Before today I have seen Partrick's video once and after maybe a month saw Marcus' video once.
And I would have to disagree with Marcus, Patrick's video was very well done in providing evidence without much, if any, conjection. He had some comment at the end that was his right and dty to say about his position on all of this.
Anyway, I came out of that with a conclsion that all that Ben did was to think about doing harm.

Upon seeing the video a second time with a more critical eye, I have to admit that there is evidence of more there than just thinking about it but at least the start an investigation when Ben said this;
"Alright, What do you need from me?"
So, I stand corrected, this is significant.. In my opinion, this is more than just casualy thinking of a bad deed, this is actaully moving in the direction a bad deed.
And one can assume that money probably changed hands. No one is going to start investigating without at least a downpaytment.
However, I do not see proof that it went beyond an investigation.
One could speclate that it did not go beyond this because of what infosec says when he/she submitted the list of bad deeds.
"Our goals would have been to cause you (harm)..."
Instead of this.
"Our goals was to cause you (harm)..."
Remember in the screenshot infosec says something in the effect that first they investigate then they figure ot a plan.
Anyway, just speclation here. Plausible denyablity! Something politicians like to have on their side.
Marcus, I know you have been following these comments from me. Can you explain the "Alright, What do you need from me?" statement? We would all rather hear from Adam on this but I'll take whatever you got to offer.
Anyway so there it is. I appreciate any constructive, negative or positive, comments.