> But in this case, you have to decide who to take the word of. That is true. And by refusing to give the allegations credence you have implicitly decided whos

> But in this case, you have to decide who to take the word of. That is true. And by refusing to give the allegations credence you have implicitly decided whose word to take. > There is no way to logically analyze the claims and come up at the correct answer. Sure there is. You can evaluate the plausibility of each claim. You can verify that the claims are internally consistent. You can ask what motivations each party would have to lie, or what motivations each party would have to tell the truth here and now. None of those will get you to ironclad, unquestionable certainty, but it sounds like you're at ironclad, unquestionable certainty now and I'm not sure logical analysis had much to do with you forming that opinion. It's fine, really, if you've looked at the evidence and found it unconvincing. It's fine, too, if you've decided it is convincing but that your partisan interests are strong enough that you're willing to overlook them. But it sounds like you're just refusing to engage with them because they're confusing. That's not wisdom. It's anti-intellectual tribalism at it's most raw, and I for one expect better of the commenters at HN.