I think the ground I'm on is at least as solid as the ground you are on, i.e., that there is a crime (as yet undiscovered) and that Trump was somehow involved.
I did not say or suggest that. This is what I wrote:
You are on very weak grounds claiming no evidence until and unless the investigation says it found no evidence. How can you not see the difference? All I'm expressing, over and over, is the well-worn and absolutely reasonable notion that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." I'm expressing it in the face of your repeated insistence that absolutely nothing happened and, in the face of my disagreement with that, your attribution to me of a position that something happened. There is a third position, which is the only logical position in the face of a secret investigation, and that is that we don't know yet whether there is or isn't evidence.
I fully understand that a crime could turn up, and evidence connecting Trump to it could turn up, too. I just think when you look at everything we know to be true, it isn't likely.
All I've been trying to do is to get you to quit insisting on innocence, over and over and over, when you cannot possibly know that. Well, now, here we finally have a reasonable position from you, assuming that you're referring to collusion, which is that we don't know but it isn't likely. You can reasonably argue with "Bentway and Maxine" about how likely it is or isn't, but not that nothing happened. Because you cannot know that.
I react to absolutist assertions. It's in my nature. Throw in a "it would seem that" or "likely" or "could be that" and I just keep reading along.
|
