His death, under suspicious circumstances, objectively benefits Boeing in an ongoing criminal investigation.
This is motive, not evidence.
That seems like sufficient justification to conduct an investigation.
The fact that he has died is sufficient justification to conduct an investigation, and I’m sure they will. But the claim was that they have enough evidence against Boeing to subpoena basically everything they have. And Boeing having a motive to kill someone is not evidence that they did it, and would not pass a judge if anyone were to seek some kind of warrant.
Not sure why you’re being down voted, what you are saying is accurate. I guess the others are of the “Boeing is bad, therefore it’s pitchfork time” mindset and not justice and due process.
Same shit’s been said ever since the caveman developed complex enough language to say. That’s a lazy, tired, and vacuous trope you’re mindlessly spouting there, tiger.
His death, under suspicious circumstances, objectively benefits Boeing in an ongoing criminal investigation.
That seems like sufficient justification to conduct an investigation.
This is motive, not evidence.
The fact that he has died is sufficient justification to conduct an investigation, and I’m sure they will. But the claim was that they have enough evidence against Boeing to subpoena basically everything they have. And Boeing having a motive to kill someone is not evidence that they did it, and would not pass a judge if anyone were to seek some kind of warrant.
Not sure why you’re being down voted, what you are saying is accurate. I guess the others are of the “Boeing is bad, therefore it’s pitchfork time” mindset and not justice and due process.
Yup, that’s lemmy for you. The facts don’t matter, only the narrative.
“Yup, that’s $blank for you.”
Same shit’s been said ever since the caveman developed complex enough language to say. That’s a lazy, tired, and vacuous trope you’re mindlessly spouting there, tiger.
Thanks for sharing your knowledge, from the rest of us.