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.
I never claimed he was falsely accused of the 2nd load. I claimed that the only evidence was the word of the guy caught with the drugs. I claimed that the story of his brother was clearly false. I’ve claimed he was not arrested, that he was not indicted, that he was not “caught”, and that there was no evidence he drove a van of drugs over the border.
but I’ve NEVER claimed he was “falsely accused”.
I’ve been consistant here. My objection is people taking conjecture and presenting it as fact, and people jumping to conclusions or stating things as true when they are false.
I don’t even mind if people want to believe that Davila did a 2nd load. I only object to using that “belief” to then assert that Sutton is therefore lying about it, hiding it, or has some deal with Davilas to give him immunity for it.
Until you have some real proof that the story is true, it is just an opinion based on weak evidence. That doesn’t make it false, but fully explains why Davila isn’t sitting in jail right now.
Here is my admittedly faulty memory of the reporting on the matter.
Corsi’s first report was that Davila had been arrested, but that Sutton intervened and got him off.
Then he reported the story from Jose that Davila delivered drugs to El Paso but had Van trouble and was referred to Cirpriano to get his van fixed, which is why the drugs were there.
We know both of those were false.
He then claimed to have a new verification of his story, but that verification was simply the DEA report that included the statement of the man who had told Corsi about it. In other words, it was not an independent verification, it was the same story from the same source, repeated verbatum.
Corsi also claimed that Davila was given immunity for the 2nd bust in order to get him to live up to his agreement to testify.
When Cirpriano Ortiz-Hernandez finally pled guilty, Corsi claimed that the guilty plea was in exchange for Cipriano keeping “quiet” about his dealings with Davila, and also claimed that Sutton accepted the plea so that the case wouldn’t go to trial where the “truth” of Davila’s involvement would come out.
Anyway, you also mention the government “hiding” the physical evidence. In fact, there is NO evidence that there IS any “physical evidence”. Hunter has never said there was “physical evidence” mentioned in the reports he claims to have read. The only claims that have made the public record are that investigators had two statements linking Davilas to the drugs (We assume that is Jose and Cirpriano), and another claim from those who READ the report that the report shows investigators “thought” they had enough to indict Davila.
You also claim that the “investigation” is a “false premise”. But the Ortiz just pled guilty in April of this year, almost a year and a half after the october drug seizure at his house. So apparently the investigation was continuing AT LEAST until that time, and it is perfectly reasonable that, while the preparation for THAT case were ongoing, you wouldn’t release all the evidence about the case, especially if you were looking for others.
Now it’s 5 months after the guilty plea, and it is perfectly reasonable that the investigation could be continuing. Maybe an unpublished part of the guilty plea is cooperation in collecting evidence on others who were involved.
But in any case, beyond the reasonableness of it, you provide NO evidence or your claim that the investigation is a “false premise”, or that the government is “hiding the physical evidence”.
If you want to state that as your opinion, go right ahead, but don’t assert it as facts to back up your other claims, because there is no showing of fact.