How is that different from any other administration? People who work as career politicians or military often go into consulting or professional roles and continue to use their expertise and credentials.
I’m not certain what else you’d expect political operatives to do when they are no longer working directly for a President.
"Mr. Vice President, I'm going off script again, I know. But I just want to personally thank you. We've been through some stuff. We've gone through some of the most complex military operations this country's ever conducted, and your steady hand and your leadership during those was a great source of strength for me."
Transcribed myself by ear, so you can check my work. Link at the bottom.
It sounds way more benign in context. He's not referring to some major operation, he's clearly talking about a lot of operations over the course of the administration's existence. Military operations have clearly gotten more complex, technology and intelligence have become even more layered, and the geopolitical climate was troublesome.
Listen to it in context. It feels greatly like a reach that Miller's comments about multiple complicated military operations was referring to something different than the complicated military operations that are always ongoing regardless of who the POTUS is.
I don't think I'd be able to, because "as though they still represent the United States" is a statement of opinion, not fact. What does that mean, exactly, and how is it distinguishable from the typical behaviors? When I'm searching through, how do I know to reject a story because you won't find it to be "as though they are still representing the United States"?
Professional people who worked with international leaders in a professional capacity will probably still be using those skills after no longer working for the government. This is their major skillset. They aren't going to abandon their expertise just because their guy lost an election.
I'm not the one making the claim that this is unusual behavior. If Miller says he was there on behalf of the Freedom Research Foundation, and that organization exists to talk to world leaders about Preserving Freedom, then that's what the evidence suggests he was doing out there with Ukraine. Not representing Donald Trump.
You can choose to believe that the official story is a lie, and it might be! Maybe the whole Foundation is a front for White Hats to do diplomatic work on behalf of Trump's parallel government without alerting anyone.
That's possible.
But the only evidence I see for Miller doing that right now is wishful thinking that it might have happened, and the official story might be a lie.
I can entertain the notion that a story is a lie without accepting that argument on its face. I can accept the possibility that Miller was in Ukraine on behalf of Trump. But until I see the evidence that is true, I don't rejigger entire worldviews based on what MIGHT be happening, in perfect secrecy due to an infallible plan.
Well, when you have a well-thought out argument, it typically takes more than a few words to properly illustrate it. The amount of words doesn't always reflect logical thinking, but logical thinking often requires robust description.
Isn't that exactly the same thing that you guys say about Q? That it takes a more comprehensive approach than reading a Twitter post to understand?
How is that different from any other administration? People who work as career politicians or military often go into consulting or professional roles and continue to use their expertise and credentials.
I’m not certain what else you’d expect political operatives to do when they are no longer working directly for a President.
Actually, I did! Live!
And you got the quote wrong.
"Mr. Vice President, I'm going off script again, I know. But I just want to personally thank you. We've been through some stuff. We've gone through some of the most complex military operations this country's ever conducted, and your steady hand and your leadership during those was a great source of strength for me."
Transcribed myself by ear, so you can check my work. Link at the bottom.
It sounds way more benign in context. He's not referring to some major operation, he's clearly talking about a lot of operations over the course of the administration's existence. Military operations have clearly gotten more complex, technology and intelligence have become even more layered, and the geopolitical climate was troublesome.
Listen to it in context. It feels greatly like a reach that Miller's comments about multiple complicated military operations was referring to something different than the complicated military operations that are always ongoing regardless of who the POTUS is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Owht1y37IT8&ab_channel=TrumpWhiteHouseArchived
19:20 mark.
It's different because they are openly meeting with world leaders.
John Kerry and Obama did that too, but they had to do it secretly because they were orchestrating the destruction of America.
Grenell, Pompeo, Pence, and Miller are openly meeting with our allies as though they still represent the United States.
Find some examples of this happening before.
I don't think I'd be able to, because "as though they still represent the United States" is a statement of opinion, not fact. What does that mean, exactly, and how is it distinguishable from the typical behaviors? When I'm searching through, how do I know to reject a story because you won't find it to be "as though they are still representing the United States"?
Professional people who worked with international leaders in a professional capacity will probably still be using those skills after no longer working for the government. This is their major skillset. They aren't going to abandon their expertise just because their guy lost an election.
I'm not the one making the claim that this is unusual behavior. If Miller says he was there on behalf of the Freedom Research Foundation, and that organization exists to talk to world leaders about Preserving Freedom, then that's what the evidence suggests he was doing out there with Ukraine. Not representing Donald Trump.
You can choose to believe that the official story is a lie, and it might be! Maybe the whole Foundation is a front for White Hats to do diplomatic work on behalf of Trump's parallel government without alerting anyone.
That's possible.
But the only evidence I see for Miller doing that right now is wishful thinking that it might have happened, and the official story might be a lie.
I can entertain the notion that a story is a lie without accepting that argument on its face. I can accept the possibility that Miller was in Ukraine on behalf of Trump. But until I see the evidence that is true, I don't rejigger entire worldviews based on what MIGHT be happening, in perfect secrecy due to an infallible plan.
Think more, talk less.
Well, when you have a well-thought out argument, it typically takes more than a few words to properly illustrate it. The amount of words doesn't always reflect logical thinking, but logical thinking often requires robust description.
Isn't that exactly the same thing that you guys say about Q? That it takes a more comprehensive approach than reading a Twitter post to understand?