Reply #55: Five questions, dude

[SDuderstadt]

It was Xmas vacation and I have been real sick with a cold, so I haven't jumped in until now, but there are some considerations you and rschop are completely ignoring in your quest to convict Corsi:

1) If Corsi had been trying to "criminally obstruct" any investigation, why did she initially request permission to share the lead information with a criminal agent?

2) When Corsi initially obtained permission, how do you know she felt the permission was correct? Do you somehow claim to know her state of mind?

3) If the permission was, in fact, erroneous, what would have been the consequence had a defense attorney objected that "the wall" had been breached? Do you think whatever trial court the case might have wound up before would have admitted the information simply because someone made a mistake in interpreting "the wall"? How do you know that Corsi was not so conscientious and determined to thwart a plot, that she erred on the side of caution, but made a mistake nonetheless?

4) If, as you and rschop (or, at least, rschop) claim, this matter was "criminally covered up", how were we able to find out about it?

5) Do you really have a great deal of confidence in rschop's "detective work" when he a) claims that he figured out the 9/11 attack in advance, but did not warn the FBI because he "didn't think anyone would believe him" (paraphrase) and b) claims he can substantiate his claim of foreknowledge by his employees at the time, however he gave their affidavits to the FBI (in an office that did not appear to exist) and just happened not to have kept a single copy? Does that make any sense to you?