There is definitely testimony against Trump. The accuser who withdrew her original case, then started again, is very likely just trying to get money from Trump, but now that we know how Michael Cohen used to work, her claim that she feared for her life is not beyond belief.ant wrote:Regarding Clinton - there is significant evidence in the form of testimony on documentation. So there is that.
The police are supposed to have probable cause before fingering someone. It may turn out the tipster is all they are going on, but I doubt it. In this overheated atmosphere there is room to doubt the police, but they have a lot at stake if they blow their credibility.ant wrote:Regarding "window smashing man" - to my knowledge, no significant evidence exists to implicate him or establish motive. A "tipster" is not anything significant until material evidence can be discovered.
Well, it is certainly true that a lot of others have participated, and it is not credible that they would all be false flag right-wingers, or even mostly. I definitely wish the protesters had been willing to close up and go home at curfew every evening, and since they did not, the protests bear the bulk of the responsibility.ant wrote:What's important to note here within the context of the current civil unrest is that even if Window Man's motive was to create public racial discord that in itself certainly is not a "catch all" for the totality of the unrest.
Even given that background, I may have overstated the impact of Umbrella Man's actions. "Early in the process" is all I have to go on. Still, in a movement of such size the presence of even a few "agent provocateurs", whether they be rogues or Boogaloo Boys, or maybe even paid agents, raises questions about the narratives presented by the Fox News crowd.
This from you? Not too long ago you were pushing the line that liberals in general should be blamed for all the property damage by looters. Does that include Umbrella Man? We now have testimony that Trump launched tear gas against peaceful protesters so he could hold up a Bible in front of a church. If he is going to lump all of the response to Floyd's killing together, then it makes a tremendous difference that some of the damage is done by far right agents. It's a question of what his lumping means.ant wrote:i don't know why you insist on softly promoting the possibility that white supremacists should in some way be held accountable for, um, what exactly?
Everything? That one incident in question?