Not any source. The FBI, particularly, has recent form as an organisation involved in what appear to be political prosecutions - or did you miss the whole Whitmer thing where it's seemingly the FBI doing the heavy lifting?
Or is this you not liking being asked to actually show your working rather than merely your rhetoric?
It seems you’re already hard at work discrediting sources I haven’t even provided yet. I’m patient. I will be here when the gavel drops and Kyle is sentenced. Will you, u/APDSmith ?
I'm raising queries about one specific source you referenced. Or is the word of a government source the be treated as holy writ and beyond question?
Regards the result, well, I'll have to wait and see what the reasoning is. The entire trial is quite politicised and that reduces the chance of a well-reasoned verdict, whichever party that verdict favours.
I see you’re already setting the table with excuses. Not very confident, are you. You shouldn’t be. To your credit, that at least shows some level of intelligence.
Oh, no, a considered response instead of spinal-reflex posturing!
I find it ironic that after chiding me for "discrediting sources" you've yet to provide, you're in the next breath chiding me for not unconditionally signing onto a verdict that's not even produced yet.
Still, such is the life of a hypocrite, I suppose.
Not any source. The FBI, particularly, has recent form as an organisation involved in what appear to be political prosecutions - or did you miss the whole Whitmer thing where it's seemingly the FBI doing the heavy lifting?
Or is this you not liking being asked to actually show your working rather than merely your rhetoric?
It seems you’re already hard at work discrediting sources I haven’t even provided yet. I’m patient. I will be here when the gavel drops and Kyle is sentenced. Will you, u/APDSmith ?
I'm raising queries about one specific source you referenced. Or is the word of a government source the be treated as holy writ and beyond question?
Regards the result, well, I'll have to wait and see what the reasoning is. The entire trial is quite politicised and that reduces the chance of a well-reasoned verdict, whichever party that verdict favours.
I see you’re already setting the table with excuses. Not very confident, are you. You shouldn’t be. To your credit, that at least shows some level of intelligence.
Oh, no, a considered response instead of spinal-reflex posturing!
I find it ironic that after chiding me for "discrediting sources" you've yet to provide, you're in the next breath chiding me for not unconditionally signing onto a verdict that's not even produced yet.
Still, such is the life of a hypocrite, I suppose.