My issue is that on the (?second) day of the war, a group of Western reporters were presented with “evidence” of the planning that had gone into the attack, and I found the “evidence” to be laughably bad - the evidence itself, the supposed circumstances it was found under, the condition of the evidence - all were bad. And if you present such incredibly poor “evidence” at one point, I’m going to automatically be much more suspicious of any other “evidence” you present later.
My issue is that on the (?second) day of the war, a group of Western reporters were presented with “evidence” of the planning that had gone into the attack, and I found the “evidence” to be laughably bad - the evidence itself, the supposed circumstances it was found under, the condition of the evidence - all were bad. And if you present such incredibly poor “evidence” at one point, I’m going to automatically be much more suspicious of any other “evidence” you present later.