Whether a federal habeas court can independently evaluate state court factual determinations under Cullen v. Pinholster and Harrington v. Richter when assessing ineffective assistance of counsel claims

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED , 1. In applying Cullen v. Pinholster 131 S. Ct. 1388 (2011) to a habeas corpus claim based on whether or not the section 2254 (d)(1)condition to ameptithe state . Court's descriptions of the facts or to uphold its application of law without independently evaluating what supports (or does not support) the basis justifies (or does not justify) the Court's application of the law is inconsistent with the resposibilities of a federl habeas court under section 2254 (d). court have the duty to obtain that record itselfiuréetsection 2254(g)? 2. En applying Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (20011), to a habeas corpus claim based on, the state's unreasonable application of the Constitutional standard for effective assistance of counsel in violation of 28 USC § 2254 (d)(1), can the : federal: court "hypothesize" about possible "tactical choices" trial counsel might have made on the basis of facts which have been unreasonably determined by the state court, in violation of subsection (d)(2). 3. In applying Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011), to a habeas corpus claim based on the state's unreasonable application of the Constitutional standard for effective assistance of counsel in violation of 28 USC § 2254 (d)(1), can the federal court "hypothesize" about possible "tactical choices" trial counsel might have made on the basis of facts which are, pursuant to subdivision (e)(1),:umdermined by clear and convincing evidence in the state court record? a *, ‘ ,