>>48196
>I bet they will try to replace him with that deranged warmonger woman FM Trus
Just discovered that she used to be a critic of brexit. This might lower her appeal in the eyes of a certain group of spooks (including ex MI6 chief Richard Dearlove) that have been conspiring to put in office a "hard brexiter". Boris Johnson was in fact their chosen man some time ago, as revealed by a tranche of leaked emails
If this woman is not their choice, perhaps another woman is: Patel the one who signed off the extradition of Assange. It was unsuspected until some days ago that she could have intentions to replace Johnson, but Dearlove himself revealed/claimed in one email that she was "preoccupied with a leadership bid" (which is brit language meaning leadership of the ruling party and by extension premiership)
It's interesting that this craven woman was asking for a head pat from Washington after approving Assange's extradition. Perhaps to raise her "leadership" profile?
"A very british coup d'etat" is a series of articles analysing said emails. Very interesting to see how 3LAs and their adjacencies labour to "influence" (being charitable with terminology) the "democratic process". (Intelligence agencies and their domestic operations are one of the 1st implications that came to my mind when I read that post about the "patriot's dilemma". Are these spooks serving their fatherland? Themselves? Their subterranean group of MIIC insiders? A similar group at the other side of the Atlantic?)
https://archive.is/SsLld

>>48225
>Why lol?
Because I found it funny. I'm sensing unnecessary defensiveness again. I wasn't mocking you, if that's what vexes you for some reason
>Why should I know
No reason why you should. Maybe there is a misunderstanding. Sometimes I quote and reply to someone because I find it opportune to say something relevant, for anyone who might find it interesting. And then I feel free to digress into related topics. I'm not necessarily addressing all that to you in particular or implying you should have known it.
>Good job of strawmanning. I did not talk about his party.
I want to lol again ;) It's not a strawman: I did not for a moment think that you talked about his party, I simply decided to expanded the scope of the discussion. Also, by "his own" I actually mean his family/extended family.