pull down to refresh
Fair enough. I am not claiming I know the specific reason.
I am saying this administration has accumulated enough evidence of bad faith, misrepresentation, selective enforcement, contempt findings, and adverse judicial rulings that I no longer extend it the benefit of the doubt.
At least eight federal judges have now questioned whether this administration is entitled to the normal presumption of regularity and good faith that courts traditionally give the government.
When an administration burns through its credibility, “trust us, we have reasons we can’t share” stops being persuasive.
That’s not because I know what happened.
It’s because I know what they’ve done.
I don't think you need to extend anyone the benefit of the doubt. I am just acknowledging that the author has intent beyond telling the story of this individual (because he doesn't even know the full story. He admits the details are not public.) so immediately I question why? What is his ulterior motive?
So I will reserve judgement until finding out all the details.
You’re evaluating the author’s motives. I’m evaluating the administration’s credibility.
Those are two different questions.
I don’t know why this referee was denied. I do know this administration has done enough that I no longer automatically trust unexplained exercises of government power.
And that's fair. As I no longer trust what the media is trying to sell me. All I am saying is I am not passing judgement without knowing the details. You are saying you will pass judgement without knowing the details because you don't trust the government. I don't trust the government either but I also don't trust the media so I will wait to pass judgement. Difference of opinion.
To be clear, I’m not judging the hidden facts. I’m judging the known facts:
He was selected by FIFA.
He had a visa.
He had credentials.
He was denied entry with no public explanation beyond “vetting concerns.”
Given this administration’s record, that is enough for me to draw conclusions about the credibility of the explanation.
Same. I hope we find out more too, but I’m not pulling my skepticism out of thin air.
The president has publicly called Somali immigrants “garbage” and said Somalia is “not even a country.”
So when a Somali World Cup referee is denied entry with only “vetting concerns” offered publicly, I’m not treating that explanation as automatically credible.
That’s not media propaganda.
That’s context.
What evidence is there? All we know is he was questioned for 11 hours and refused for vetting concerns. All I am saying is I don't know the details of this one situation out of thousands and why he was denied and thousands of others weren't. Neither do you and neither does the author. The author and you are presuming malice. I am not presuming trust. I am saying we don't know. It most certainly could be malice but without knowing the details I am not going to slurp up the media's propaganda.
Sorry but I have been around the block long enough to be skeptical of any narrative the media is trying to push on me.