Those of us in law enforcement call it a clue. We are not big believers in coincidences when there re no other logical explanations.
Ahahahaha. Good one, puker.
Don't you claim to be some kind of derp state prosecutor from DC?
Seems to me that you're part of the problem, if that's even true. Until then you're just another anonymous internet troll. And besides, your so-called "intelligence" doesn't shine through in your feeble postings.
My left nut is smarter than you.
"Those of us in law enforcemt…" Ahahahahaha. You're killin' me Smalls.
“We are not big believers in coincidences when there re no other logical explanations.”
Except that post hoc propter hoc reasoning isn’t logic. It’s a logical error, a very popular one. When you dismiss Cate’s line of reasoning because you think it is too similar to Q stuff, you’re not engaged in logic you’re guessing and ignoring countervailing evidence.
One large clue going against your case is that Cates has never once referenced Q. He developed his thesis about Spygate using publicly available information that he refers to in his writing. Never has it been the magical entrail readings from “Q droppings”.