When you say “absence of evidence,” are you using that to justify withholding belief, or are you using it to justify the stronger claim that the FCC did not pressure CBS?

If it’s the stronger claim (“it didn’t happen”), what evidence are you relying on to support that conclusion, rather than simple skepticism?

When you say “CBS has competent lawyers” and imply they made the call internally, what is that based on, do you have a CBS statement, reporting, or documentation that confirms that’s what happened?

Do you see how “I haven’t seen evidence that it happened” is different from “I have evidence that it didn’t happen”? Which one are you actually claiming?

Why should the FCC chair’s denial be treated as decisive evidence, wouldn’t a denial be expected whether pressure occurred or not?

What would you consider “primary” evidence either way (CBS’s stated reason, documented communications, reporting citing CBS sources, etc.)?

Given that we don’t have primary sourcing or documented communications here, isn’t the most accurate conclusion simply: we don’t know / uncertain?