Oh that would explain his commitment to the idea that we can't know Boelter’s motive without a confession. The obvious issue is that there's probably even more doubt as to Tyler Robinson's motives. If he was calling for caution and emphasizing doubt in both cases that'd be one thing but of course that's not what we see from these people.
You didn't give any source saying Trump told him to stop talking about Epstein. Keep dancing around that though.
Ah yes. You know Boelter's motive better than he does, right?
His own texts to his boyfriend. Info from his parents. The FBI. Utah County prosecutor. You have some better sources than them?
Never heard of you.
You asked for a source other than r/politics and I gave you two which you proceeded to dismiss.
I don't accept his statements as the final word and dismiss the other relevant evidence as you do if that's what you're asking.
What are you saying is Tyler Robinson's motives and what evidence establishes that in your mind? If his parent's testimony and his texts are acceptable evidence in his case why isn't Boelter’s kill list and the testimony of a roommate legitimate in your eyes?
But you didn't deny what he said there, that you peddled the baseless conspiracies connecting Boelter to Walz. Is that true or not?
Because they didn't prove what you said.
If he said from jail "I worship Trump and I was killing pro-choice politicians.", would you still be dismissing what he said?
I think nobody knows for sure and and I'm not as much of a partisan sleaze bag like you to put together the "obvious" and present it as fact. It's going to trial numbnuts. That's when the facts come out. Not on this forum, when you need to use the Hortman's murder as a distraction.
You didn't answer my question.
He wasn't a Tim Walz appointee?
What did you expect, a transcript of the call? I gave you reputable sources that reported on it like you asked and now you're pouting because you can't face the fact that you're favorite little content creator was a regime stooge
I'd evaluate it in light of the other evidence.
We have enough facts to know he was a Right wing lunatic and a radical Christian and based off his kill list was targeting Democrats and abortion advocates and providers.
Why would I when you ignored mine?
Believe all women
I expected you to back up your claims with facts. Not what you decided is "obvious." This isn't Junior High, bud.
Yet he himself says that wasn't the case. Strange this has to continuously be pointed out to you.
Stop being a child. I already answered that. You can answer my question now though, otherwise we are done here.
How are you so wrong?
Which is what I did by citing relevant reporting which you didn't think existed which is why you've moved the goalpoats.
Yes I know, evaluating the totality of evidence instead of cherry picking isn't something you're used to.
Strange that I don’t take a defendant in a murder case at his word when there's conflicting evidence? I know you're dumb but at this point you must be pretending right?
No you didn't, you haven't stated what exactly what you think his motive was nor cited relevant evidence. Feel free to prove me wrong by quoting the post.
How is he wrong?
Kozak asked "Do you know how many transgender Americans have been mass shooters over the last 10 years?", to which Kirk responded, "Too many". Kozak followed up with, "Do you know how many mass shooters there have been in America over the last 10 years?", and Kirk's last words before being shot were his reply, "Counting or not counting gang violence?", to which then Kozak said "Great", with Kirk being struck .
No, it isn't. You stated something that your sources didn't back up. That's all.
First, that's not what you're doing. You're only considering evidence that gives you the story you need. Second, you are literally discounting the words of the two murderers we're discussing and putting your own assumptions above them. You don't really get to accuse anyone of cherry picking.
It's only conflicting to you because you're treating your opinion as fact.
You're not distracting anybody with this self important drivel.
Did you read them? Here the excerpt from NYT
I'm pointing to evidence like Boelter’s kill list, personal testimony from a roommate, and his history. When a defendant in a murder trial gives testimony that contradicts other evidence its natural to take that testimony Werth a grain of salt.
I'll ask again since you didn't answer before; do you deny the existence of the reported kill list that mentions dozens of Democrats and zero Republicans? If you don't deny it exists, do you admit it's relevant to ascertaining his motive?
You don't mention a motive there, you vaguely gesture at kinds of evidence without citing any sources to back up your claim. To use your words, "This isn't Junior High, bud" so cite your claims and explain yourself clearly.
Yup I read them. I guess you don't have a source on what Trump actually said though, which is the lie you kept pushing.
We're not in trial and we don't have all the evidence. With the evidence we do have, hit doesn't outweigh what the guy said with his own mouth. Could he be lying? Of course. We don't know anything of sure. My point is you are stating something as fact but it turns out to be your assumption more than anything.
How can I deny something that's a fact? We know he had a list. You are choosing to come to a conclusion that suits you though. One that is already proven wrong by Boelter's own words.
lol Those are sources I gave. I asked you if you had better sources. You are continuing to dodge that question, so we are done here. It really only took a tiny bit of scrutiny for all of your "facts" to fall completely apart and now you're just playing games. With both cases, we've found you are stating your opinion as fact and ignoring evidence that doesn't give you what you want. I gave you a lot of chances to elaborate, but it's clear you want to drag this into a circular conversation where you distract and don't actually look at evidence in an objective way.
