Thank you for (finally) addressing my actual argument, @michaelshermer. Unfortunately, your response is more like an example of my thesis (advancing fallacious arguments to resolve cognitive dissonance) than it is a refutation of any premise. I proposed the existence of a powerful force (PF) that appears to act with impunity within the U.S. You demand that I name names, and you suggest I would be laughed out of the Grand Jury chamber if I refused. What a strange leap. I’m making a logical argument for seeking to identify perpetrators. You want to impose a legal standard from the stage when *the state* has not only identified suspects, but believes it has a strong enough case to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. You’re a smart man. You know that doesn’t make sense. Many crimes are evident before perpetrators can be identified, let alone prosecuted. That’s why we have investigations. Obviously.