You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

oresd ago

So there was a van a the scene of a house in ARIZONA. These black vans are rather common. Most hotels have them. As do many companies.

So all the way in Arizona an inference is drawn because of a van the Podesta clan may own?

I am having trouble seeing the connection here. If the only connection is that there are 2 similar vans, then this is not substantive.

What am I missing?

qwerty33 ago

the mountain of what YOU would call coincidence (evidence pile up)