My perspective (not a journalist) is not to claim what can’t be well supported. If you say “The Hawaii DOH has confirmed the COLB is a forgery” then you better have good backup for that statement. Otherwise the claim looks very questionable and people stop listening to what else you might have to say that’s better supported.
What better data could I have? Give me some examples.
Keep in mind that Al Capone was only ever actually caught on tax evasion. There was no smoking gun. It was a bunch of numbers - any of which could have been fudged.
If the data I have showed up on CSI, Obama would already be sitting in jail. Circumstantial evidence is still evidence.
So, short of the smoking gun e-mail from Okubo saying, “OMG! We were wrong all along and Obama is a lying piece of guano!”..... what piece of evidence would fill in the holes you say exist?
I’ve shown what the terminology means, through over a dozen legal statements. I’ve shown that the terminology was used multiple times and that when requested to correct any misunderstandings, the OIP punted.
I’ve shown that the only explanations ever given for the discrepancies in the numbers have been ruled out by Okubo’s own statement. I have heard nobody give an explanation for how those numbers got screwed up by 3 days, when Okubo says they were processed on the same day they were received.
I don’t understand what holes you’re talking about. What claim have I made that I have not supported by statements from the officials themselves or by the legal documents? If the official documents can’t be believed, over and above an internet image that can easily be faked, then exactly what CAN be believed that would refute the internet image? That’s my question to you.