Agreed, hence I think public outrage is unjustified

> Investigations will abound

Great, we're all curious

> You seem to cite Himes everywhere as a rebuttal but he says he doesn't know

As he came out of the intelligence briefing about Alice Huang, while in the hallway he was asked whether Alice is a spy and he said he doesn't know. Clearly he was not presented with irrefutable evidence or strong facts in that meeting with all the big shots of the intelligence apparatus, that's for sure.

> You go much further in calling it a hit job

Look at how coordinated this story with "anonymous sources" has been, it's blatant

> have been toxic

I presented arguments and cited sources in my initial comment. The rebuttal people came up with was "the guy that said there is no evidence is from the side I don't like grrrrrrrr". That is clownish actually.

Of course, anything short of an official statement from The Supreme Court will not suffice, right?

> So don't throw stones from glass houses

You haven't proven anything yourself or added any valuable information to the discussion. Anyway, lecture away about ad hominem if it makes you feel morally superior.