I don't bore you, I present

a possibility that you are incapable off understanding. If you had actual

proof, you would present it. If you had an actual logical argument you

would be able to explain how they would get around having a dirty

prosecutor on a team that just exonerated Trump without forcing

them to start over.

 

You can do neither. You aren't bored, you're stupefied.