>>6054867 (LB)

I didn't move the argument. You did by (hypocritically) calling me a sophist. I responded,

but only because you simple-minded people are fun to fuck with. You've never been

able to respond to my plain point: a "theory" without evidence isn't a theory, it is

CONJECTURE. In fact, I even capitalized it last time. You can't address that

because you know I'm right. You know there's no evidence to support Comey

committed a capital crime, let alone already got tried and executed. It's an

absurd claim. If you have evidence, point it out. Until then, you do you and continue

to be simple-minded. It's more fun.

>>6054918

Based on what evidence? Seriously, repeatedly saying "Comey was

part of the coup"

doesn't make it true. If it is true, you should have evidence of that. Even

Q hasn't said he was. In fact, very early on, Q made a point of Gowdy's

comments in support of Comey.

>>6054952

Now you're dodging. Do you even remember what I called

you out for? You're the one that found the "Comey executed"

nonsense "interesting and plausible," not me. That's just

plain silly. There isn't a single piece of actual evidence

that suggests he committed a capital crime, let alone

already got tried and convicte for it. Pushing this

nonsense is simple-minded. Logical thinking and

hypothesizing starts with verifiable evidence, not

pure conjecture.

Address that, then get back to me about how much

you think you know.

>>6054958

How do you know? You are literally telling me you think he

was part of the coup based on NOTHING. Show me one

piece of evidence. Just one. If you don't have any, then

why are you so sure? Gut feel? Isn't that what they did

with Kavanaugh? Wasn't it WRONG to do that to him?

Wasn't the point that it's ALWAYS WRONG to do that

to anybody?

>>6055030

You have no idea what his role was You're inventing evidence

using your conjecture as fact.

>Comey would have known about Strzok

And you're assuming you know not only this, but what

he may have been trying to do about it. Who is talking so

far? McCabe? Is he trustworthy? Page, Baker? The media?

In other words, conjecture.

>Many of the actors in the plot were directly under Comey

Many criminals live in the United States, that doesn't

make everyone that lives in the United States a criminal.

Really reaching.

>He’ll be part of the conspiracy and thus responsible for all acts of his co-conspirators.

Aaaaand now we have it - right there, you just did EXACTLY

what I've said you're doing. You started with some inomplete

information that you twisted into your own "facts" and

then drew a conclusion as a fact, based on nothing more

than conjecture.

See what I just did there? It's called logic. That's how

logic works. You don't make assumptions about ambiguous

evidence, proclaim it fact, then declare your conclusions as

factual statement. That's not how it works.

>>6055039

Maybe. If he's not the affiant it's not criminal. Remember

how that works: the guys that are submitting the application,

the affiants, are the ones that swear to the validity of

the evidence they are using. If they lie to those above them,

they are the ones that committed the felony.

>>6055049

So your vote is "there is none." Got it. Thanks for your input.

>>6055069

Really, and you know this how? You're imagining they have

something, but you don't have any proof to support that

argument, either. But, by conjuring up this imagination

that you've convinced yourself is fact, you're confident

that your conclusions are just as accurate. Hint: they aren't.

>>6055089

Also a "there is none" vote.

It should be easy, folks, to show the evidence. The fact that

it's not is telling (it means I'm right).

>>6055162

Aaaand there we have the appeal to authority! Woot! That's a bona-fide

logical fallacy there. No shit, sherlock. But anons are in here generating

all sorts of silly "theories" that aren't really theories, because they don't

know how to actually formulate a legitimate theory. Instead, they are

accusing someone of all manner of egregious crimes WITHOUT A

SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE.

Tell me authority, how well does that go over in court? And then follow

up with why you can't do that in court?

>>6055164

I don't know. Do you simply announce that you're investigating people

as you're conducting an investigation? Do you shut them down and let them

know you're on to them? Or do you carry on as if there's nothing unusual?

I'm going to wait until we see the evidence. That's all I'm saying. Mr. Lawyer above doesn't seem to get that. My "analysis" is 100%

"I don't go around accusing people of capital crimes unless I have

at least SOME evidence." Mr. Lawyer doesn't seem to understand

that, in spite of practicing law and all sorts of other cool sounding

authority things on his resume.

Mr. Lawyer should be ashamed he doesn't understand this simple concept

>>6055218

Stepping it up, more proof. Should be easy… why isn't it?

>>6055249

"Possible?"

>including his own lies under oath, leaking classified information

While you may not have seen what started this, I am

well aware and have already said that this is the only thing

we know for sure. Even then, we have no idea what the context

was. If he was running an op, he's allowed to lie, and Trump

has never really clarified whether or not the memos were

classified.

>usurping DOJ authority etc.

Which isn't a crime. Worth noting that they probably want him

dead for doing that. Lynch shouldn't have dumped the decision

on him in the first place. Mr. Lawyer above should know that

at a minimum.

My point is that there is no evidence he committed a CAPITAL

crime, and certainly there's no evidence he's already been tried and

executed in a military tribunal. That's just silly.

>>6055269

People keep posting things that aren't evidence of capital

crimes (treason). If it's so obvious, where is it?

Simple request.

>>6055281

I'm well aware of that. This necessarily implies that we can't

know who the rats are, either, because if we know, so do

the rats.

>>6055319

No, they're lobbing accusations without any actual evidence,

let alone proof. That's pretty immoral at best, and it's certainly

>>6055325

and it's certainly the opposite of "use logic." I'm merely pointing

out a bad argument. But you can't accept that, you have to turn

it into your authority case. If you understood my argument,

you should be able to actually pick it apart, but you can't, so

instead you offer up these irrelevancies.

>>6055332

He was wearing a rat mask.

>>6055312

Another "got nuttin, boss" I take it?

Boohoo, cry some more. I exposed you idiots for what you are

>>6055352

Well, probably because he hasn't been arrested. Lots of others

have, but none that are obviously key figures. Most of them

so far are bankers and lawyers. The money launderers and

the lawfags that managed it.

>>6055376

Only if Trump says so. Sorry, nice try. Come back when you

work your way up to… really, a reference about grades in

school? What are you, still in school?

>>6055400

OK, how does that support your point? I am fully aware of the

Russian Collusion hoax. I am also aware that Trump called

it treason (which doesn't mean anything legally, Mr. Lawyer should

>>6055408

When did evidence that Comey committed a capital crime emerge?

>>6055409

>But when I presented you with documents… you shut your pie hole.

The fuck I did. Just because I haven't gotten around to you

on your timeframe doesn't mean I "shut my piehole." I actually told YOU

directly that I know he signed it. Don't be this stupid. It's right there.

>Comey "EXECUTED the certification in accordance with FISA(sic) of 1978."

No shit sherlock. Look in this very bread for the word "affiant."

Then look up what that word means.

>The "I sign hundreds of Warrants" excuse does not fly.

Not with you, but legally it does. Too bad, nice try.

>>6055441

What I said was pretty clear: your efforts don't amount to "Comey committed a capital crime."

Trump calling what they did treason doesn't even make it so in a court of law, and simply

saying the "Russian Collusion Hoax" exists is evidence Comey did anything wrong.

I asked for evidence that Comey committed a capital crime. This should be easy.

Nobody has yet provided one piece of evidence he did that. Not one.

>>6055437

>Q deletes a LOT of posts … for who knows what reasons.That, by itself, should raise red flags.

We've captured and saved all of Q's posts. Why should it matter? It's

not like Q doesn't know we have them archived - that was one of Q's

mandates, presumably it applies to everything.

>>6055502

"If."

No kidding. That's the definition of conjecture.

>>6055499

Liar? Lol, you don't even know what it is that you posted. I asked for

evidence. Saying the hoax exists isn't evidence of anything. My god

this shouldn't be this difficult.

I think it is because you people really don't know what it means to

think for yourselves. You see something that makes you feel good

and then you take it on as if it is gospel. You crash and burn with

comments like this one once someone challenges those beliefs.

It's a stunning display.

>>6055526

Not you nitwits, either. You have no idea how any of this works.

>>6055551

Not good at reading, are you? Already addressed this childish

argument. It's pretty pathetic.

>>6055539

Everything about Q makes sense once you see it… I can't tell you,

you just have to figure it out for yourself.

>>6055565

^^^^^^^^

What this anon is saying is true. Q lets us know there is movement

in the background.

>>6055586

Yet here you are again not actually addressing anything I've said.

Should be easy, but it apparently isn't… because I'm right. I only

a bore to you because you don't want to accept that truth (or you don't

understand it). It hurts to give up your fantastical imaginations.

>>6055613

Wow, you still can't seem to find a way to prove your point. The

legality still rests with the affiants. There's no getting around that.

That was the entire point of Rosenstein's comment in the hearings.

They were intentionally pointing out who is responsible for the content.