Its his fault. He needs to state the bottom line theory about MOTIVE first, and then give the facts to support his theory. To just state facts without providing motive gives the distinct impression he can’t show that this was something other than simply a well-intentioned national security operation.
Its his fault. He needs to state the bottom line theory about MOTIVE first, and then give the facts to support his theory. To just state facts without providing motive gives the distinct impression he can’t show that this was something other than simply a well-intentioned national security operation.
If Beck were to do this “perfectly”, the facts as he presents them would cause the listener to draw the obvious conclusions on their own without Beck’s help. You could even say that if he needs to explain it to them that he has not presented the facts adequately.