Re: No, the FBI did *NOT* confirm there was no insurrection on Jan. 6

oldernow <oldernow@dev.null> wrote in
news:slrnuvea1l.rje.oldernow@oldernow.jethrick.com:

On 2024-03-17, Max Boot <max.boot@lathymes.com> wrote:
 

There's another sweeping swath word ('Nothing') likely indicating
being nuance-challenged.

>
No need for nuance where Trump is concerned.

 
Declaring "no need for nuance" tends to indicate inability to nuance
more than some objective absence of the possibility of nuance to/in
a topic.
 
Said another way, I'm not wont to pretend to not see just because
a blind person tells me there's nothing to see.
 

Also, I'm pretty sure it's "alleged crimes",

>
No. Trump hasn't been convicted yet, but there is no
question about things that Trump did — incitement of
insurrection, slopping together slates of fake electors,
pressuring GA secretary of state to engage in election
fraud, willfully obstruct the recovery of stolen documents
— and there is no question they are crimes.

 
I don't doubt that "there is no question" in a mind incapable of
entertaining questions.
 
But the notion of presumption of innocence until proven guilty
seems a higher road to me than declaring "there is no question"
prior to conviction. To me, the latter attitude ultimately leads
to obviating the need for trials altogether.
 

This is not a court of law.  We can call it like we see it.  There's
plenty of evidence of tRump's crimes - perhaps you just need more, or
perhaps no amount of evidence will sway you.