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

On 2024-03-17, Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote:

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.

I agree, this isn't a court of law, and we can anything we like it
like we see it.

But I think we do ourselves a disservice imagining doing that
accomplishes much more than honing confirmation bias.

There's plenty of evidence of tRump's crimes - perhaps
you just need more, or perhaps no amount of evidence will
sway you.

What is it you refer to as evidence?

Words? Audio? Video? From who? How do you know they're remotely
close to an objective accounting of happenings? Is manufacturing a
seemingly "real" audio/video account of alleged happenings beyond
anyone sufficiently motivated these days - especially in the context
of big bucks reward for merely drawing attention, veracity be damned?

After what I've seen of "news" the last several years, I both
envy and pity you if you can believe any account of any happening
you weren't personally present to witness/experience. As far as I
can tell, humans are sick on selfishly lying first to themselves
(see also: their inner narrative of who they are), and therewith
to others about... well, pretty much everything.

From my point of view, it's not "no amount of evidence will sway",
but more like "no amount of contrived stories dubiously declared
'evidence' will sway".

--
oldernow
xyz001 at nym.hush.com