Reply #200: Thank you for your interest

[creeksneakers2]

Yes, I am a skeptic. I think that compliments being objective, so long as it doesn't get to the point where there is a bias against real information.

Larisa wrote,"I know he was going to DC last night, but I don't know why."


Other information by Larisa doesn't check out. In the same article she writes, "Mr. Connell has confided that he was being threatened, something that his attorneys also told the judge in the Ohio election fraud case."

Mr. Connell's attorneys asked the court to seal testimony about threats, but the accusations of threats did not come from Mr. Connell. I can't find anywhere else anything about Connell's attorneys telling a judge that he was being threatened. If they had then either Cliff Arenbeck would have known about it and told the world, or nobody knew about anybody making such a statement to the judge, in which case Larisa wouldn't know about it.

Larisa has now taken back part of her original story where she said the plane ran out of gas.

The word "falsehood" comes close to saying an intent to deceive. Its not quite there though.