I've always been one for reading between the lines. I've also often said it's not what someone said but the way they phrased it, sometimes you can't just listen to what someone said but ask yourself why they'd say it like that. That's why yesterday when Nancy Pelosi came out and thanked George Floyd for sacrificing his life for justice it just plain didn't make any sense. It isn't like she described his death as untimely, impetuous, brusque, blithe, heedless, irrational, senseless, reckless, unnecessary, baseless, groundless, meritless or a whole host of other words that would have more appropriately described the manner in which his death occurred, instead she called it a sacrifice and went as far as indicating he'd done so willingly by thanking him. Which led me to ask myself "just why is she thanking him?" Did he volunteer? Did he offer himself up? Or was this merely something else that had gone all wrong? Was the manner upon which she applied her words possibly the truth behind the crux of it all?
For that we have to go back to the timing of the event and see if we can find any other reasoning behind it all. The timing of the event would be the precursor to the 2020 election cycle and the reasoning behind the event would be to stir up racial strife going into the 2020 election cycle. If we listen carefully to what else Nancy had to say yesterday it would seem to indicate to me a tie into that proposed event. She went on to say, "because of you and because of thousands, millions of people around the world who came out for justice, your name will always be synonymous for justice." Now if she hadn't mentioned millions and just used thousands I could be convinced she was just talking about thousands of rioters and protesters who came out across the country. In reality though my mind said she's applying his death to not only the thousands who came out in riots and protest but when she speaks of the millions she is speaking of the millions who came out to vote to turn an election, (Both honestly and fraudulently) to serve up a self conceived justice against an administration she failed miserably to produce. There simply wasn't "millions" of people anywhere I ever saw who came out as a result of his death for any reason.
There are many out there who have speculated and found it rather ironic that rioting, burning, looting and protesting, events that were common during the Obama term suddenly resurfaced as if a precursor to an election year, almost as if intend to go down that way. Maybe, just maybe it was planned that way. A deliberate attempt to stir up racial strife before the election. The only way George Floyd's death could have been voluntary is that the whole gig could have been set up voluntarily but ultimately his death wasn't part of the planned event. If they'd said if you agree to do this you will die he'd said thanks but no thanks, but if they'd said he was just going to be held down in the street with a knee on his neck by a cop someone could see themselves, for the right amount of money, going along with that. Chauvin the same thing, he needed the money, he was looking at being hit with tax evasion. So you have two democratic operatives willing to do a false psyop but what wasn't expected was that Floyd would show up with enough fentanyl in his system to kill him. This is the only way Floyd's death could have been voluntarily sacrificed. That he'd willingly go along with a plan.
But then you'd have to stop and ask yourself why Chauvin wouldn't come out and say he wasn't going to go down for murder and say it was all a set up. He could but then he stood a chance of being Epsteined, that being being killed before he went to trial. If he couldn't prove what he was saying before he went to trial then the likelihood of him making it to trial substantially drops. Now they have to figure out a way to get him out of it, one way to do that would be to try and taint the jury or throw the trial. Tainting the jury wasn't working so they send Maxine Waters half way across the country to taint the trial. It can tend to sound a bit far fetched but it isn't anymore far fetched than any reason she can give for her actions. Actions that were deliberate and the consequences of her actions well established, trying to interfere with and hinder a judicial proceeding and deliberate intimidation of a jury. If any commoners had tried to pull off what she did they'd been in jail before they exited state lines. I don't think her actions were meant to throw the trial at this point, there's really no desire for it at this point, but if the ultimate goal is to get Chauvin off or at a minimum reduced down to minimum jail time, in now what will be because of her actions, a warranted right to appeal, that those actions will likely come as yet another precursor to an election cycle. I think that's what most people would call "just in time". Right now it will be time that tells.