i wish i saved the post that someone on this board wrote. It was a very detailed piece explaining all of the parts that would have to be in place, months and even years ahead for this whole thing to be a psy-op. Basically....its not likely.
if anyone remembers where that post is, please reply...i want to save it and use it for anytime someone brings up the "psy-op" argument.
I echo your sentiment. Does anyone really think Andrew Breitbart was tasked to tweet his revulsion of Podesta's activities five years ahead of schedule in the how-could-they-possibly-forsee circumstance that Clinton did not get in in 2016 (how could they even be sure she'd be successful at mounting a campaign?) and that the victor would be someone who talks about draining the swamp? If the full body of evidence was only a year or two old - ok, maybe psy-op. Psy-ops happen, but not over such impossible to predict timescales
view the rest of the comments →
arigold ago
i wish i saved the post that someone on this board wrote. It was a very detailed piece explaining all of the parts that would have to be in place, months and even years ahead for this whole thing to be a psy-op. Basically....its not likely.
if anyone remembers where that post is, please reply...i want to save it and use it for anytime someone brings up the "psy-op" argument.
MolochHunter ago
I echo your sentiment. Does anyone really think Andrew Breitbart was tasked to tweet his revulsion of Podesta's activities five years ahead of schedule in the how-could-they-possibly-forsee circumstance that Clinton did not get in in 2016 (how could they even be sure she'd be successful at mounting a campaign?) and that the victor would be someone who talks about draining the swamp? If the full body of evidence was only a year or two old - ok, maybe psy-op. Psy-ops happen, but not over such impossible to predict timescales