Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Baxter Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc Subject: Re: No, the FBI did *NOT* confirm there was no insurrection on Jan. 6 Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2024 18:45:08 -0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 38 Message-ID: References: <2LtJN.419401$vFZa.332846@fx13.iad> Injection-Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2024 18:45:08 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4c2b3c33245e85d02b14b1a2fd90b81a"; logging-data="3863722"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+mcFD9WV+hWG7yd5NMbD4I" User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25 Cancel-Lock: sha1:431Qepuhqv/ZefCoVo8MIlEVqLQ= Bytes: 2760 oldernow wrote in news:slrnuvea1l.rje.oldernow@oldernow.jethrick.com: > On 2024-03-17, Max Boot 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.