Thanks for the compliment, but beyond what I noted, I have essentially zero knowledge of this issue.
My post wasn't about the validity of the sealed indictments theory (it sure sounds epically awesome, I'll at least give it that!), as I've only seen it referenced on the periphery and (perhaps like you) didn't care enough to give it too much time. If it's a thing, yay! If it's not a thing, ?♂️.
Rather, my post was simply about the laughable invalidity of that debooonking effort that one commenter linked to. I clicked it and read it (again, perhaps like you) to learn from both sides in order to be able to critically evaluate whether all these sealed indictments constituted an area of interest that I, someone who is very eager to see the Pedo-Commie Cabal go down for their crimes, might want to dig deeper into. So, as I noted, I started reading that with an open mind, and its debooonking attempt was so ineffective that I'm now more inclined to believe that the many, many sealed indictments is a signal of an onslaught of prosecutions based on surveillance evidence.
But nope, sorry again, I have nothing further to impart beyond the fact that I was nudged over towards the "sealed indictments" conspiracy side solely by dint of a flailing rebuttal on the other side.
Great response and all your "(probably like you)" replies are 100% accurate. Sounds like we're in exactly the same boat. Lol.
It's weird, because I stumbled across that Rothschild debunk a little while ago, out of nowhere, and had the exact same reaction. I'm more curious about it all as a result than before I read it. It's a laughable defense.
I doubt I'm going to deliberately dig more, there's only so much time in the day. If someone puts together a really nice, comprehensive post about it, I'm sure we'll both see it and read it heh.
Thanks for the compliment, but beyond what I noted, I have essentially zero knowledge of this issue.
My post wasn't about the validity of the sealed indictments theory (it sure sounds epically awesome, I'll at least give it that!), as I've only seen it referenced on the periphery and (perhaps like you) didn't care enough to give it too much time. If it's a thing, yay! If it's not a thing, ?♂️.
Rather, my post was simply about the laughable invalidity of that debooonking effort that one commenter linked to. I clicked it and read it (again, perhaps like you) to learn from both sides in order to be able to critically evaluate whether all these sealed indictments constituted an area of interest that I, someone who is very eager to see the Pedo-Commie Cabal go down for their crimes, might want to dig deeper into. So, as I noted, I started reading that with an open mind, and its debooonking attempt was so ineffective that I'm now more inclined to believe that the many, many sealed indictments is a signal of an onslaught of prosecutions based on surveillance evidence.
But nope, sorry again, I have nothing further to impart beyond the fact that I was nudged over towards the "sealed indictments" conspiracy side solely by dint of a flailing rebuttal on the other side.
If you discover more, totally let me know!
Great response and all your "(probably like you)" replies are 100% accurate. Sounds like we're in exactly the same boat. Lol.
It's weird, because I stumbled across that Rothschild debunk a little while ago, out of nowhere, and had the exact same reaction. I'm more curious about it all as a result than before I read it. It's a laughable defense.
I doubt I'm going to deliberately dig more, there's only so much time in the day. If someone puts together a really nice, comprehensive post about it, I'm sure we'll both see it and read it heh.
Thanks for the response!