What no comments?
Now that we see the video, it's pretty much exactly what was expected.
Despicable rumours were just that.

I don't understand why it was so hard to get the footage.
Pelosi standing there, protecting that drink more than himself was funny.
And someone smashing his way into that house, with a Hammer, triggers no alarm??
Seriously? The ice cream is valuable enough to justify an alarm

People have an idea of how things "should" be


There is no reason to believe anything the media reports, and that includes both sides of isle.  There is little to no merit to what information is presented from our government.  I often use deductive reasoning to formulate plausible scenarios.  You often take every government publication as an undisputable fact, and that is your prerogative.   I don't believe that is very objective.

Best regards,

"There is no reason to believe anything the media reports, and that includes both sides of isle.  There is little to no merit to what information is presented from our government.  I often use deductive reasoning to formulate plausible scenarios.  You often take every government publication as an undisputable fact, and that is your prerogative. "

 While I agree with with your assessments on media reports and merit on information presented from the government, I disagree that I have ever stated that any government publication is undisputable fact.  Multiple times on here I have been told I think my references from the "government" are true when none of them were from any government.  So basically people refuse to look at the references, then make up nonsense about them being government references.

 Again, let's take the CDC - I have never said to trust the CDC.  I have never said that.

 We have multiple posts that say the CDC "said" to classify humans dying "With" Covid as dying "From" Covid, and provided the CDC documentation as "proof".  I read the documentation for people and presented it here, and it does not say what is claimed.

 Now looking at words in a referenced CDC document and coming to a conclusion about what that referenced document says is not equal to believing ever single word that the CDC ever says.  But for some reason if a website lies to you about what the CDC puts in a document - the CDC lied.  Not the liar that lied to you.

 That does not mean the CDC is trustworthy, it only means you were lied to by someone other than the CDC.  This has yet to be accepted.  Still to this day not one human has ever been able to reference where the CDC said what was claimed here.

 Also when I am told a document is "lies" and then that exact same document word for word, number for number is referenced back to me as truth, this shows that facts aren't even relevant.  Only where information comes from is accepted, not what the information really says.

WTF is to be expected when the truth is obviously being hidden?

Suspected, not obviously.

Really? Bullshit, information obviously existed.
A guy reported too much was fired.

So basically people refuse to look at the references, then make up nonsense about them being government references.


Walensky lied, or made untrue statements with intent to deceive.  

Fauci outright lied.

The entire Russian hoax was based on a dossier started by the political opposition.  


I have little to no confidence in anything the gubmint has to say.

Best regards,

I think you sometimes have to trust the people with more information than you.
I see no nefarious advantage to them delaying the release of the video footage,... but there must have been reasons.
Perhaps prosecutorial or procedural.

Serowbot wrote on 01/30/23 at 07:27:06:

How do you know that ?
Evidence shows he married Nancy.