Evidence Planting for Dummies

The liberal news punditry mock those who suggest the FBI raided Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence to plant evidence. Given Robby Mook’s federal court confession, making Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration responsible for the collusion hoax …

mockery?

We understand what the confession means, right? That Hillary, Obama, and their cast of conspirators have already planted evidence in the public domain: the Steele dossier, Igor Danchenko, the Mueller Intimidation, er, Investigation, the fake data from Glenn Simpson and Fusion GPS that filled 24/7 news cycles for years?

All lies, planted in the public domain to steal an election and deceive the public.

So then, planting evidence at Mar-a-Lago is a stretch for these people? Is such the mockable suggestion?

To that, here’s what needs to be understood about the liberal punditry: they either don’t know this fact was testified to in court. Or, they do know, and simply aren’t going to make it part of their assessments and opinions.

Now, why would they do that?

Well, it’s because they’re liberals who’ll do anything to help their fellow ideologues win elections, to thereby impose their kooky religious beliefs on everyone else. In fact, this is the way to look at liberals on television, and in any venue where they offer their analysis, if you can call it that. They’re not celebrities. They’re ideologues, just ordinary people with beliefs, like everyone else. People who won’t dare question those beliefs, and thus don’t separate from them in their opinions, no matter what.

Imagine your neighbor, Fred, for example. An obnoxious, insufferable liberal who dutifully regurgitates the religion’s doctrine at neighborhood barbecues. He went to journalism school and received a diploma. He took a job at CNN or MSNBC, where he sits every evening regurgitating the political doctrine his religious elders provide. There’s nothing special about Fred from the block; you’ve known him all his life. He’s an elitist jerk. The whole neighborhood thinks so. And despite the fact he’s now sitting on television every night with some notoriety, and offering his political opinions, doesn’t make him any less an elitist jerk the whole neighborhood thinks he is.

This, in fact, defines every single one of these liberal pundits. Not that they elitist jerks, necessarily, but that they’re just ordinary people from some block somewhere who, like Fred, are ideologues who, for a journalism degree, get to appear on television and offer their opinions—or rather, proselytize viewers to the religion.

Anyway, the point is people give liberals, specifically news media liberals, Fred, way too much credit for knowing things, for being abreast of the details of political matters, or just matters in general. The fact is they don’t know. A reality illustrated by CNN host, Brook Baldwin, demanding an on-air fact-check of old news.

Wait, what? Hold on, hold on, hold on. Hillary smashed Blackberry phones with a hammer?

Yes. It occurred, Brook. And its old news.
Clinton deleted thirty thousand subpoenaed emails, too, Brook. More old news.

The point is Baldwin didn’t know about the Blackberries. A professional, like elitist jerk Fred, that the public counts on to know, and trusts to know, didn’t know. As a result, we’re forced to ask: what else doesn’t she know?

So, here are news people who are supposed to know things before they get on television and talk about matters, but know neither the details nor even the matters themselves. And if they don’t know the matters, then how do they pass on the matters or the details to their viewers? How do their viewers then know the matters and details?

Viewers don’t know the news because, the people who are supposed to be providing them the news don’t know the news, either.

Hence, the point: people give liberals way too much credit for knowing things, when they clearly don’t know things.

There is another side to this phenomenon, however: liberals who do know things—that federal court testimony proved Clinton and the Obama administration responsible for the collusion hoax, for example. There are liberal pundits who do indeed know that, but who simply refuse to acknowledge it publicly, and perhaps personally, for it indicting the religion and assisting their political enemies, aka, conservatives and republicans.

If Clinton and the Obama administration are responsible for a treasonous collusion hoax, then all those liberal news media rountables become entirely different discussions. It’s like, “For Mook’s court testimony, we now know Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration were responsible for a hoax, and that Donald Trump and Fox News have been commendably accurate throughout this entire ordeal.”

And where does the dialogue go after that?

Towards none of the things these liberal pundits want to talk about.

Then, during these roundtable discussions, these liberal pundits say to their conservative counterparts, “Why can’t conservatives and republicans acknowledge what Donald Trump has done to the country?”

The proposed conservative response: “Because you’re all f-ing liars. A fact proven again and again and again.”

Forgive the profanity. It’s frustration from watching too many conservatives carry on meaningless roundtable discussions that ignore the fact federal court testimony exposed Clinton and the Obama administration as hoax conspirators and traitors to the United States and its citizens.

“Let’s talk about that, a**holes.”

Again, frustration.

And does the liberal punditry want to “talk about that?” No. And why not? Is it that they don’t know the news? Or do they know it, but refuse to acknowledge for what it means to their religion and beliefs?

It’s a toss-up.

Clearly, though, the liberal punditry is out there blabbering on and on, Brook Baldwin, without the slightest inkling what they’re talking about. Trump is bad—that’s the extent of their knowledge. The looks of shock and outrage at conservative data and insight aren’t dismissive roundtable discussion ploys. These liberal pundits just heard something they have never heard, and did not know—like, Clinton smashing Blackberry phones with a hammer—and they don’t believe it. Worse, they can’t believe it. Because if they do, the roundtable discussion turns into an authoritative lecture from conservatives and republicans, and the liberal religion starts to look like Jonestown.

In contrast, there are liberals like Bill Maher, who seem somewhat abreast of political matters, but who can’t seem connect the dots. In response to the Mar-a-Lago raid, for example, Maher said, “In the end, it comes down to what is in these boxes… if it turns out to be the real deal, if it turns out that Donald Trump has violated the Espionage Act, that is a serious crime and he should be held to account. If it doesn’t turn out to be there, that there are legitimate questions, I think, from the Trump supporters about the different standards applied to Donald Trump that hasn’t been applied to Hillary Clinton, to James Comey, to Hunter Biden and the others.”

A little logic: could it be that these six-year-long establishment attacks on Trump are an effort by these coup conspirators to conceal their own espionage crimes, and to avoid punishment?

Could it be that Trump supporters are right about the “different standards” and the two-tiered justice system that enables liberals to: conceal their own espionage crimes and to avoid punishment?

As for the FBI using the Mar-a-Lago raid to plant evidence Maher, likewise, mocked Trump and his supporters. “I don’t even think [Trump] knew what was in those boxes or cared. I just think he was like, ‘They’re mine! I live here! I put it in those boxes! I get to take my boxes!”

In other words, the suggestion of evidence planting is risibly absurd.

Legitimizing the concerns of Trump supporters in his remarks, Maher seems to know Clinton and the Obama administration’s coup conspirators planted fake stories in the news media to support their Russian collusion fraud. That’s what a hoax is more or less: planting a fake scenario to achieve a result. So then, is it really such the logical stretch to believe that the same people who planted fake stories in the news media wouldn’t raid the Mar-a-Lago residence to plant more evidence to conceal their original crimes? Or to perhaps confiscate declassified documents that would indict them and exonerate Trump?

Are these dots really so difficult to connect?

They aren’t for people who aren’t religiously shackled to a maniacal lust to rid the world of Donald Trump, which is exactly what liberals have pursued for six years—sex scandals, collusion hoaxes, impeachments, insurrection. All failed. And it really isn’t maniacal lust; it’s self-preservation.

Did the FBI plant agents in the January 6^th crowd? Video and testimony say so.
Did the agency plant agents to facilitate a governor’s kidnapping? Michigan jurists said they did.
Did China plant a virus to help liberals steal an election they were destined to lose? Liberals certainly never blamed China.

In eliminating Donald Trump, there has clearly been a massive exercise in gardening—one planted liberal fraud after another. Yet these same conspirators wouldn’t raid Mar-a-Lago to plant evidence? To try to accomplish what they’ve been visibly, incontrovertibly attempting to achieve for six years?

Hillary funded the treasonous collusion hoax: confirmed. Her campaign manager testified to the fact in federal court: confirmed. Obama sanctioned the crime, carried it out via the nation’s CIA and FBI, because he commands both agencies, not Clinton: confirmed. The coup conspirators are still functional. The deep state is still operational, all unpunished: confirmed.

So again, why would the conspirators not raid Donald trump’s residence and plant evidence?

They would, of course. Given their crimes, and particularly the punishment, what choice do they have?

All that supreme, super-galactic brainpower and liberals can’t connect these dots?

Obviously not. And yet, they’re mocking conservatives?

Liberals could connect the dots were it Trump caught in a treasonous collusion hoax—one can be sure of that. One can be certain they would suspect him and his fellow conspirators of planting evidence, too, and that they would be alerting the world not merely to the possibility of it, but of the “existential threat to democracy” Trump presents. The reason they can’t fathom the same now?

It indicts their political gods and imperils their religion.

Otherwise, they’d be claiming what Trump supporters are claiming now.

Maher is intelligent enough to draw these fundamental conclusions. The liberal punditry is, too. Well, if they know the news, that is, which should not be assumed.

You can’t have treasonous conspirators commit a collusion hoax, get caught, have their crime exposed in federal court, and then not presume that they would plant evidence on a target they have been desperately pursuing for now, six years. In fact, you would expect it.

Unless, that is, you’re a bunch of ideologues determined to protect your gods and religion.

JMWs latest: New Rules: Relationship Logic for the Darkside.