Are we having the same conversation? Because I simply asked for a source and have yet to receive one.

I have no point to articulate because I only just wanted a source, I’m not here to “dunk on you” or some shit. I just wanted to read more about the shit you were saying from some source other than a Reddit commenter. You made this a whole thing because from the start you assumed I wasn’t “on your side.”

I have ZERO comments on this topic or on this post aside from me asking you for a source.

I hate when people edit comments after I respond already…

I didn’t ask for a list of convicted politicians, I asked for a source that proves Democrats interfered in the prosecution of another Democrat. If I’m as biased as you think I am then why don’t you think my google search would be biased?

> I said you’d wack a mole if I engaged and that’s what you’re doing.

No, you said I wouldn’t take your sources in good faith. You’ve yet to provide a source.. I’m still only interacting in hopes that you do.

> Google is your friend.

Surely you realize that it would be a biased google search, right? I’m asking you to provide me with information outside the echo chamber I’m trying to avoid. Yet here you are arguing with me about whether or not I’m engaging in good faith when all I did was ask for a source for your claims.

> If you were sincere in wanting to answer the question “have democrats interfered with investigations of democrats?”,

I didn’t ask that question, just give me a source to support your claims.

Yes.. I would’ve happily looked at a few links to verify what you were saying..

It’s called hyperbole.

> you’re just outmatched.

I was unaware this was a competition..

That was after I asked for a source and you wrote a goddamn novel instead of just sending me a link or two like I asked… and that only applied to your novel, I read your previous paragraph and I’m still confused as to how you know so much about me based on me asking for a source.

> You are not asking for a source in good faith,

My only comment in this entire thread was me asking for a source so I’d love to know how you came to that conclusion…

> I’ll let you waste some time explaining to me why Nancy pelosi shouldn’t have been charged for insider trading or maybe how Ted Kennedy ended up with a suspended sentence for murdering someone.

This is what I was asking for, just a more verifiable source…

> then you’ll obviously just reject whatever source is put in front of you,

Brother, have you tried simply putting a source in front of me? You typed all that shit out (that I’m not gonna read) when I simply asked you to provide a source. One source.

> If someone in a party is being legitimately prosecuted, others in that party shouldn’t interfere. Period. Both parties have done it.

Source?