Which do you prefer, narrative with no facts whatsoever which appeals to you in some way, or facts?
Why push Trump not being at Mar-a-Lago when there's absolutely zero problem with him being there and absolute zero photo, video, or witness testimony of him being distant from there?
(Lack of a TFR proves nothing towards that. I would agree you could call it some evidence, but scant, as for example the fact that there's no TFR at Jimmy Carter's residence doesn't prove he's not there.)
Seriously, why love narrative but feel little need for facts?
Which do you prefer, narrative with no facts whatsoever which appeals to you in some way, or facts?
Why push Trump not being at Mar-a-Lago when there's absolutely zero problem with him being there and absolute zero photo, video, or witness testimony of him being distant from there?
(Lack of a TFR proves nothing towards that. I would agree you could call it some evidence, but scant, as for example the fact that there's no TFR at Jimmy Carter's residence doesn't prove he's not there.)
Seriously, why love narrative but feel little need for facts?
You may be right.