What I mean by "almost certainly" is "almost certainly," IMHO. That's not a hoot, but rather a very logical guess supported by the evidence.
Ok, I'll bite, I'm NOT an O'REALly independent, and truly can't stand his oft seen hypocrisy (though I seldom watch him much anymore), as I see it.
Finally, someone brings up the ONE question which on the surface demands an answer. Unlike the totally biased here, I'll accept a simple answer, barring evidence to the contrary. A coverup is highly unlikely, it seems, given that it was all reported right away. Were there one, it would logically involve pretending the shooter was someone else. There were friendly witnesses to back up any imagined coverup planned, and there was therefore likely nothing to lose by letting a traumatized VP - who'd NOT denied his part, who LET it be reported, who INSTRUCTED the ranch owner to give out the scoop - to talk in the morning.
Maybe they were all drunk? If that's a fact which is being covered up, we'll likely never know, IMHO.
Dan B. |
