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.

OP forgot to insert "it is clear to me the secret service was complicit".

I hate to flame on fellow frogs, but the post title is completely unworthy of a Q research board.

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 hate seeing these low-grade posts on the forum, and even worse seeing them stickied. Sure, let's have discussions, and the mods often sticky stuff to prompt discussions, but why do we have to have low grade, non-critical thinking posts stickied.

I would have no issue with the post if the OP acknowledged up front that this is his/her opinion (and written it in that way) and also applied a bit of discernment to the assertion, but...