My initial comment was an abrupt dismissal based on the authors of the two listed items of evidence. Here are some articles worth reading that are thorough dismissals.
Now, if you buy the conspiracy theory that the above news agencies are all on the take and not a single one of them has a whistleblower that would blow the case wide open for a few bucks, then you can argue all these prove nothing. On the other hand, it's really easy to argue that people that publicly support Trump and criticize his opponents have motivation to put out readily debunked documents hoping that enough people will accept them without doing due diligence to determine if they are legitimate.
We've banned this account for abusing HN with flamewar and political battle. Those things are not what this site is for. Creating accounts to do that will eventually get your main account banned as well, so please don't.
If your sources for "proof" are from anyone that is pro-Trump and repeatedly tears into Trumps opposition, you might want to start with the assumption that motivated reasoning is in play. You can be well-educated, and still have a bias and be inclined to argue for your side to win.
> you might want to start with the assumption that motivated reasoning is in play. You can be well-educated, and still have a bias and be inclined to argue for your side to win.
yes, this is the human condition and applies equally to both sides of this debate.
I’m aware of the politics of the authors. Both articles you posted amount to ad homs. Neither even attempt to engage with the evidence presented in the reports.
People saying there "has to be" something, and "anyone who doesn't see it is a moron".
While offering nothing even resembling proof.
It's just, at best, being charitable, "a hunch".