Bluntly, gorf, you have made it abundantly clear over the years that you have a terrible habit of working backwards from your conclusion and spitballing variation after variation of events that would allow you to either dismiss the evidence or force it to match your preconceptions. Frequently, this has taken the form of claiming that whatever is in the news must
really be a political hit-job from the libs, and that therefore any evidence saying otherwise
must be - due to no apparent reason other than where the involved parties appear to fall on the political spectrum - either paper thin or fabricated outright and therefore should have been dismissed from the start.
I have called you out on this before, like when you were gravitating towards provocateurs like Anne Coulter and ideologically driven fringe outlets like FrontPage Magazine to try and paint the prosecution of the January 6 rioters (you know, that event where they battered down doors and swarmed the police for the sake of trying to stop an official proceeding and getting them to illegally flip the result, leading Congress to be evacuated for their safety?) as a politically driven sham of an overreaction. During that conversation, you jumped from one poorly-reasoned pretext to another.
It started with you downplaying them as simple trespassers and insisting that prosecuting them for
breaking into Congress to obstruct an official proceeding in hopes of influencing Congress into illegally changing the election results was a massive overreaction. Then you jumped to an
egregious misunderstanding of legal impossibility that boiled down to you arguing that since the rioters couldn't
legally influence Congress to change the election results, charging them for trying to do something illegal was ridiculous. (Seriously, it was like arguing that charging someone with attempted bank robbery is nonsensical because they would have had no legal claim to the money they tried to steal).
Then when that turned out to be an unconvincing dud, you didn't miss a beat before pivoting to a downright nonsensical conspiracy-theory laden "the Democrats are really to blame" entrapment argument. You argued that the rioters' success in overwhelming security necessarily meant that security must have been unusually lax (kinda a reverse Sideshow Bob defense, wherein successful elements of a criminal endeavor should be treated as somehow mitigating the perpetrators' guilt). Therefore, you argued, the Democrats must have secretly sabotaged the security so that the rioters could break in and put Congress's lives - their own included - at risk all so that they would have an excuse to prosecute them for it because reasons. And then you went on to pivot to claiming that it must have been a false-flag operation coordinated by the Democrats, and therefore that the Democrats must have been the ones responsible for any criminality.
Over the course of the conversation, you made it abundantly clear that you were making bold declarations about the means and motive of the prosecution (and the nefarious implications you presumed would stem from them) without even knowing the actual facts of the case, much less the legal nuances you were trying to invoke to argue your position, seemingly fed to you by very unreliable and fringe sources built on
yellow journalism.
And by the end of the discussion you'd also given every indication that your conclusion was based entirely off of political tribalism, that because they were politically aligned with you they
had to be innocent, and you were just spitballing any idea that came to you in service of that conclusion. You weren't raising possibilities or balancing probabilities, you were blatantly scrambling to find
any explanation that would give you a pretext to dismiss the evidence outright for not agreeing with your preconceptions. To use a crass turn of phrase, you were throwing shit at the wall in the hope that some of it would stick.
And I bring all this up because - not to mince words - we're seeing the exact same thing from you here. You're making similarly bold declarations about a case (and the legal nuance thereof) that you have given every indication that you have not learned the facts of. Rather, based on your arguments, seem to once again be simply looking for a pretext to paint it as sinister because - after they examined the evidence that you only have a perfunctory understanding of after being filtered through third-hand characterization - the jury did not agree with your preconceptions about the case, which is to say the conclusion you had reached
without examining that evidence.
Case in point: The jury ruled that while the evidence was strong enough to prove that Trump had sexually abused Carroll, it did not prove that he had used his penis to do so, and because that element could not be proven they convicted him of sexual abuse but not rape (which legally requires the proven use of a penis in sexual abuse). You've perverted that as saying that the jury
ruled that the accusation was a lie rather than that the evidence wasn't strong enough to prove that specific element of the sexual abuse that the prosecution otherwise demonstrated occurred. Those are completely different statements, and the latter in no way implies the former. If anything, it's closer to the opposite, implying that the crime was well evidenced in broad strokes but the specifics were not established well enough to reliably conclude that it fell within a subcategory of that crime.
As another analogy, let's say you accuse me of assault with a deadly weapon and the evidence establishes the assault, but not the literal smoking gun needed to make a definitive case that a deadly weapon was involved in that assault. You have circumstantial evidence and your own testimony claiming it was involved, but nothing concrete enough to convince the jury. What you are doing here is the functional equivalent of saying that since they couldn't conclusively prove that I used a deadly weapon in the assault, the charge of assault should be also be dismissed as false. After all, "if [the assault with a deadly weapon] didn't happen, it's crazy to think [the assault] did". That's simply not how it works, and you really should know better.
