quote:
Given McCloskey's initial lies about HOW the protesters first gained access to the neighborhod (ripping down the gate like the "Storming of the Bastille")

We have no actual proof that this wasn't what happened. The "Storming of the Bastille" was just a bit of hyperbole.

All we have are your wild-assed conjectures of how things might have happened based on one photo. Question... if I'm on a jury... and you actually present this theory in court... and I openly laugh at you because I can't help it, do I get into trouble? Dismissed from the jury? What?

Upon re-reading, I thought you were talking to me. Then I saw this...

quote:
genius

So that rules me out.

This post was edited on 7/27/20 at 10:42 am

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by AggieHank86

Texas

Member since Sep 2013

42941 posts

Posted on 7/27/20 at 10:57 am to SSpaniel

quote:
All we have are your wild-assed conjectures of how things might have happened based on one photo.

No, what we HAVE is contemporaneous video disproving McCloskey's initial claims that the gates were stormed and destroyed in order to gain access to the neighborhood. (Yes, he refined his story in later statements.)

From there, we are engaging in reasoned analysis as to several divergent theories regarding the way in which the damage MIGHT actually have been done.

Crazed protesters unable to resist the urge to randomly destroy property is one of those theories. McCloskey (or a supporter) damaging the gate in the night to support his initial lies is another.

If I were a proponent of the "craze protesters" theory, h however, I would expect to find other damaged property throughout the neighborhood, in a trail of destruction leading from the gate to the mayor's home. That trail seems to be missing.

2 ...

Report Post

Political Talk - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board