I don’t have time for this nonsense right now. You all have gone away and in fact your I’d is not usually involved.
Now you’ve come up with this new bogus attack, basically, if you can’t prove it did not happen after that decision, then it did.
Knowing you can’t usually prove a negative, you all are attempting to flip what is called the burden of proof that something did not happen that there is no proof did happen, and then moreover, you try to imply after conceding they would not be unblinded anyway, that it’s post hoc. Your arguments are a middle of contradictions and bad logic.