Categories
media The Stupid Coup

I do not believe that Scott Adams raped and killed a girl in 1990

If someone does have proof that Scott Adams raped and killed a girl in 1990, they should provide that proof to the appropriate authorities rather than continue to spread this vile rumor that Scott Adams raped and killed a girl in 1990

Why would anyone believe that Scott Adams raped and killed a girl in 1990? No one has any proof that Scott Adams raped and killed a girl in 1990. And if someone does have proof that Scott Adams raped and killed a girl in 1990, they should provide that proof to the appropriate authorities rather than continue to spread this vile rumor that Scott Adams raped and killed a girl in 1990.

That sick joke is my take on the Gilbert Gottfried’s wonderful roast of Bob Saget where he repeatedly states there is no truth to the rumor that Bob Saget raped and killed a girl in 1990. This is a rumor that did not exist before Gilbert repeatedly stated it. Loudly and with a tone and cadence that makes air raid sirens sound like white noise machines.

So what does this have to do with Scott Adams?

A while back Scott put out this podcast episode. If you care to listen, you should start at the 23:10 mark where he says something like

“if the government doesn’t tell you a piece of information that the citizens have a right to know, the presumption has to be guilt

Now, I totally agree that you need to be skeptical of government statements. If proof does exist and it is being withheld, that should raise suspicion. Where this breaks down is where proof can not exist, such as when requiring someone to prove a negative. Case in point is Ray Epps.

Scott uses the lack of statements about Ray Epps (at the 24:30 mark) as reason to presume that there is FBI corruption in this instance and presumption that the FBI must have had some involvement in the Jan 6th attack.

He goes on to say (at the 25:05 mark) that “if the government says I’m not going to tell you, treat it as a confession”

Well, it isn’t possible for the FBI to prove they had nothing to do with Jan 6th because you can not prove a negative. This is a dumb take, even for Scott who offers bad takes like this all the time.

Scott is demanding Epps and others prove a negative.

In same same way that Scott Adams can not prove he did not rape and kill a girl in 1990, none of the people accused of being FBI false flag plants can prove they are not FBI false flag plants. People acting in good faith know this already.

And this brings me to this article from Politifact.

From: politifact.com

“The situation with Epps wasn’t the first time the rioters themselves disputed false claims about the attack. Court documents show at least 10 defendants denied in social media posts and messages the bogus rumors that antifa was behind the siege.

But unlike a social media post, Epps’ denial carries the weight of an interview with congressional investigators.

In the days after the Epps news, the conspiracy theory about the FBI was undercut twice more. First, another man singled out by Carlson as a likely FBI agent said the host’s segments about him were false. Then, Stewart Rhodes, the leader of the Oath Keepers militia group, was indicted and charged with seditious conspiracy. Until his indictment, the leader was listed in court documents as an unidicted co-conspirator, fueling unsupported allegations that prosecutors were hiding the names of FBI operatives or informants.

On Adam’s Jan 12th podcast at the 11 minute mark he is very suspicious about the lack of a response about presence of FBI agents or informants at the Jan 6th riot. At the 11:40 mark he asks if it’s fair for the FBI to decline to answer when there are sources and methods that could be exposed. Well that Politifact article shows that was exactly what was happening. The FBI was declining to answer because of ongoing investigations. Those unnamed people who weren’t being arrested? Well now they are being arrested.

Paradox

In the podcast episode I linked above Adams repeats that individuals should be presumed innocent. This is a given. And this is a major problem with his presumption of guilt argument for “the government” since the “government” is made up of people.

Epps and others have testified under oath, offering denials of having anything to do with any FBI plot. A normal person would see there is no proof and everyone involved denied it under oath and just let the matter drop. After all, what, if any evidence could Epps provide that shows he isn’t working with the FBI? None. Because you can not prove a negative.

And now we have a paradox. Is Epps presumed innocent of being an FBI false flag plant? Or is the lack of FBI proof that he isn’t a plant mean we should presume FBI plot? I really do not want an answer. It’s going to be a new layer to this fact free conspiracy. And Adams is a loon who projects his violent fantasies.