Really, you were able to tell that when no useful information was given in testimony?
Please post here the exact parts of testimony that made it clear to you.
BTW - I think like you, that they definitely were involved, but I did not hear anything in the testimony today that either strengthened or weakened my belief..
OP forgot to insert "it is clear to me the secret service was complicit".
It puts out an assertion which is the OP's belief and presents it as a fact.
This is not critical thinking, or empirical data. It's opinion.
Even worse, OP claims "The secret service was complicit" as if the Secret Service as an organization (the entire entity, group and organization) WAS complicit. As if the Secret Service from top to bottom is all in on it, instead of asserting that certain people, individuals or elements of the SS were complicit, which would actually make sense.
I dunno. In this case, I think it's important to more clearly define where blame is being assigned. Because one could easily read the OP's assertion (opinion) and come away thinking that the OP blames all the SS on the field that day, in the offices and everyone else.
In fact, in his/her comments OP appears to think so (i.e. that the SS at the Trump Rally itself were in on the assassination and/or somehow cooperated in it).
OK. Maybe the OP actually means that the SS every dog man of them, are corrupt and are complicit.
Seems exceedingly sloppy to me. Particularly on such an emotional issue, I personally think frogs should take more care. But then, that's MY opinion.
Really, you were able to tell that when no useful information was given in testimony?
Please post here the exact parts of testimony that made it clear to you.
BTW - I think like you, that they definitely were involved, but I did not hear anything in the testimony today that either strengthened or weakened my belief..
OP forgot to insert "it is clear to me the secret service was complicit".
It puts out an assertion which is the OP's belief and presents it as a fact.
This is not critical thinking, or empirical data. It's opinion.
Even worse, OP claims "The secret service was complicit" as if the Secret Service as an organization (the entire entity, group and organization) WAS complicit. As if the Secret Service from top to bottom is all in on it, instead of asserting that certain people, individuals or elements of the SS were complicit, which would actually make sense.
The same standard we apply to the local police is also applied to the SS and other agencies as well.
I dunno. In this case, I think it's important to more clearly define where blame is being assigned. Because one could easily read the OP's assertion (opinion) and come away thinking that the OP blames all the SS on the field that day, in the offices and everyone else.
In fact, in his/her comments OP appears to think so (i.e. that the SS at the Trump Rally itself were in on the assassination and/or somehow cooperated in it).
OK. Maybe the OP actually means that the SS every dog man of them, are corrupt and are complicit.
Seems exceedingly sloppy to me. Particularly on such an emotional issue, I personally think frogs should take more care. But then, that's MY opinion.