> “But researching something I already know is not true .....”
All that needs to be seen to know about you.
> “Why not list all 20 AGs and enlighten us?”
Who is this “us”? Are “they” more of the same that decide what is true without doing any research?
Research is also construed as “investigation” which, according to you, you haven’t done before deciding what you want. In other words, circular nonsense arriving at a premeditated conclusion is your display. Smells like “liberal” baloney.
It’s OK for others to ask me to explain what I know about the upcoming lawsuit, but to assert it’s not true puts the burden on who is asserting it’s not true.
I think I can count Fury along with me as being curious. We're the two trying to take you up on your bet. Twenty AGs signing on with Lindell and a Supreme Court filing at 9:30 AM next Tuesday. That was your claim and that's what we're willing to bet on.
I should point out that Lindell is all over the board on this one. In October he was claiming 30 AGs Link. Last week it was "minimum of 20" AGs Link.
So since you can't name the 20 AGs, much less the 30 AGs, then we'll have to wait until next week to see what Lindell has. The only question remaining is if you're going to take Fury and me up on our offer to take your bet? I believe Fury went $250 so I'll do $250 too. That's $500 to you.