Are you claiming that OP is wrong about what he said factually? When there is information that is publicly available, my experience is that anyone who demands "proof" or "evidence" of it has a dismissal lined up in their queue. I have never once provided the actual evidence and had someone who challenged me say, "oh, I see." It's always "yes, it's there, but <dismissal>". Mycroft is #1 in that regard. You're a new poster. Stick around and pay attention to him, then you'll see.
Meanwhile, while I have not agreed with every conclusion or opinion independentUSA has, I have not known him to straight-up lie about a fact. So when he says he was paying attention and so-and-so said these words, I'm willing to accept it. That can/will change the moment he gets anything horribly wrong.
There are posters I respect because they are honest and intelligent. There are posters I do not respect for various reasons. I can't say more here. I most certainly am not going to waste my time on a poster who demands "proof" when I've seen them do that a million times before, only to **** all over the alleged "proof" without arguing anything. If you means that you dismiss what I've said in this thread, so be it....
:shrug:
When I've got something of my own to say, I do back it up, and you can see that if you look at the relatively few threads I've started in the four years I've been here. Of course, if you look at that, you will also see that I get quite sharp with people if I'm fed up with their BS.
Extra credit: posters who regularly utter "you are dismissed" are not here to debate.
Substance!
I don't need Volker or anyone to say anything more. I accept Mueller's conclusion on criminal conspiracy. I resent that so little attention was paid to the many instances of obstruction of justice. If I said "Eisenberg", just how many people would realize I was referring to instance #9 - roughly around page 244-46 (could be wrong, don't quote me) of the memo, I think? How many?
But with this Ukraine thing, their own edited memo (which they called a transcript despite it saying quite clearly that it was not on the first page - bottom - and on top, that if that was a transcript it would have been at about 65 spoken words per minute when other calls analyzed by Wapo were more like 120-130.
If that also makes you want to tell me it's my duty to provide proof, and only in that case....
I've posted about that before here. I cited the WaPo article. About this "duty to prove" thing you raised.....does this mean you won't believe me unless I go find my old post from 2ish months ago, get the link, get the article, and show it to you? Yeah. Exactly. And that is the precise reason people play the "show me proof" game: they know you don't want to do the work, and they know you won't do it if they've responded to you similarly in the past).
It's a message board. You probably didn't read this far. A message this long gets "tl;dr", so one must speak in short-hand. And doing that makes a post ripe for "show me proof" bull****. Games and games again.
