“Good podcast, but the central analogy depends on a false premise, in my view. It was reasonable to believe that there was a coverup in the Sandusky case, given the media reporting and people being fired and convicted in court. However, a careful examination of the evidence suggests that there was no cover up—because there was nothing to cover up. Sandusky is entirely innocent, and the school officials acted appropriately (in the Sandusky case—I don’t know about the climate case). You don’t have to accept my opinion, but I recommend at least considering the evidence presented in the Podcast series “With the Benefit of Hindsight” before accepting the official story.
This problem with the defense’s position does not really helps Mann’s case very much, since it was reasonable to believe there was a coverup, but it does make the whole situation a bit awkward.”
Kurtis Hagen via Apple Podcasts ·
United States of America ·
01/19/24