I made a cogent point WITHOUT expousing any theory, stating that the guy was involved in multiple activities so that any assailant would have the cover of the police having to investigate possible MULTIPLE MOTIVES for the murder.
You jump to some self-perceived conclusion about the assertion of my original statement. Get off of your self-righteous “smackdown” horse.
Gotta boogie now...
“I made a cogent point WITHOUT expousing any theory, stating that the guy was involved in multiple activities so that any assailant would have the cover of the police having to investigate possible MULTIPLE MOTIVES for the murder.”
The implication being that the government could have conveniently bumped him off for knowing about the Obama passport stuff, and suspicion would be diverted because of his criminal activities. Sorry man, but you don’t make leading statements in context like that unless you want to make the obvious implication. If you weren’t trying to draw some false connection to the Obama fraud issue, why even bring up this completely unrelated, insignicant criminal getting murdered on a thread about these Obama-related issues?
That’s the same basic tactic that the original Washington Times article used to confuse the Harris case with the Brennan case and start this whole mess. There’s no “plausible deniability” as to why they conflated the two, since there’s no plausible reason to bring the topic up unless you want people to draw the obvious implication, which, of course, many people did.