[93po]

People see actions and make assumptions on intentions behind those actions. They also make assumptions on who actually called for those actions, or the percent to which people contributed to those decisions.

If you don't have a tape recorder showing Trump saying "Fire Shira, I don't like what she did and she needs to get out" then you are making assumptions both for his reasons and his involvement. No one has that tape. Which means any claims that this is what happening is entirely speculation. We've seen a decade of people claiming these assumptions as fact, and it's really tiresome.

[flyingcircus3]

Now apply this reasoning to Trump standing in Air Force One and saying that he would bring someone back of the Supreme Court said to. It's on video.

[93po]

I spent 10+ minutes trying to find anything Trump has said on camera about the copyright office, and went through the only video I could find of Trump on air force one in the past week to see any references to this, and saw none.

[flyingcircus3]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/trump-if-supre...

It's not related to copyright. It is an example of your hypothetical standard required to attribute something to Trump. My point is that even when he is on camera saying something, that does not prevent the post facto rationalizations. Even if he was on tape firing this person, people would rationalize this away too.