I have a friend who is well-connected in DC through the RNC, and during/after the election he fed me a lot of info that the public didn't know right away, or ever.. the stuff about Trump being in a SCIF during the election, NSA watching the fraud in realtime and tracking the data to Frankfurt, Haspel being arrested, etc. Anyway, he said something today which is contrary to what many people believe... I texted him to mention that one of his source friends was on my local radio station doing an interview, and he replied with "cool! Ive been busy doing productive stuff and watching the weirdness (like the WH still being without power and unoccupied). They also once again added more troops to DC." Unoccupied? He has been pretty accurate with his information, but this surprises me. I think we can all agree that biden has most likely been in the WH, right? My friend lived there, though. He has friends in high places. He was handpicked for a congressional seat but declined. He says the WH is without power and unoccupied.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (169)
sorted by:
I don't read every fucking post, no, but the threads about this subject suggested that most people who say they know what is going on have biden in the actual WH. The footage I have seen is pretty damn convincing. Don't be a nitpicking fuck because you don't believe he's there. You don't know whether he is, either. My point is, my friend is THERE and he knows a lot of people. If he says its unoccupied, I tend to believe him over the video we've seen.
You know what I notice here. You put up an honest and thought out post asking for comments, and you get RIPPED. And the reality is that none of us really KNOW because we are not MEANT to know.
But your friend's comment seems solid and plausible to me, and I appreciate the intel. Our formulations of knowledge are formed by various sources, and I use a story like this to fill in gaps in my analysis etc. Don't let the people who are assholes here bring you down.
I wish this was the top comment because its rhe most helpful and honest.
I agree wirh you, this isn't direct evidence, but it is corroborating evidence, and just like a court room, we should leave room for that too but not not treat everythijg as direct evidence.
Circumstantial evidence - not corroborating. LawyerFag here. ?
In law enforcement many call it corroborating evidence. It is called circumstantial in court by LawFags, but in the detective world it's called corroborating evidence because normies think "circumstantial" means it isn't evidence, thanks to CSI and the like.
Bok bok, B'GAWK!
Where do you think they are doing the pressers, a local AMC?
No, Castle Rock.