> but I convinced nothing will convince you anymore. Yes, that pesky need for evidence in order to get me start making leaps of faith to accept the premises re

> but I convinced nothing will convince you anymore. Yes, that pesky need for evidence in order to get me start making leaps of faith to accept the premises required. > Consider yourself a victim of the media. Greenwald therefore was right. Why? Honestly, why should I? Prove the premise, don't ask me to blindly accept it like an elderly patient being euthanized with a pillow. No "shh, shh, shh, don't struggle, just accept it". No "it's all for the best, don't think about it." If you want me to accept evidence, demonstrate it. For example - the whole DKIM thing proves very little beyond a snippet of an email was sent and received by two entities. It doesn't prove it came from the laptop received by the technician, it doesn't prove that the email held up as evidence was read by Hunter Biden, or that it pertained to anything more than a social setting, or, well, that it has the context that Greenwald so desperately wants it to have. There are fewer assumed entities in the scenario where a hacker has access to Hunter Biden's account and sends the email knowing they will be able to pick it up later. I'm not inclined to believe either scenario off the bat - but one scenario is certainly more plausible than the other. Greenwald desperately yearns for everyone to believe that both sides are as bad as each other. He wants the Biden family painted in the same light as the Trump family demonstrate day after day. Why? I don't know. But I don't buy into this premise without evidence.