11 Feb 2024 9:45 am
Shift to 5:20R.Suave » 11 Feb 2024, 10:40 am » wrote: ↑ Not here to address this ****.
And I'll explain why...
It "appears" to you....suggesting that my job is to convince you that you are wrong.
Since it isn't about specifics, what are the odds that you will acknowledge that your vision thing has mislead you?
For example, what do you know about the "willfully withheld" materials in question?
How is thr report defining "willful retention" in this instance?
https://youtu.be/o_pVHb-xJr8?t=309
Also, he has to have known he had the documents in order to put them in cabinets. If he knew he had them, he wilfully retained them - logic
No, I'm not raking through history to 'provide links'. If you can't directly dispute a point, then question your own links.