Originally posted by: David Miller
Once again, all of your "facts" are nothing but assumptions of a possible wrongdoing. And you are correct, I don't have your perceived definition of "evidence" that is wholy based on unrelated facts that have been strung together to form your twisted view of reality. Did they know they were about to be indicted? You did not answer that question because you don't know. So they had lunch with Rudy - what does that mean, that they had lunch is all you really know. Why they had lunch has not been addressed, only speculated by you. People fly overseas everyday with one way tickets. Are we going to arrest every one of them? You got nothing, just your speculation. When you have some verifyable facts, then state them. Until then, I will call you out each and everytime you post unfounded lies.
Those are the facts reported.
That is how every civil and criminal court case in the country is decided. One side presents evidence for the other side presents evidence against. The trier of fact determines which evidence is persuasive. When one side has no evidence to present, it is conclusive. At this point, there is no evidence to present that those two weren't fleeing.