Sorry for the delay, had to get to a computer to respond, too much for the ipad which can't seem to handle quoting.
First you said:
the first part of which is absolutely true and a basis of our justice system, the second part is factually correct but a little tinfoilish in tone, that is I agree that they have good technical capability but that doesn't mean that they could manufacture all of the evidence presented in this case or that they did. I think it important to note that we have no evidence that any of the facts have been manufactured in this case, just concerns that they could be.
Then you said:
which was followed by:
some of this is obviously not intended to be taken literally, but then I respond
which is the tone of what was being said IMO. To be more precise, what you meant was that he could not be convicted because you distrust authority. You also equate "doubt" with "reasonable doubt" which is clearly a problem as a threshold of any doubt would make it almost impossible to convict anyone of anything.
So that's where that came from, and you aren't just saying that we should distrust government allegations as you describe:
you said is that were you on the jury you would disregard all facts because you think they are all tainted by a government that you distrust.
I don't happen to think that the government really cares about Cody Wilson, he's mostly just kinda a big deal in his own mind, but let's assume that he's infuriated the deep state and they are intent on getting him as you presume. They have a few options, let's first look at the one which is playing out and I think is was well described by
@pinkbunny :
The gov had other options, he could have been killed in a random shooting or industrial accident, or maybe they could have arrested him for distributing the plans in spite of the court order (trumped up charges perhaps) and stick him in a hole. Austin is indeed very liberal, maybe they could have pulled his business license, audited his property and sales taxes. Gov could certainly have hacked his website and altered the plans in some small way and then watched the revised plans be widely distributed eventually discrediting him.
Ockhams razor comes in because what's playing out would be a wildly complicated conspiracy that will be very difficult to maintain while there are many far simpler solutions once you've set the rules of the game as the deep state isn't going to follow any laws to meet their goals. The obvious conclusion is that while they may have taken an extra look into his affairs, it is really most likely that he diddled the girl and then ran away.
Finally you ask:
No, I do not trust everything the government tells me or says, I make no presumption about it being either accurate or inaccurate. I decide what to believe by looking at the facts. This is complicated by the bias and emotion that surrounds every important issue, but I think it important to evaluate things as calmly as possible even when I feel strongly about an issue.
How would you answer the same question, because based on what you've said you'd start by distrusting everything, then disregarding all facts, and so you obviously end up in the same place you started. You seem happy with this approach, and it is quite prevalent on the internet, it just isn't very productive.
I hope that clarifies things.
Jim