3865
Comments (202)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
309
r0nin 309 points ago +312 / -3

Context would be awesome

235
Siteless_Vagrant 235 points ago +239 / -4

Info gleaned from the comments: Some dude named Scott Koch (JP Morgan SK? An actor? Reissa Foundation? Who knows?) told some chick named "Stacy" that Trump won in a landslide. Everyone is acting like this is big shit.

 

Experience tells me that when someone no one knows "drops a bombshell" with a "Breaking" title, in a no faces shown audio, with dubious names, it's pretty generally a nothing burger. I sincerely hope I'm wrong.

41
Viewer01 41 points ago +43 / -2

This was not meant for us directly. This was a warning to the powers that be. This confirms that the NSA or whoever likely had the Koch bros under surveillance, and its a hint that there is much, much more that hasn't been released.

For example, we never saw the texts from Jill Biden directing Hunter who to pay and for what, which completes the bag man circle and theory. Why? Because those will be used in a criminal case. Some random Journo let that slip.

Imagine if you were involved in a criminal conspiracy and someone dropped a recording of you that you thought was in confidence. You would immediately panic and try to communicate with your compatriots. This is the problem most people really don't try and analyze what's going on. They just read it at surface value and say, "WELL THIS ISN'T THE KILL SHOT SO WHAT?" Wherein they don't think about the subtle nuances of why someone wouldn't release more.

Try to think what you would do if you had all the leverage in a situation like this. Do you just dump it onto the internet, or do you keep it for maximum benefit? Remember, leverage and black mail ceases to have value once it is commonly known.

5
C_Jonesy 5 points ago +5 / -0

Why does using it in a criminal case preclude releasing it to the public?