Yes. When we don't know what happened, all there is is conjecture.
You're treating this like it's a courtroom. Where reasonable doubt is reason enough to say the guy is innocent.You don't know what happened either. Your statements are also conjecture. You are reading into the situation only enough to create the narrative that you would like.
I have been perfectly candid that we do not know the truth and that he might have never put state secret's in jeopardy. That she might have been gotten those classified documents she wasn't supposed to have in some other manner.
On the other hand, you have insisted that your conjecture must be true, and you've twisted english and logic to make your story sound more plausible.
But that doesn't actually make your conjecture any more valid than mine. So it seems rather ridiculous that you're wasting an awful lot of time trying to tell me I might be wrong, when I readily admit that I might be wrong.
no subject
You're treating this like it's a courtroom. Where reasonable doubt is reason enough to say the guy is innocent.You don't know what happened either. Your statements are also conjecture. You are reading into the situation only enough to create the narrative that you would like.
I have been perfectly candid that we do not know the truth and that he might have never put state secret's in jeopardy. That she might have been gotten those classified documents she wasn't supposed to have in some other manner.
On the other hand, you have insisted that your conjecture must be true, and you've twisted english and logic to make your story sound more plausible.
But that doesn't actually make your conjecture any more valid than mine. So it seems rather ridiculous that you're wasting an awful lot of time trying to tell me I might be wrong, when I readily admit that I might be wrong.