The woman that tried to ruin Trump's reputation at the party (Stormy)

I recall that at the time, anon posts to the boards had photographs of Daniels with tattoos (apparently) strategically placed to cover what looks very much like an NXIVM branding. The photos were clear enough to convince that indeed the branding was there.

http://greeknewsondemand.com/2018/05/11/stormy-daniels-belonged-to-clinton-linked-sex-cult-nxivm/

Thank you.

I must have missed the part about Alefantis as the party! Yes, I see that now.

I read through the linked article about Gillibrand and Clinton's Senate Seat. I didn't see anywhere that Clinton specifically chose her, just that the Governor named her to succeed. I suppose that is how it works, legally. A governor appoints the replacement if a senator retires/resigns? It's logical to assume that Clinton chose her, but is it a fact? Did you find direct references to Clinton choosing her?

When you have all that circumstantial evidence at some point you can't say its just coincidence.

Well, that's right. I don't think anyone could look at your research and say "Bah! Humbug! It's all a coincidence!"

It's a really good bunch of digs and connections. There seems there's certainly something going on there, but what exactly?

That said, isn't there a reason for making distinctions between speculation, assumptions, facts, circumstantial evidence and direct evidence?

In a place like a court, for example, these distinctions are really important. For a reason. If you don't distinguish between these, one can easily leap to a wrong conclusion, just as easily as one can leap to a right conclusion. The idea of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is embedded in to the justice system established by our forefathers so that certainty prevails and mistakes aren't made.

E.g., Is there any conclusive evidence that Allison Mack is related to Gellibrand? It is entirely possible that their similarity IS just a coincidence. Or, it might not be. Could they be sisters, for example? We don't know. We can speculate, reasonably, but that is why real evidence is important in separating down fact from fiction, speculation from proven fact, imo.

Speculation is extremely useful for developing theories and hypotheses, but relying on speculation increases the risk of being wrong, right? so, that's where direct and hard evidence come in.

That's what I take away from Q emphasizing "Do due diligence". It's not that we shouldn't speculate, or make assumptions, postulations, etc. But we should recognize their limitations.

Distinguishing between speculation, postulation, assumption, fact, circumstantial and direct evidence is NOT a denial that any of these are relevant. Rather, we simply distinguish between them in order to correctly or appropriately weigh their significance in leading us to reach correct conclusions.

Yes sir, I should have typed "Watch New York" not "Think New York"

I guess you are being sarcastic here (yes sir?). I don't care what you typed; I'm asking the question in order to understand what you are writing. I'm not attempting to correct you; I'm just asking if "Watch NYC" etc was what you meant when you wrote "Think New York". (Because I spent around 20 minutes going through the q drops to try to find those expressions ("Think NNNN") and if it's clear that you actually mean "Watch NYC", then other anons too, will be able to see what you mean immediately instead of not.)