Replies

Because he and Strac6 not only lack imagination, but they lack “bottom” e.g. they lack a sound grounding in fact, because anyone adding up the facts that all can see who will see would conclude that there is an awful lot afoot in this world beyond just ordinary everyday mischief.

More to the point is they are attempting to make the case that circumstantial evidence can NEVER be believed, that only concrete evidence should be used, even it has been made impossible to be produced and that destructive act can be shown as part of the circumstantial case against those who destroyed the hard evidence. No matter how overwhelming the circumstantial the case, they want absolute proof.

Well there is plenty of concrete evidence. The problem is figuring out what it all adds up to. It’s like putting a puzzle together. If you don’t try to put the pieces together you can’t say there is no puzzle on the grounds that I don’t see how it fits together.

More to the point is they are attempting to make the case that circumstantial evidence can NEVER be believed, that only concrete evidence should be used, even it has been made impossible to be produced and that destructive act can be shown as part of the circumstantial case against those who destroyed the hard evidence. No matter how overwhelming the circumstantial the case, they want absolute proof.

Matthew 7:13-14 King James Version (KJV)

13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
15 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

In most criminal cases, remembering that the case must be proven ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ vs ‘the preponderance of the evidence (more on one side of the scale than the other)” as in a civil case; most criminal cases are solved and those guilty brought to justice through circumstantial evidence pointing to the guilty party by allowing a ‘reasonable’ person to look at the evidence presented and resulting in a logical deduction of guilty or lacking that a finding of ‘not guilty’ (not a finding of innocence).

There is seldom a cut and dried open and shut case with direct evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Because we understand this, it is not logical nor necessary that absolute clear and undeniable evidence of Q’s bona fides be given since there is a tremendous amount of both direct and circumstantial evidence being uncovered in volumes on this site alone.

Keep a stiff upper lip, gain a thicker skin, and by all means stay engaged and in the fight. People are waking up and choosing the red pill every day, we are winning because the POTUS is winning, but I believe the we are seeing the calm before the storm. Get yourself buckled up, seats full upright and stowed. MAGA!