It never ceases to amaze me that in debunking a charge of wide-ranging illegal activity or malpractice of considerable consequences against government or private corporations, people who object to the idea will go to the media, to the sites, and to sources of information provided by those entities- or to sources who use that source of information as the basis of their argument- to defame the accusation.
This is like saying that the thief or criminal is innocent because he said he is innocent, and look, he wrote he was innocent just last week.
There is the plain statement of innocence, which is simply "I'm not guilty", and the artful deception which employs any number of evidences, proofs, witnesses, and personal testimony to account for it. Kind of like when a wife confronts a husband who she thinks is cheating and he, in fact, is.
This is like saying that the thief or criminal is innocent because he said he is innocent, and look, he wrote he was innocent just last week.
There is the plain statement of innocence, which is simply "I'm not guilty", and the artful deception which employs any number of evidences, proofs, witnesses, and personal testimony to account for it. Kind of like when a wife confronts a husband who she thinks is cheating and he, in fact, is.