>>4154568 (lb)
>Everything you read has it's own bias and omissions. DiGenova's interview has multiple data points that fit into the evidence we already have, making it more likely or not to be credible.
everything I 'read' ??? you fucking moron, how would you know what I have read and what I haven't? Or what the source of what I read was? How about actual DoJ documents, outlining the timeline of where he was, when, and cases he was involved in for starters?
Fucking small-minded or an npc, either way you don't belong here if that (fucking pundit interivew?!? really?!?) is the best argument you can put up Don't bother - you're only going to end up hurting yourself. You clearly need your opinion given to you because coming up with one on your own would be too much effort.
>>4154535 (lb)
one of my favorite telltale signs is attempting to 'convince' me by linking me to some youtube video of an interview with 'muh-trusted-pundit' spinning a narrative.
Nevermind that I wouldn't have opinions or theories that run against the grain if I only had 'interview videos' and 'pundit-opinions' as the basis for my suspicions.
So few people seem capable of actually forming an independent opinion. :\
NPC's are a thing - and they're very, very real.
sad.