Assuming that Tom does indeed possess proof that the current president of the USA was personally bribed by foreign companies, you find it 'ridiculous' and 'insulting' to suggest that he should provide such proof to competent law enforcement because maybe some things are bigger than his attorney-client privilege? Is this because of your 'all politicians are corrupt so we should just let them get away with everything' theories again?
You really need to improve your reading comprehension. Let me break this down for you.
I never said all politicians are so corrupt we should let them get away with everything. My point was and always has been that all politicians are corrupt so it’s naive and foolish to expect otherwise. Or claim any party is morally superior.
My point about Tom is that it is ridiculous and insulting for you to state it’s impossible for you to believe him without his violating attorney client privilege and providing concrete proof. Like I replied to aerocontols, if we were debating aerospace technology and he replied, I know the answer but can’t supply it without violating security, I have no reason to doubt him. We all know that is his field and he has worked on projects that were classified. So, why should I doubt him?
Likewise with Tom. In over 20 years of interactions with him, it has become obvious he is a skilled lawyer who speaks fluent Russian and has traveled there frequently for his work. Comments he has made many times have led me to suspect he and his firm represented some involved and perhaps still do.So again, why would I doubt him? If he says he has specific knowledge that he can’t reveal because it’s privileged, I believe it. And think it’s insulting to him to imply he’s bullshitting.
And lastly, if Tom had a client who told him he bribed Joe Biden in a privileged conversation, my understanding is he is not allowed to call the FBI and report it.
*MySmiley*
"Bustin' makes me feel good!"
Ghostbusters, by Ray Parker Jr.