>>7915756

Been thinking on this today. Spitballing, but here is my unsolicited thought based on recent R Senators and Sekulow’s comment about an affirmative defense. Defense finishes their opening, 16 hours of submitted questions happens. Motion made to vote on conviction and does not pass. No witness vote. Rough guess.

Reasoning is that D’s brought up too much in their opening. Defense will bring up more, the affirmative defense, which introduces more evidence against others. Senate will want to open up new hearings based on what’s been introduced. Drops #3741 and #3742. Senate will have no choice but to not convict and then immediately open new committee hearings on Biden, etc.

>>7915963

Could be my hopium, but that affirmative defense thing could be how:

>How do you introduce the TRUTH about what happened to the PUBLIC?

>What 'value' might exist by attempting to BLOCK 'PUBLIC' testimony/hearings?

>Would educating the public through the Senate prior to Barr/Durham/Huber release(s) be important?

>>7916038

Concur. Normies will end up getting a crash course in D projection. They’ve been doing it for decades now, although the last three, they’ve gone so beyond the pale without an iota of facts being on their side. The MOABs are coming, timing is the question.

>>7916325

Driver of car did. No one on bus.