33 posts before one of them was sane.
So the only "sane" post was the one discounting what the pro wrestler had to say about the crimes, and, by extension, the Clintons' culpability therein?
How very convenient that you'd dismiss all the other posts as "not sane"! Are you a fan of the Clintons? Because there's obviously a lot of information floating around unrelated to this wrestler's testimony, which also points to the Clintons' involvement in this crime.
I just find it odd that you'd make such a flippant comment in light of the fact that this crime was tied to the Clintons long before this wrestler entered the picture.
Again, to reiterate: you've indicated that the first 32 comments on this thread aren't "sane". Do you stand by that claim? Why are all those comments not "sane"?