If it's all just coincidence for the Clintons. I mean what are the odds no similar coincidences have occurred with all the politicians we have?
People get really selectively skeptical on this when they show no such skeptical outlook for the rest of politics.
Dead bodies aren't proof of murder
conspiracy. What I'm not seeing is proof that SHOULD be there, but isn't.
Who was the triggerman? Where'd they get the money to do it? What channels did the orders come down through? Who talked to who? These essential connections are never made convincingly, and all we're left to rely on is credulity, or, apparent incredulity that the only reason a lot of people around you can drop dead is if you're killing them all....
It's like Bigfoot, everyone is ignoring the proof we SHOULD have by now (bones, carcasses, poop) to focus on blurry photographs and footprints that can't be verified because we didn't see what made them. In essence, I'm not doubting that's a plaster cast of a very large print in your hands, I'm doubting if it shows what you say it does.
I do not think it possible you could whip up a murder conspiracy to kill 100 people, even slowly over 20 years, and not leave a single prosecutable trace, even if nobody wants to bring charges. I mean, even mob hits have clear front-runners for who did them, and who ordered them, even if nobody will prosecute.
I have yet to hear a reputable name come up when you have to go from "Hillary ordered them killed..." to "... and here's who passed the order on and here's who pulled the trigger" That second step is always woefully lacking in anything but suspicion.
babylonbee.com
