You’re staking your credibility on the claim that Patel has no evidence.
I think you don’t know what’s happening.
“You’re staking your credibility on the claim that Patel has no evidence.”
Actually, no.
The argument I was answering was the implication that Patel wouldn’t make a statement like the one in the OP unless he had good evidence. What I wrote was that “IMO, if Patel knows that he has accusations and theories but almost no evidence, he might well decide that making public statements like this is the best he can do.”
Note that word “if”. My point is that if he has evidence, he would make a statement like this, to prepare the ground; but if he DOESN’T have evidence, then he would still make a statement like this, to besmirch people he thought were guilty but whom he couldn’t prove were guilty.
In other words, his statement tells us nothing about what’s in the evidence folder.
We do have the additional information that we’re well into the second year of the administration. What we’ve seen so far is a charge against Comey, alleging perjury on one minor point (not who did what, but whether Comey authorized anyone in the FBI to talk to the press). And even that one case was tossed. The latest indictment of Comey, about the alleged seashell threat in May 2025, doesn’t concern anything he did while in office, and doesn’t have anything to do with spying on Trump.
So, I admit I don’t know what’s in Patel’s evidence box. The circumstances suggest, however, that there’s no smoking gun.