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?
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?