Lubrano post on Facebook

[rmb297]

No recollection as to whether he met with Schultz or whether Curley and Schultz came to his house does not mean Joe was wrong about those events; it means he didn't recall those 2 events. He did recall generally what MM had told him and MM testified as to what he told Joe and Curley/Schultz. It's clear Joe was never told the details of the sexual nature of the contact, but he was aware of the general sexual context.

What do you think the record shows as to what Joe was told?

Just because you don't agree with my view doesn't mean I have an agenda. I always respected Joe Paterno and still do. Since I don't agree with your view, shall I assume you have an agenda?

The record shows Joe wasn't told any details about what happened. McQueary testified to that fact -- and that he couldn't see Sandusky's hands. So how was it that Joe came up with "fondling" and "privates?"

That's what's called a suggested memory -- that likely came about from Joe's pre-grand jury interview with the prosecutors. Scott Paterno seems to believe that's how the term "sexual nature" got into Joe's head.

My agenda is to put forth the facts and show that the AG knew it was using unreliable testimony.

Your first sentence is simply nonsense, btw.

Even though an 80 year old Joe Paterno didn't recall:
Speaking with Curley after making a phone call to him.
Meeting or speaking with Schultz at all.
Meeting with Curley and Schultz at his house.

You believe he had a general recollection of what McQueary told him --- even though McQueary testified he DIDN'T tell him that (or couldn't see Sandusky's hands). You also ignore that Paterno's testimony was chocked full of stammering around to find words.

As I showed from Erickson's notes, the AG used a scenario in which McQueary lied to his father and Dranov about what he saw, then changed his story and told the truth to Paterno, Curley, and Schultz.

The notes also stated that McQueary gave a "benign" version at first, then a "more vivid" version 10 years later.

In closing, the only logical explanation based on the evidence is that Paterno's grand jury testimony was unreliable.

 

[CDW3333]

Sorry, use something other that your dick as a standard to determine length.

A. You moved the goal posts
B. You made a juvenile remark regarding genitalia.

You lose.

Is that the way you behave in real life?

Boss, Bob is wrong because he has a small dick!

Or is it just because you regard yourself to be quite the message board bully?

 

[lionlurker]

Art doesn't have to regard himself as anything in particular to be the winner, here, big fella. Your side is losing. His side is winning. Or did you forget? He wins no matter what.

 

[GTACSA]

The record shows Joe wasn't told any details about what happened. McQueary testified to that fact -- and that he couldn't see Sandusky's hands. So how was it that Joe came up with "fondling" and "privates?"

That's what's called a suggested memory -- that likely came about from Joe's pre-grand jury interview with the prosecutors. Scott Paterno seems to believe that's how the term "sexual nature" got into Joe's head.

My agenda is to put forth the facts and show that the AG knew it was using unreliable testimony.

Your first sentence is simply nonsense, btw.

Even though an 80 year old Joe Paterno didn't recall:
Speaking with Curley after making a phone call to him.
Meeting or speaking with Schultz at all.
Meeting with Curley and Schultz at his house.

You believe he had a general recollection of what McQueary told him --- even though McQueary testified he DIDN'T tell him that (or couldn't see Sandusky's hands). You also ignore that Paterno's testimony was chocked full of stammering around to find words.

As I showed from Erickson's notes, the AG used a scenario in which McQueary lied to his father and Dranov about what he saw, then changed his story and told the truth to Paterno, Curley, and Schultz.

The notes also stated that McQueary gave a "benign" version at first, then a "more vivid" version 10 years later.

In closing, the only logical explanation based on the evidence is that Paterno's grand jury testimony was unreliable.

"Your first sentence is simply nonsense, btw."

Really?

You posted:
"In October 2011, Paterno was re-interviewed and got every fact wrong about the details surrounding the incident. Paterno said he only called Curley -- and never spoke with him after. He had no recollection of meeting with Schultz. He had no recollection that Curley and Schultz came to his house."

Joe stated he had no recollection of meeting with Schultz or of Curley/Schultz coming to his house. If you think that statement is wrong then you are saying that Joe did remember meeting with Schultz and that Curley/Schultz did come to his house.

Now if Joe knew that he met with Schultz and that Curley/Schultz came to his house, his statement as to no recall would have been wrong. But that is not what you said.

 

[Art]

A. You moved the goal posts
B. You made a juvenile remark regarding genitalia.

You lose.

Is that the way you behave in real life?

Boss, Bob is wrong because he has a small dick!

Or is it just because you regard yourself to be quite the message board bully?

I don't think of what I do on this board as winning or losing. Perhaps you view your participation in those terms. Compensating for something?

 

[CDW3333]

I don't think of what I do on this board as winning or losing. Perhaps you view your participation in those terms. Compensating for something?

Yeah, that's the sort of thing losers say.

 

[simons96]

I don't think of what I do on this board as winning or losing. Perhaps you view your participation in those terms. Compensating for something?

yeah there are number of posters here who are compensating for being wrong on EVERY FRIKKIN THING, and unwilling to admit it

like CDummyW, CRap66, GTA$$, michnitwitidiot, . . .

 

[rmb297]

"Your first sentence is simply nonsense, btw."

Really?

You posted:
"In October 2011, Paterno was re-interviewed and got every fact wrong about the details surrounding the incident. Paterno said he only called Curley -- and never spoke with him after. He had no recollection of meeting with Schultz. He had no recollection that Curley and Schultz came to his house."

Joe stated he had no recollection of meeting with Schultz or of Curley/Schultz coming to his house. If you think that statement is wrong then you are saying that Joe did remember meeting with Schultz and that Curley/Schultz did come to his house.

Now if Joe knew that he met with Schultz and that Curley/Schultz came to his house, his statement as to no recall would have been wrong. But that is not what you said.

Sophistry anyone?

 

[Art]

Yeah, that's the sort of thing losers say.

So you know a lot of losers? No surprise.

 

[lionlurker]

Art wins again.

 

[GTACSA]

Sophistry anyone?

I'm sorry you don't understand basic logic; but it explains why you take the positions that you do.

 

[StinkStankStunk]

I'm sorry you don't understand basic logic; but it explains why you take the positions that you do.

I would imagine you would be fine with whatever position someone takes.....so long as they don't try to take your spot as pivot man in the circle jerk

 

[colt21]

If you're talking about McQueary's testimony regarding Victim 2, he was cross-examined by Sandusky's lawyers.


He was cross examined at length on those subjects at the two prelims by the Gang of Three's lawyers.

This response is for both CDW and GT as they seem to be the resident dissidents today-as well as for Evan just to learn him a little sumthin sumthin

Just stop with all the spinning already. We already KNOW BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT THIS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH JOE AMD THE FOOTBALL PROGRAM

Comin from my perspective of over 25 years of administrative experience with non profits and currently serving bad the person who wrote our new PandPs based on the CPSL updates we KNOW the following
*Joe did exactly what he should have with that info at that time in his role
*there was absolutely NO coverup by the football program
*the NCAAs new procedures dictate that Joe should do exactly what he did
*with all the hindsight we currently poses, the State of PA wrote a new law indicating that the witness, duh, should immediately report the incident AND today this incident would not have even touched Joe at all. With the new procedures he would have absolutely NO involvement in this situation


Here is my additional take on this and something that quite honestly puzzles me about the dissidents perspective
*IF MM saw what he now says he saw there is ABSOLUTELY no way you can exonerate the EYE WITNESS and also the SECONDARY and TERTIARY WITNESSES

*If he saw anything less than that there is ABSOLUTELY no way you can absolve JR and TSM once the report actually got to them

*and my final point-there is no way on Gods green earth that Joe should be even minutely criticized for doing exactly what he should have

These are the things WE KNOW

 

[rmb297]

I'm sorry you don't understand basic logic; but it explains why you take the positions that you do.

You're quite a piece of.....work.

In response to my points about JVP, you responded in argument that the two erroneous statements given by Joe about Curley and Schultz were not proof that his statement about what McQueary told him was in error.

As such, you understood the context of my post. That first Joe's statements to investigators were in error and that the statements that followed described the errors.

Once I showed you the evidence that McQ couldn't have told Joe the things he testified about, you resorted to sophistry.

I get it. The ship is sinking and desperation is setting in.

Sleep well.

 

[Obliviax]

E

This response is for both CDW and GT as they seem to be the resident dissidents today-as well as for Evan just to learn him a little sumthin sumthin

Just stop with all the spinning already. We already KNOW BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT THIS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH JOE AMD THE FOOTBALL PROGRAM

Comin from my perspective of over 25 years of administrative experience with non profits and currently serving bad the person who wrote our new PandPs based on the CPSL updates we KNOW the following
*Joe did exactly what he should have with that info at that time in his role
*there was absolutely NO coverup by the football program
*the NCAAs new procedures dictate that Joe should do exactly what he did
*with all the hindsight we currently poses, the State of PA wrote a new law indicating that the witness, duh, should immediately report the incident AND today this incident would not have even touched Joe at all. With the new procedures he would have absolutely NO involvement in this situation


Here is my additional take on this and something that quite honestly puzzles me about the dissidents perspective
*IF MM saw what he now says he saw there is ABSOLUTELY no way you can exonerate the EYE WITNESS and also the SECONDARY and TERTIARY WITNESSES

*If he saw anything less than that there is ABSOLUTELY no way you can absolve JR and TSM once the report actually got to them

*and my final point-there is no way on Gods green earth that Joe should be even minutely criticized for doing exactly what he should have

These are the things WE KNOW

exactly correct. Aside from MM, Joe did what Joe was supposed to do by today's laws and the laws at the time, including NCAA policy. Curly then did what he was supposed to do. If there is blame, it falls on Schultz.

Also, BTW, if it went down as MM said, he would have seen the 'sexual' stuff through the mirror, before he slammed his locker and turned around (where he testified they had parted). Without more, this case would have gotten the same treatment as 1998.

 

[GTACSA]

You're quite a piece of.....work.

In response to my points about JVP, you responded in argument that the two erroneous statements given by Joe about Curley and Schultz were not proof that his statement about what McQueary told him was in error.

As such, you understood the context of my post. That first Joe's statements to investigators were in error and that the statements that followed described the errors.

Once I showed you the evidence that McQ couldn't have told Joe the things he testified about, you resorted to sophistry.

I get it. The ship is sinking and desperation is setting in.

Sleep well.

Once you get a bit more maturity you might develop a different attitude toward those with whom you disagree.

I only want to say that the attitude of you and others here that all posters who have a different position than the majority on this board somehow have a connection to the BoT or have some other vested interest. As for me, in the big picture I'm just a nobody from nowhere with an opinion, just like you and everyone else who posts on this board.

Guard against the hubris which seems to be, at the very least, snipping at your heels.

 

[psuro]

Once you get a bit more maturity you might develop a different attitude toward those with whom you disagree.

I only want to say that the attitude of you and others here that all posters who have a different position than the majority on this board somehow have a connection to the BoT or have some other vested interest. As for me, in the big picture I'm just a nobody from nowhere with an opinion, just like you and everyone else who posts on this board.

Guard against the hubris which seems to be, at the very least, snipping at your heels.

I would not say that Rmb is a "nobody from nowhere with an opinion". I would say he is a somebody who helped affect change in the status quo.

As far as relationship with BoT with those who don't agree with the majority of posters-pretty sure most of that is in jest or TIC

As far as hubris-those that have supported and defended the efforts of the BoT, Ganim, Corbett, Freeh and to a certain extent-media....well I think you all have been riding the "Hubris Express" for four years now and the ride is about to come to an end

 

[Misder2]

Once you get a bit more maturity you might develop a different attitude toward those with whom you disagree.

I only want to say that the attitude of you and others here that all posters who have a different position than the majority on this board somehow have a connection to the BoT or have some other vested interest. As for me, in the big picture I'm just a nobody from nowhere with an opinion, just like you and everyone else who posts on this board.

Guard against the hubris which seems to be, at the very least, snipping at your heels.

Petty arguments do nothing to advance things. I tend to avoid these types of arguments but I'm going to jump in on this one. You are in error if you believe that rmb is simply someone with an opinion here. There are facts that he has that others don't. You may not agree with him but I wouldn't question his credibility.

 

[simons96]

You're quite a piece of.....work.

In response to my points about JVP, you responded in argument that the two erroneous statements given by Joe about Curley and Schultz were not proof that his statement about what McQueary told him was in error.

As such, you understood the context of my post. That first Joe's statements to investigators were in error and that the statements that followed described the errors.

Once I showed you the evidence that McQ couldn't have told Joe the things he testified about, you resorted to sophistry.

I get it. The ship is sinking and desperation is setting in.

Sleep well.

basic logic dictates that one cannot cherry pick which statements one believes to be true and which statements are not. (this is the pantherpiss-lair logic that Baldwin was somehow credible in testifying against C/S/S, yet forgot that she was violating their fundamental right to counsel and continually misrepresented this to the judge overseeing the grand jury hearing)

Joe was a very intelligent man, but was advanced in age and being asked to recall a brief conversation he'd had with Mike 10 years prior, and events that had followed. Events which, by all accounts, had probably seemed inconsequential and had been dismissed as a misunderstanding.

To read his statements in their entirety, as you have Ray (and I, and many others), Joe seems very uncertain about his recollection of events and the exact nature of his conversation with Mike. THIS IS NORMAL.

it is stunning that the most illogical and immature poster here (besides CR66) accuses you of being illogical and immature.

 

[Ten Thousan Marbles]

Once you get a bit more maturity you might develop a different attitude toward those with whom you disagree.

I only want to say that the attitude of you and others here that all posters who have a different position than the majority on this board somehow have a connection to the BoT or have some other vested interest. As for me, in the big picture I'm just a nobody from nowhere with an opinion, just like you and everyone else who posts on this board.

Guard against the hubris which seems to be, at the very least, snipping at your heels.

Just admit that you (and others like you) have some degree of fear that the world you have constructed around you is about to crumble.

You've tried to position yourself as "the reasonable Penn Stater"....the guy "willing to admit to" the faults and "crimes" of CSS and JVP. You've done this at work and at play. People close to you in real life came to believe your version of "the facts," and went on to repeat that version to others they were close to. All the while, you and they have been staking your reputations on this.

Friday changed all that.

 

[simons96]

Just admit that you (and others like you) have some degree of fear that the world you have constructed around you is about to crumble.

You've tried to position yourself as "the reasonable Penn Stater"....the guy "willing to admit to" the faults and "crimes" of CSS and JVP. You've done this at work and at play. People close to you in real life came to believe your version of "the facts," and went on to repeat that version to others they were close to. All the while, you and they have been staking your reputations on this.

Friday changed all that.

the problem with "sophisticated" know-it-alls like him is that they lack the ability to admit when they are wrong

they just keep doubling down on their BS position with even more insane rationalizations

 

[BobPSU92]

the problem with "sophisticated" know-it-alls like him is that they lack the ability to admit when they are wrong

they just keep doubling down on their BS position with even more insane rationalizations

It makes you wonder if they are so warped to really believe this crap or if they are merely trolling. They are douchebags either way, but the narrative that they continue to defend has been crumbling for some time now, yet they continue to push it. Do they really believe that crap?

 

[WDLion]

If you're talking about McQueary's testimony regarding Victim 2, he was cross-examined by Sandusky's lawyers.


He was cross examined at length on those subjects at the two prelims by the Gang of Three's lawyers.

And the jury found not guilty on sexual assault.
Why do you always ignore that fact.

 

[simons96]

It makes you wonder if they are so warped to really believe this crap or if they are merely trolling. They are douchebags either way, but the narrative that they continue to defend has been crumbling for some time now, yet they continue to push it. Do they really believe that crap?

I will tell you a tale, good sir, about my time in politics in California

There were people who lied, but were so delusional they believed the lie, no matter how many times you discredited it

There were people who lied, but who were very intelligent and had to know they were lying, and continued to press those lies even after they had been discredited

I hold the latter group in more contempt, and I think that GTA, CDW, CR66, and michnitidiot are in that group

NO, they do not honestly believe the BS they are selling. it is like a little game for them. any reasonable person would have given up such an untenable position by now

 

[marshall23]

Inaccurate and blatantly false statements have for several years gone unchallenged. For instance "Joe allowed a ped to hang around the FB program." G/S/S banned JS from bringing TSM children on campus. No one and I mean no one has testified that they saw JS violate this decision. Jerry may have worked out in the mornings with some of the PSU Coaches. Jerry still had emeritus status, as awarded by the BOT. Explain how that translates to Joe allowing a "ped" to "hang around the team." Those are disingenuous comments at the least, and since Jerry was not a convicted "ped" an outright lie.
Even a blind man can see that the tide has turned. Surma, Suhey, Joyner, Meyer, Erickson, Peetz, Frazier have all scurried for higher ground. One term Tommy got his just reward. Baldwin has been rebuked and spends most of her time out of the country. Fina is about to go down for the third time. Perhaps the BOT admiration society can hang on a few more weeks until the Freeh Farce is blown to the heavens. I will go on record as predicting that the star witnesses for Freeh were....The Lady who stood up to JVP (until she got a subpoena), The Surma Vendetta Twins, Bernie, etc. My advice, Repent the end is near!

 

[simons96]

Inaccurate and blatantly false statements have for several years gone unchallenged. For instance "Joe allowed a ped to hang around the FB program." G/S/S banned JS from bringing TSM children on campus. No one and I mean no one has testified that they saw JS violate this decision. Jerry may have worked out in the mornings with some of the PSU Coaches. Jerry was still had emeritus status, as awarded by the BOT. Explain how that translates to Joe allowing a "ped" to "hang around the team." Those are disingenuous comments at the least, and since Jerry was not a convicted "ped" an outright lie.
Even a blind man can see that the tide has turned. Surma, Suhey, Joyner, Meyer, Erickson, Peetz, Frazier have all scurried for higher ground. One term Tommy got his just reward. Baldwin has been rebuked and spends most of her time out of the country. Fina is about to go down for the third time. Perhaps the BOT admiration society can hang on a few more weeks until the Freeh Farce is blown to the heavens. I will go on record as predicting that the star witnesses for Freeh were....The Lady who stood up to JVP (until she got a subpoena), The Surma Vendetta Twins, Bernie, etc. My advice, Repent the end is near!

they be like:

 

[BobPSU92]

I will tell you a tale, good sir, about my time in politics in California

There were people who lied, but were so delusional they believed the lie, no matter how many times you discredited it

There were people who lied, but who were very intelligent and had to know they were lying, and continued to press those lies even after they had been discredited

I hold the latter group in more contempt, and I think that GTA, CDW, CR66, and michnitidiot are in that group

NO, they do not honestly believe the BS they are selling. it is like a little game for them. any reasonable person would have given up such an untenable position by now

That makes sense given how they push the same B.S. agenda in spite of every new development that works against them or any and every clear argument we make that works against them. However, to call them intelligent is a gross mischaracterization. I am offended by your suggestion. (Or I. MAY. JUST. BE. OUTRAGED. )

 

[BobPSU92]

 

[bkmtnittany1]

BoB...thank bra...you just made my morning...hilarious

 

[BobPSU92]

BoB...thank bra...you just made my morning...hilarious

 

[bkmtnittany1]

Best written show of all time...just got done watching the episode where George wanted "Snowtire Day" at Yankee Stadium!

 

[simons96]

That makes sense given how they push the same B.S. agenda in spite of every new development that works against them or any and every clear argument we make that works against them. However, to call them intelligent is a gross mischaracterization. I am offended by your suggestion. (Or I. MAY. JUST. BE. OUTRAGED. )

Intelligent people are more than capable of being obtuse, as long as they are morally vacuous.

 

[capkrokus]

I'm sorry you don't understand basic logic; but it explains why you take the positions that you do.

I thought you made some decent arguments to support your opinion, but the post Ray questioned didn't make much sense & was hard to follow your "basic logic"

"Your first sentence is simply nonsense, btw."

Really?

You posted:
"In October 2011, Paterno was re-interviewed and got every fact wrong about the details surrounding the incident. Paterno said he only called Curley -- and never spoke with him after. He had no recollection of meeting with Schultz. He had no recollection that Curley and Schultz came to his house."

Joe stated he had no recollection of meeting with Schultz or of Curley/Schultz coming to his house. If you think that statement is wrong then you are saying that Joe did remember meeting with Schultz and that Curley/Schultz did come to his house.

Now if Joe knew that he met with Schultz and that Curley/Schultz came to his house, his statement as to no recall would have been wrong. But that is not what you said.

You were having a nice debate with clear points to support your opinion, but this make zero sense.

 

[BobPSU92]

Intelligent people are more than capable of being obtuse, as long as they are morally vacuous.

Fair point. Obfuscation due to moral vacuosity.

I guess they apply their intelligence to tying their shoes, aiming for the toilet, important things like that.

 

[simons96]

Fair point. Obfuscation due to moral vacuosity.

I guess they apply their intelligence to tying their shoes, aiming for the toilet, important things like that.

I doubt their aim is any good . . .

 

[NICNEM_PSU80]

Once you get a bit more maturity you might develop a different attitude toward those with whom you disagree.

I only want to say that the attitude of you and others here that all posters who have a different position than the majority on this board somehow have a connection to the BoT or have some other vested interest. As for me, in the big picture I'm just a nobody from nowhere with an opinion, just like you and everyone else who posts on this board.

Guard against the hubris which seems to be, at the very least, snipping at your heels.

You sir are a joke. You and the small hand full of your "friends" are the ones in the minority here on the board because the facts do not support your rants. Get a clue and follow the facts without the baggage of whoever is pressuring you to maintain your losing position.

 

[GTACSA]

I thought you made some decent arguments to support your opinion, but the post Ray questioned didn't make much sense & was hard to follow your "basic logic"

You were having a nice debate with clear points to support your opinion, but this make zero sense.

Thanks and I understand the difficulty in making sense of my post. Stated another way; if you don't remember talking to your boss last month, when in fact you did talk to your boss, does that make you wrong? You never said you didn't talk to him, you only said you had no recollection of it. You would only be wrong if in fact you did remember yet said that you didn't..

It's a very fine point which I only raised because rmb and others have constructed a narrative that is foot loose and fancy free in a sense. Many "facts" which are cited are myths which have gained acceptance here only because they have been repeated so often they have become "facts" because they fit into what people want to believe. I cringe when the lynch pin of their defense of Joe is to prove what he said was wrong. Maybe he was wrong in his testimony but there are no existing facts to make that case.

Contrary to their belief, I want the facts to show that Joe and all the others at Penn State acted appropriately and I hope those kind of facts come to light if they exist. I always admired Joe (though I did think he coached too long) and I still admire him. No one is perfect and Joe would be the first one to agree with that. What I consider a misstep does not negate all the good he did through the years; he's is still an icon.

 

[Evan Ceg]

A case can be made that JoePa's testimony was unreliable, yes. Ten years' time lapse, Joe's age and memory and the questionable state of Joe's health, his slightly haltering search for the right words, the general unreliability of eye witness testimony (and his was hearsay), etc. The problem is that his testimony is on public record and these reasons for discounting his testimony remain speculative.

The overarching issue is not whether posters here accept Joe's words in the docket or what posters here think of Joe. We know what we believe about Joe. This argument is about what the public at large thinks of Joe. It's his defamation in the public square, not within Penn State fandom, that is the object of the movement to literally or figuratively "restore the statue."

The counterargument to the first paragraph is that Joe had a well-known reputation for having a nearly photographic memory (read, for instance, The Penn Stater article saluting Joe) that could recall small incidents from decades previous and that he was mentally alert enough at that age to operate as CEO of a sizeable organization in one of the most competitive businesses in the U.S.

If you want to make the argument to a non-Penn Stater that Joe's testimony was unreliable, in the contrast to the public record, you must get someone in a position to know, probably McQueary, to publicly explain that Joe didn't know what he was talking about and/or that his testimony was coached. Short of that, the reasons for discounting Joe's testimony aren't very compelling to the general public.

 

[m.knox]

A. You moved the goal posts
B. You made a juvenile remark regarding genitalia.

You lose.

Is that the way you behave in real life?

Boss, Bob is wrong because he has a small dick!

Or is it just because you regard yourself to be quite the message board bully?

Chaz, you suck at playing a victim. Give it up.

 

[GTACSA]

Just admit that you (and others like you) have some degree of fear that the world you have constructed around you is about to crumble.

You've tried to position yourself as "the reasonable Penn Stater"....the guy "willing to admit to" the faults and "crimes" of CSS and JVP. You've done this at work and at play. People close to you in real life came to believe your version of "the facts," and went on to repeat that version to others they were close to. All the while, you and they have been staking your reputations on this.

Friday changed all that.

I hope I'm wrong but I don't think Friday changed anything in the big picture. When facts show that nobody at Penn State was informed of MM's observations, then the narrative changes. Or if the facts show they were informed and reported them to police outside Penn State, or the District Attorney or CYS or CPS, that changes the narrative. As much as I want those facts to come out if they exist, I'm skeptical they will.

Staking my reputation on my opinion; you're kidding right? My reputation is based on so many factors and on a scale of 1 to 10, my opinion on this rates about a minus 10 in the mix. I hope I am wrong and have been waiting 5 years to be proven wrong. If that day ever comes no one will be happier than I will.