Tying the conspiracy together: "The Russia Investigation Circus Is Over. Will There Be A Parade?"

a reply to: Liquesence


I'm not deflecting anything. The agents/lawyers who mishandled Clinton's investigation are the exact same agents that spun a standard counter-intelligence investigation as a criminal case attacking the President.

You do realize that is why Strozok got the case, right? He was top CI. Him, his mistress Lisa Page and several other key players spun this into something criminal (including Lynch, remember her secret meeting with suspect Clinton's husband during the criminal investigation?).

But since you're so "well versed" on the law, can you produce an actual statute criminalizing his alleged conduct? Lets assume you're right, and he did in fact do every last thing you allege - where is the crime? There is absolutely no entry in the USC or any state's law criminalizing this alleged conduct. Which is precisely why a counter-intelligence investigation makes sense, from a LE perspective. A criminal investigation for a non-crime does not.

You've once again ignored the mountain of evidence, choosing instead to focus on dubious allegations and discrediting the connections between Clinton's investigation and the present. How do you reconcile this?

I'll leave you with my list of questions, simply to demonstrate your total avoidance of them (I suspect it is because you realize it'd betray the weakness of your argument).

You've done no such thing. You have deflected and presented junk information to detract from the discussion. You have failed at discrediting my information, because it is available in the OP for all who are interested. Instead of reposting my OP, I have extrapolated the information and presented it in question format.

If you honestly ask yourself the following questions (and do the appropriate independent research - don't take my word for it) I trust you'll expand your awareness of this conspiracy. If you're totally convinced of your position, what harm can come from exploring these alternatives?

Dems and media like to say 17 intelligence agencies agreed unanimously - this is untrue. In actually, only three agencies provided input and NSA only expressed "moderate confidence" in the reports. Later, Clapper admitted that only a select handful of people within these agencies came to these findings - hardly the unanimous claim he'd made initially. In fact, the three agencies couldn't even be described as "unanimous." How much do you want to bet that FBI's opinion came from Pete Strozok (the lead counterintelligence SA at that time)

The accusations against Russia are entirely based on the findings of a private company (CrowdStrike) that the DNC hired in response to the leaks. 16GB of data was transferred in just a couple of seconds, so we already know it was transferred locally (via USB 3.0+ no less).

How come the same agents/lawyers who steered this standard counter-intelligence probe to an attack against Trump were involved in the Clinton investigation? Why is a special counsel needed now, but not when a Democrat administration was investigating a former SOS and DNC Presidential candidate?

What about the extremely suspicious text messages between Strozok, Lisa Page and others? What "insurance policy" against Trump were they referring to? Knowing the extent people went to in the 2016 election, what makes you believe these people maintained their professional standards? Wouldn't the right thing to have done been to recuse themselves?

What about the laundering of millions of dollars from the Clinton campaign and the DNC to pay Fusion GPS to produce a dossier full of salacious unverified (mostly unverifiable) charges against Trump? What if that was used to obtain intrusive FISA warrant(s)? How about Bruce Ohr meeting with the writers of the slanderous "dossier" ?

How about Andrew Weissmann, who congratulated disgraced acting-AG Sally Yates for refusing to follow what is universally termed a "lawful Presidential order"?

Why was Clinton, Mills, Abedin and dozens more interviewed without being put under oath by Peter Strozok no less? Why would co-conspirator Cheryl Mills be allowed to sit in on the interrogation?

Why did Strozok decline to charge Mills and Abedin for lying about knowledge of Clinton's illegal server? They clearly had the knowledge (as proven by their own emails), yet lied directly to federal agents (a crime whether under oath or not). They also were not prosecuted for this offense - yet it is precisely what the likes of Mike Flynn and company are charged with. Precisely the same offense. Once again, two sets of rules.

If this entire nonsense is based on the erroneous and malicious actions of these corrupt and tainted agents as well as the phony "dossier" (aka Democrat op-research hit-job stuff), then I fully expect the investigation will be shut down without warning. And rightfully so. A new investigator can easily be appointed, who is not tainted like Mueller and virtually his entire team.

a reply to: Sillyolme


Why would it be a surprise? The investigation could easily continue under a new SC or the DOJ.

After all, how can the DOJ have a conflict of interest? Simply being in the same party as someone under investigation doesn't matter, right? Isn't that the precedent Lynch set when she secretly met with Bill Clinton while continuing to have her department pursue the case?

Firing Mueller and his demonstrably corrupt/tainted team does not equal closing the investigation - although that is an interesting false equivalency. Nice try. Mueller hasn't been discredited for hiring Democrats. Mueller has been discredited due to the massive, Earth shattering revelations regarding members of his team. They are compromised in every way, and no finding of this SC is legitimate.

Just ask how many Trump voters would be willing to accept a finding of guilt by the demonstrably tainted Mueller probe. You won't find many, that is for sure. Another SC or US attorney? Sure. A transparent FBI investigation? Sure. Mueller and his team of exposed partisan hacks? Not a chance in hell. Anything of the sort is begging for a new civil war. We all saw the rhetoric in response to some murky plot by antifa back in November. People were posing with plate carriers and rifles on YouTube for Christ's sake. Now what do you think those people will do if our duly elected President is removed under anything other than totally transparent and credible circumstances? Much like what happened recently in Ukraine, I'd expect pro-Trump/pro-Constitution Americans to physically rip the doors off the paddy wagon and free him at the bare minimum. Do you really want to see a US Government in-exile? That's all it would take to propel us into third world living conditions. What a silly and dangerous idea, indeed.

It would obviously continue under a new SC or US attorney. Although from the looks of things, there is no need. The investigation is already finished with the Trump White House, or did you miss that part?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
I'm thinking that "The investigation is over" might be a bit of a surprise to Robert Mueller.

Yeah , the Thought that his 15 Minutes of Fame are Finally Up , and the Moola going into his Personal Bank Account are about to Dry Up .. Yogi Berra is Dead Now BTW........

a reply to: Zanti Misfit


This, precisely.

At least he managed to snag up Manafort, Flynn and the others for doing the exact same crap Clinton and her aides are guilty of.

You know, because their charges are *so* related to Russia or anything this probe is supposed to be about.

Hint: Their charges have absolutely nothing to do with Russia (or any other country), and everything to do with lying. If they'd have told the truth, or refused to answer the questions, they would not be facing charges right now. Nothing else is illegal. The meetings weren't illegal, regardless of who directed them. Even if there was "cooperation" to swing the election. Guess what? That's also not a crime.

I wish there were a chuckling emoticon on here. Not a laughing, smirking or grinning one: but a chuckler.

You can thank Clinton and her cult for the age of "whataboutisms" though.

Something about not throwing stones in glass houses, or something.

a reply to: JBurns

President Trump , the New Teflon Don . We All make some Bad Choices in Life from Time to Time , but the Wise Man just Knows when to Rid Himself of the Weaker Willed Among his Minions .......)

originally posted by: stosh64
Can't wait to see the usual Silly suspects show up and argue against this.

From MSN no less.

It's an opinion piece brought from the Daily Caller LOL.

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Agreed.

This is as bad as the people who falsely associated Democrats with a creep like Harvey Weinstein for simply being (now former) friends with him. Attempting to attack POTUS based on some spurious and weak connections just won't cut it.

I wouldn't personally care if he was guilty of each and every accusation. None of them constitute crimes. But I know better. There has been no credible evidence supporting Strozok's (and his forenamed associates) malicious and biased allegations (how much was mistress Lisa Page involved?). Vladimir Putin and Trump probably laugh at the ridiculous minions in this country pushing a hysterical and widely discredited conspiracy theory. What I would give to be a fly on that wall... For the humor value, if nothing else.

I am glad to see an age of cooperation taking hold with Russia. As Trump amasses more domestic victories under his belt, I suspect his foreign policy will grow equally as bold. We can do great things with a non-EU country like Russia.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Which somehow changes the veracity of the hard evidence presented? It changes nothing.

It doesn't change the demonstrable bias, it doesn't change the strong connection between the Clinton case and the original Russia COUNTER-INTELLIGENCE investigation or does it explain the extreme pro-Clinton/anti-Trump biases of a majority of those involved.

I will posit the same questions to you as I did previously. You can either answer them in a concerted way, or ignore them. I couldn't care less. But for the sake of intellectual expansion (and not looking Silly in the future), I'd strongly urge you to consider them.

What's the worst that could happen? You get proven wrong? Worse things could happen.

You've done no such thing. You have deflected and presented junk information to detract from the discussion. You have failed at discrediting my information, because it is available in the OP for all who are interested. Instead of reposting my OP, I have extrapolated the information and presented it in question format.

If you honestly ask yourself the following questions (and do the appropriate independent research - don't take my word for it) I trust you'll expand your awareness of this conspiracy. If you're totally convinced of your position, what harm can come from exploring these alternatives?

Dems and media like to say 17 intelligence agencies agreed unanimously - this is untrue. In actually, only three agencies provided input and NSA only expressed "moderate confidence" in the reports. Later, Clapper admitted that only a select handful of people within these agencies came to these findings - hardly the unanimous claim he'd made initially. In fact, the three agencies couldn't even be described as "unanimous." How much do you want to bet that FBI's opinion came from Pete Strozok (the lead counterintelligence SA at that time)

The accusations against Russia are entirely based on the findings of a private company (CrowdStrike) that the DNC hired in response to the leaks. 16GB of data was transferred in just a couple of seconds, so we already know it was transferred locally (via USB 3.0+ no less).

How come the same agents/lawyers who steered this standard counter-intelligence probe to an attack against Trump were involved in the Clinton investigation? Why is a special counsel needed now, but not when a Democrat administration was investigating a former SOS and DNC Presidential candidate?

What about the extremely suspicious text messages between Strozok, Lisa Page and others? What "insurance policy" against Trump were they referring to? Knowing the extent people went to in the 2016 election, what makes you believe these people maintained their professional standards? Wouldn't the right thing to have done been to recuse themselves?

What about the laundering of millions of dollars from the Clinton campaign and the DNC to pay Fusion GPS to produce a dossier full of salacious unverified (mostly unverifiable) charges against Trump? What if that was used to obtain intrusive FISA warrant(s)? How about Bruce Ohr meeting with the writers of the slanderous "dossier" ?

How about Andrew Weissmann, who congratulated disgraced acting-AG Sally Yates for refusing to follow what is universally termed a "lawful Presidential order"?

Why was Clinton, Mills, Abedin and dozens more interviewed without being put under oath by Peter Strozok no less? Why would co-conspirator Cheryl Mills be allowed to sit in on the interrogation?

Why did Strozok decline to charge Mills and Abedin for lying about knowledge of Clinton's illegal server? They clearly had the knowledge (as proven by their own emails), yet lied directly to federal agents (a crime whether under oath or not). They also were not prosecuted for this offense - yet it is precisely what the likes of Mike Flynn and company are charged with. Precisely the same offense. Once again, two sets of rules.

If this entire nonsense is based on the erroneous and malicious actions of these corrupt and tainted agents as well as the phony "dossier" (aka Democrat op-research hit-job stuff), then I fully expect the investigation will be shut down without warning. And rightfully so. A new investigator can easily be appointed, who is not tainted like Mueller and virtually his entire team.

It is amazing how apologists and detractors will claim to be answering questions while actually avoiding them. The thing is, replying with a dozen quips and attempting to derail the topic's progression does not an answer make.

The factual, credible evidence is available in the OP for all who are interested. Instead of reposting my OP, I have extrapolated the information and presented it in question format.

If you honestly ask yourself the following questions (and do the appropriate independent research - don't take my word for it) I trust you'll expand your awareness of this conspiracy. If you're totally convinced of your position, what harm can come from exploring these alternatives?

Dems and media like to say 17 intelligence agencies agreed unanimously - this is untrue. In actually, only three agencies provided input and NSA only expressed "moderate confidence" in the reports. Later, Clapper admitted that only a select handful of people within these agencies came to these findings - hardly the unanimous claim he'd made initially. In fact, the three agencies couldn't even be described as "unanimous." How much do you want to bet that FBI's opinion came from Pete Strozok (the lead counterintelligence SA at that time)

The accusations against Russia are entirely based on the findings of a private company (CrowdStrike) that the DNC hired in response to the leaks. 16GB of data was transferred in just a couple of seconds, so we already know it was transferred locally (via USB 3.0+ no less).

How come the same agents/lawyers who steered this standard counter-intelligence probe to an attack against Trump were involved in the Clinton investigation? Why is a special counsel needed now, but not when a Democrat administration was investigating a former SOS and DNC Presidential candidate?

What about the extremely suspicious text messages between Strozok, Lisa Page and others? What "insurance policy" against Trump were they referring to? Knowing the extent people went to in the 2016 election, what makes you believe these people maintained their professional standards? Wouldn't the right thing to have done been to recuse themselves?

What about the laundering of millions of dollars from the Clinton campaign and the DNC to pay Fusion GPS to produce a dossier full of salacious unverified (mostly unverifiable) charges against Trump? What if that was used to obtain intrusive FISA warrant(s)? How about Bruce Ohr meeting with the writers of the slanderous "dossier" ?

How about Andrew Weissmann, who congratulated disgraced acting-AG Sally Yates for refusing to follow what is universally termed a "lawful Presidential order"?

Why was Clinton, Mills, Abedin and dozens more interviewed without being put under oath by Peter Strozok no less? Why would co-conspirator Cheryl Mills be allowed to sit in on the interrogation?

Why did Strozok decline to charge Mills and Abedin for lying about knowledge of Clinton's illegal server? They clearly had the knowledge (as proven by their own emails), yet lied directly to federal agents (a crime whether under oath or not). They also were not prosecuted for this offense - yet it is precisely what the likes of Mike Flynn and company are charged with. Precisely the same offense. Once again, two sets of rules.

If this entire nonsense is based on the erroneous and malicious actions of these corrupt and tainted agents as well as the phony "dossier" (aka Democrat op-research hit-job stuff), then I fully expect the investigation will be shut down without warning. And rightfully so. A new investigator can easily be appointed, who is not tainted like Mueller and virtually his entire team.

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: stosh64
Can't wait to see the usual Silly suspects show up and argue against this.

From MSN no less.

Yes, MSN putting out a story like this out there seems to be a sign that the jig is up on the fake Russian narrative.

Guess you missed this

The Daily Caller

John Linder6 days ago

And this

Editor’s note: The opinions in this article are the author’s, as published by our content partner, and do not necessarily represent the views of MSN or Microsoft

a reply to: Sillyolme


And I suppose you missed this:

If you honestly ask yourself the following questions (and do the appropriate independent research - don't take my word for it) I trust you'll expand your awareness of this conspiracy. If you're totally convinced of your position, what harm can come from exploring these alternatives?

Dems and media like to say 17 intelligence agencies agreed unanimously - this is untrue. In actually, only three agencies provided input and NSA only expressed "moderate confidence" in the reports. Later, Clapper admitted that only a select handful of people within these agencies came to these findings - hardly the unanimous claim he'd made initially. In fact, the three agencies couldn't even be described as "unanimous." How much do you want to bet that FBI's opinion came from Pete Strozok (the lead counterintelligence SA at that time)

The accusations against Russia are entirely based on the findings of a private company (CrowdStrike) that the DNC hired in response to the leaks. 16GB of data was transferred in just a couple of seconds, so we already know it was transferred locally (via USB 3.0+ no less).

How come the same agents/lawyers who steered this standard counter-intelligence probe to an attack against Trump were involved in the Clinton investigation? Why is a special counsel needed now, but not when a Democrat administration was investigating a former SOS and DNC Presidential candidate?

What about the extremely suspicious text messages between Strozok, Lisa Page and others? What "insurance policy" against Trump were they referring to? Knowing the extent people went to in the 2016 election, what makes you believe these people maintained their professional standards? Wouldn't the right thing to have done been to recuse themselves?

What about the laundering of millions of dollars from the Clinton campaign and the DNC to pay Fusion GPS to produce a dossier full of salacious unverified (mostly unverifiable) charges against Trump? What if that was used to obtain intrusive FISA warrant(s)? How about Bruce Ohr meeting with the writers of the slanderous "dossier" ?

How about Andrew Weissmann, who congratulated disgraced acting-AG Sally Yates for refusing to follow what is universally termed a "lawful Presidential order"?

Why was Clinton, Mills, Abedin and dozens more interviewed without being put under oath by Peter Strozok no less? Why would co-conspirator Cheryl Mills be allowed to sit in on the interrogation?

Why did Strozok decline to charge Mills and Abedin for lying about knowledge of Clinton's illegal server? They clearly had the knowledge (as proven by their own emails), yet lied directly to federal agents (a crime whether under oath or not). They also were not prosecuted for this offense - yet it is precisely what the likes of Mike Flynn and company are charged with. Precisely the same offense. Once again, two sets of rules.

If this entire nonsense is based on the erroneous and malicious actions of these corrupt and tainted agents as well as the phony "dossier" (aka Democrat op-research hit-job stuff), then I fully expect the investigation will be shut down without warning. And rightfully so. A new investigator can easily be appointed, who is not tainted like Mueller and virtually his entire team.

You were saying?

originally posted by: Sillyolme

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: stosh64
Can't wait to see the usual Silly suspects show up and argue against this.

From MSN no less.

Yes, MSN putting out a story like this out there seems to be a sign that the jig is up on the fake Russian narrative.

Guess you missed this

The Daily Caller

John Linder6 days ago

And this

Editor’s note: The opinions in this article are the author’s, as published by our content partner, and do not necessarily represent the views of MSN or Microsoft

Hardly.
I guess you missed my post where I directly referred to it.

a reply to: JBurns

But since you're so "well versed" on the law

Not nearly as well as Mueller. Hence the ongoing investigation.

can you produce an actual statute criminalizing his alleged conduct?

Whose, and what, conduct?

Which is precisely why a counter-intelligence investigation makes sense, from a LE perspective. A criminal investigation for a non-crime does not.

That is what this is: a counter intel investigation; but it is also a criminal investigation. And that's why there is an investigation, to uncover criminality, and why it's still ongoing, because it's being uncovered.

You've once again ignored the mountain of evidence, choosing instead to focus on dubious allegations

So have you, by attempting to undermine the very real ongoing investigation using "but Clinton" and "corrupt agents" talking points.

And no, I am not going to waste my time going through your talking points.

a reply to: JBurns

" I am glad to see an age of cooperation taking hold with Russia. As Trump amasses more domestic victories under his belt, I suspect his foreign policy will grow equally as bold. We can do great things with a non-EU country like Russia. "


You do not have to Personally Like the People You Do Business with , but it Dosen't Hurt if you Start the Negotiation Process on a Common Ground . The Art of the Deal Also Applies to Politics , No ?

a reply to: Sillyolme


I suppose you must know somewhat how the Titanic's Captain felt.

At least you can tell us how it feels to be going down on a sinking ship. I feel more sorry for you guys than anything. You've been lied to, and baited into this self-destructing narrative- hook, line and sinker by the same forces you're being trained to dislike. More false equivalency.

In case you missed it, once again, Mueller is finished with Trump and the entire White House staff. The only question is (assuming Mueller is even permitted to finish this out), will you blame the Russians when he announces no wrong-doing?

You realize that discrediting a source is one of the oldest tricks, right? The Daily Caller author simply provided an intelligent analysis of otherwise tangible, factual and credible evidence. To be certain, they produced the analysis but the evidence itself comes from official, authenticable sources. You can review this evidence, and even obtain it from independent sources. What conclusion you draw is up to you, but many have been convicted of serious crimes using far less credible (and far less numerous amounts of) circumstantial evidence before.

Now, I hate to sound like a broken record here....but please answer the questions or refute the facts. You've done the exact same thing as your buddy in here, which is attack the source/engage in "whataboutisms" for every issue from here to next Sunday. What you haven't done is addressed a single relevant point I (or the DC author) make. The evidence is there. If you want to refute the analysis, great. But attacking the source and engaging in meaningless banter, semantics debates and singling out irrelevant data is both unwanted and unproductive. It only betrays your total lack of a cogent argument or pursuasive dispute.

You do know the difference between relevant and irrelevant data, yes? Not every last word or character within a body of text is relevant. Some are simply functions of our language (connector words, like "and" "then" "but" etc) while others are inserted to illuminate or otherwise make the subject matter more understandable.

The circus metaphor, for instance, is to increase the comprehension of the audience, since a conspiracy of this magnitude is not exactly easy to follow. Use whatever model or metaphor you like, none of it changes the tangible and actual evidence.

This evidence can be examined by you immediately. All you have to do is go get it. I won't link it, since you'll deflect by discrediting the source or whatever other dishonest tactics you guys typically use. But it is there, for anyone who wishes to see it.

Now, please... dispute that evidence or the analysis. But absolutely enough with the diversions.

Nope, sorry. You aren't going to disrupt or derail this thread.

For the SIXTH time

If you honestly ask yourself the following questions (and do the appropriate independent research - don't take my word for it) I trust you'll expand your awareness of this conspiracy. If you're totally convinced of your position, what harm can come from exploring these alternatives?

Dems and media like to say 17 intelligence agencies agreed unanimously - this is untrue. In actually, only three agencies provided input and NSA only expressed "moderate confidence" in the reports. Later, Clapper admitted that only a select handful of people within these agencies came to these findings - hardly the unanimous claim he'd made initially. In fact, the three agencies couldn't even be described as "unanimous." How much do you want to bet that FBI's opinion came from Pete Strozok (the lead counterintelligence SA at that time)

The accusations against Russia are entirely based on the findings of a private company (CrowdStrike) that the DNC hired in response to the leaks. 16GB of data was transferred in just a couple of seconds, so we already know it was transferred locally (via USB 3.0+ no less).

How come the same agents/lawyers who steered this standard counter-intelligence probe to an attack against Trump were involved in the Clinton investigation? Why is a special counsel needed now, but not when a Democrat administration was investigating a former SOS and DNC Presidential candidate?

What about the extremely suspicious text messages between Strozok, Lisa Page and others? What "insurance policy" against Trump were they referring to? Knowing the extent people went to in the 2016 election, what makes you believe these people maintained their professional standards? Wouldn't the right thing to have done been to recuse themselves?

What about the laundering of millions of dollars from the Clinton campaign and the DNC to pay Fusion GPS to produce a dossier full of salacious unverified (mostly unverifiable) charges against Trump? What if that was used to obtain intrusive FISA warrant(s)? How about Bruce Ohr meeting with the writers of the slanderous "dossier" ?

How about Andrew Weissmann, who congratulated disgraced acting-AG Sally Yates for refusing to follow what is universally termed a "lawful Presidential order"?

Why was Clinton, Mills, Abedin and dozens more interviewed without being put under oath by Peter Strozok no less? Why would co-conspirator Cheryl Mills be allowed to sit in on the interrogation?

Why did Strozok decline to charge Mills and Abedin for lying about knowledge of Clinton's illegal server? They clearly had the knowledge (as proven by their own emails), yet lied directly to federal agents (a crime whether under oath or not). They also were not prosecuted for this offense - yet it is precisely what the likes of Mike Flynn and company are charged with. Precisely the same offense. Once again, two sets of rules.

If this entire nonsense is based on the erroneous and malicious actions of these corrupt and tainted agents as well as the phony "dossier" (aka Democrat op-research hit-job stuff), then I fully expect the investigation will be shut down without warning. And rightfully so. A new investigator can easily be appointed, who is not tainted like Mueller and virtually his entire team.

Just going to start replying en masse with my quoted list of questions.

Neither of you are going to succeed in burying these questions. I know it is your instinct, as the virulent far-left has conditioned you all over the past year or so to pull this crap when confronted with logical arguments or actual evidence. That is OK. You can still maintain your beliefs AND take an objective look at the evidence. There's a lot of it.

Answer them, and you can tear this thread apart to your heart's content. Heck, I'll even ask a mod to delete it - but ONLY after you answer the questions, and take a non-partisan look at the mountain of evidence.

Even if it is *just* the evidence from the last week's ground-shaking revelations, take a look at it and then tell me how "mistaken" you believe I am. Primarily Strozok and other FBI players who were involved in disrupting the Clinton investigation and spinning the standard counterintelligence investigation into an anti-Trump cause celebre. But the totality of evidence discussed by my questions and the OP's referenced article would be preferable.

What do you have to lose by taking a look? Ignorance is never becoming...........Best case scenario, you get to prove me wrong and rub it in. Worst case? You actually learn something and possibly even realize which group of people have been doing illegal things/abusing their offices and which group has been fighting that.

Liquesence, Sillyolme

Clearly we need to approach this differently. This constant back and forth isn't going to solve anything. The fact is that we on the so-called "right" (many of us are probably more-so centrist lefties than anything) are just as responsible for this stuff.

By insulting and jeering those who do believe the Russia conspiracy theory, we force you to "double down" on the claims and avoid any rational discussion or impartial examination of evidence. Even if it is simply by the act of arguing, the evidence sits at the wayside while irrelevant covert jabs and rhetorical devices are used in a futile game of "one-upsmanship."

I propose a different outcome. A discussion without preconceived notions or political biases. Where elections and politics are left at the door.

How about we look at the evidence, piece by piece and discuss it? Concerns, validations, and everything in between.

I propose a productive conversation, as opposed to the multi-page back and forth that sits behind us.

a reply to: JBurns

Sillycone can take Many Shapes , More than you can Imagine ..............)