Sure, we've all heard the kernels of information that lend creedence to the possibility. They just don't accumulate to anything close to a credible case. When

Sure, we've all heard the kernels of information that lend creedence to the possibility. They just don't accumulate to anything close to a credible case. When you load up your rhetoric with words like "murder", "historical" and "corrupt", you clearly demonstrate that you have no interest in building consensus through anything but fear. Why is it that you can't put forth the details of an event without providing the conclusion you demand your audience comes away with?