But you had just expressed your opinion. The faulty, key underlying premise (of yours). Remember? You are assuming a central premise that is not in evidence. It was to that I was speaking for what you chose to quote, then provide reply. Try to keep up, would you?
In context of this conversation, as for the attorney's posted-online discussion of conspiracy, it appeared to me as if you were presenting that as proof of there having been conspiracy. If so, you were confusing the issues, which you must do, I suppose, in order to keep up the effort of selling loose, broadly sweeping insinuations and innuendo be mistaken for facts.
No. I was highlighting parts you conveniently failed to address.