5 ms·

> The fact that they continue to release more stuff over and over gives very legitimate credence to the notion they are hiding something. "If they are innocent

> The fact that they continue to release more stuff over and over gives very legitimate credence to the notion they are hiding something. "If they are innocent they would not to fight the charges so much"

jasmer 4y ago
This is a false equivalence. If an innocent person held some information in their literal pocket, that they could very simply reveal to the world, at no cost to themselves, which proved their innocence of some crime unambiguously - but refused to do so and instead chose to stand trial for some offence - it would be entirely rational to be suspect. This is why in some cases 'pleading the 5th' can be considered as evidence towards guilt. The government is more than aware of the vast conspiracies surrounding the incident, not only do they have a responsibility towards transparency in any event, it's even more important in this case. There's a 100% chance they are hiding something - otherwise they wouldn't hide it. So the question boils down to only what they are hiding: mundane administrative information? or 'The CIA did it!'? I suggest it's more towards the former than the later, but not all the way. I'm put it at 90% chance there were at least some shenanigans, but I don't think it was as bad as 'the CIA ordered his death' kind of thing. But there were shenanigans.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
kranke155 4y ago
If they are innocent then why does it seem we will have to wait 100 years before we get all the govt documents ?
ekianjo 4y ago
you should always assume the government is guitly of something by default. the governement does not benefit from the principle of supposed innocence.
dxuh 4y ago
I think the point is rather: if they keep releasing stuff, it means they held stuff back the last time they released more stuff. It's natural to assume there is even more stuff still being held back.
- seanw444 4y ago
  It's not even that we're "baselessly" (God, the news has made me hate that term) assuming that there's more documents that they're hiding. Many of the documents they've given us are 50% redacted. There's so many redactions it's almost hard to follow the content of said documents. They managed to release something while also releasing nothing.

jasmer 4y ago

This is a false equivalence. If an innocent person held some information in their literal pocket, that they could very simply reveal to the world, at no cost to themselves, which proved their innocence of some crime unambiguously - but refused to do so and instead chose to stand trial for some offence - it would be entirely rational to be suspect. This is why in some cases 'pleading the 5th' can be considered as evidence towards guilt. The government is more than aware of the vast conspiracies surrounding the incident, not only do they have a responsibility towards transparency in any event, it's even more important in this case. There's a 100% chance they are hiding something - otherwise they wouldn't hide it. So the question boils down to only what they are hiding: mundane administrative information? or 'The CIA did it!'? I suggest it's more towards the former than the later, but not all the way. I'm put it at 90% chance there were at least some shenanigans, but I don't think it was as bad as 'the CIA ordered his death' kind of thing. But there were shenanigans.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

kranke155 4y ago

If they are innocent then why does it seem we will have to wait 100 years before we get all the govt documents ?

ekianjo 4y ago

you should always assume the government is guitly of something by default. the governement does not benefit from the principle of supposed innocence.

dxuh 4y ago

I think the point is rather: if they keep releasing stuff, it means they held stuff back the last time they released more stuff. It's natural to assume there is even more stuff still being held back.

seanw444 4y ago
It's not even that we're "baselessly" (God, the news has made me hate that term) assuming that there's more documents that they're hiding. Many of the documents they've given us are 50% redacted. There's so many redactions it's almost hard to follow the content of said documents. They managed to release something while also releasing nothing.