I never said it didn’t happen, I said there was no physical evidence for it, and so I saw no proof it happened.
‘No evidence” doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
I support that the judge who made the ruling knew what she was doing, and that if she was wrong the appeals court will correctly overturn the ruling.
I won’t mind if the appeals court rules it should have been submitted. I DO understand and agree that it was prejudicial to the prosecuter’s case, and not germaine to the question before the court. But that’s just my opinion based on the reading of the trial transcripts, it’s not a “fact” that can be known.
I am only adamant that we don’t claim opinion as fact, falsehoods as truth, smears as arguments, and the reporting of WND as gospel.
I have shown over the many months of this case how WND twisted the few facts they had to paint a false picture. We all are quick to recognize the tactic when done by our favorite whipping boys in the liberal media, and it pains me that we are blinded to the same tactic used for “our” cause.
Looks to me like you are already backing off your passionate argument that Davila was falsely accused of the second load.
‘No evidence” doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
The problem is that the government is hiding the physical evidence of the second load under the false premise that it is still investigating the matter two years after the incident.
I am only adamant that we don't claim opinion as fact, falsehoods as truth, smears as arguments, and the reporting of WND as gospel.
I went to PACER and read the very same documents first hand that Corsi includes in his articles yet you apparently want me to believe that these documents don't really exist.
Which specific detail on the subject of the second load are you claiming is a Corsi falsehood? I remember when you used to argue against WND's reporting on this because there wasn't a liberal news source to "second source" the matter for you.