Do you deny that the book mentioned in the indictment was about Meadows? The book was mentioned in the indictment - I happened to know from other research that the book was about Meadows and included that information. Still not sure what you are trying to prove. My point was valid, and you don’t seem to even be trying to dispute that. Perhaps I should have put the information about Meadows in parentheses for clarity, but that doesn’t negate the point I made. This isn’t the own you think it is…
I have no evidence whether it is or isn't about Meadows. How am I to say either way? That's what YOU are supposed to be helping with and all I've gotten from you is lies and subterfuge.
The book was mentioned in the indictment...
NO!!! A book was mentioned, and neither the title nor subject is stated. If it is what page?
...and included that information.
Where? Which specific reply?
My point was valid...
Your POINT was that the book was about Meadows and the indictment stated that it was specifically ("specified") in there, which has now been shown to be a lie.
"IN" the indictment you said. It's NOT on Page 15.
No subject, no mention of Meadows, no mention of the writer's intent or subject, but you KNOW it was about Meadows yet you offer NOTHING to substantiate your claims, even from your purported "other sources".
Ignominy.