The other problem is if there is evidence that it was the crown that doesn't necessarily mean its rational to try to subvert the government in the UK over such a thing.
If the UK government overthrows the crown that doesn't necessarily mean that whatever regime takes their place will be friendly with the United States.
When Germany overthrew their King we got Hitler.
I don't believe our government is a separate part of our civilization.
Changing the balance of power in the globe for the sake of transparency could quite literally result in every single one of us dying.
Morality always comes from the state. It doesnt exist when the law is the jungle.
Comrade, is not the very purpose of a “free” press to serve the interests of the state?
And is it not better to leave state interests TO thecstate, and its otgans?
So it would seem that all is well and going exactly as it should, no?
A delusional take I saw someone post on social media:
I have an alternative to this. And hear me out because in my conspiracy theorist head, this is exactly what I would do to ensure successful prosecution and imprisonment. Let's just say, for the sake of debate, they, in fact, have the client list. They put this current story out so, behind the scenes, they can get all their ducks in a row in the legal sense. Build an ironclad case, as it were. No loopholes, no technicalities. They lull the people on the list into a false sense of security, releasing this very statement. They create a holding facility (i.e. Alligator Alcatraz). The State Department then quietly revokes the passports of all parties involved so they cannot flee to a non-extradition country. Then all at once, in a massive, coordinated operation, they arrest the people on the list. I wouldn't put it past Trump to do this. They have already established they are capable of subterfuge with the bombing of Iran. Not out of the realm of possibility that they could, in fact, be doing this very thing. Not saying they are. Simply coming up with an alternate explanation. And I would be screaming at the top of my lungs in joyous triumph if this was the case.
But I guess some people just like to talk for the sake of hearing themselves speak.
What if, by "they" he meant not Dan and Ron, but Dan and Kash? And what if he rephrased the question in an attempt to drive another stake into the heart of the practice of using the term antisemitism to stifle free speech?
Also, while I can't speak to Patel, given that Bongino has explicitly made it abundantly clear that he is and always has been an ardent supporter of Israel, I seriously doubt his reticence is motivated in any such way. The notion that it is (or even just might be) doesn't make any sense.