Trump Can Be Sued For Inciting Jan. 6, Appeals Court Rules

[Ana the Ist]

And I never claimed he was.

That was the case we were discussing.

I know the prosecution doesn't lack evidence.

You can't cite any.

I understand the issues well enough. But I'm not going to be on the jury there, so who cares what I understand.

Sure sure....you're right, and every expert in real estate is wrong.

You also thought the gag order would be tossed and ruled unconstitutional, so forgive me if I don't rely on your legal expertise.

It was, it got overruled. It's a big advantage to the defense as they can argue he was denied his rights if he loses now....get the whole thing thrown out.

I'm not confused, and neither is Judge Engoron.

So you say.

Evidence that never seems to point where you think it points. At least, it isn't pointing toward impeachment or an indictment.

Haven't been following the news, have you?

Nah, he's being held responsible for fraud. Which he's guilty of. There are other charges pending, though, so there may be more things he's guilty of.

In a civil case....the reason why you don't understand the case, or can explain it, is because you think he's been found guilty of fraud.

He's merely liable for fraud....and I think it will get tossed.

Yep.

You seem unclear on the fact that there are other charges facing Trump. Tell me again why I should rely on your legal expertise?

I'm fully aware there are other charges....but that's the nature of persecution. They've been trying to charge him with anything they can, fake or real, for 7 years now.

Yet no crimes convicted.

Ah. So these supposed wire transfers directly and conclusively prove Biden is guilty of....um, what, exactly?

You want the specific statute or just the broad strokes?

But I'm sure that will be in the articles of impeachment the House passed. Um, wait, where are those again....?

Coming.

Your predictive powers haven't exactly impressed me to this point, dude.

Really? Back when they found docs in Trump's possession I said "so what? They all have documents in their possession".

Then just a little bit later on I was proven right.

Who knew? Me.

Last time they accused Clarence Thomas of some minor infraction, I said they must have found some new evidence against the Biden's corruption, and it will be out within a week. Turned out to be 8 days but no one is perfect.

Hey, it's a nice place to live. Could have better weather, though, but I can't complain. Well, I might if it snows....

Seems crowded.

Wow, you really are terrible at thinking you understand people, aren't you?

If I had to guess...you're a lifelong

The topic is Trump being sued for inciting the January 6 riot. Your interpretation of Trump's actions as president isn't relevant to that topic.

You think the topic is Trump being sued over incitement to riot?

Sued...as in civil charges, not criminal?

And yet, you weren't talking about Trump's charges at that point, you were talking about democrats and identity politics, black and white people...and cats, for some reason. To be honest, I have no idea what point you were going for there, but Trump's charges weren't even mentioned.

Pointing out the consequences of political persecution seem relevant.

Hey, I'm not the one talking about Biden and Hilary Clinton, dude.

Actually, you are. From this same page....

Hey, if you have evidence that either Clinton or Biden refused to return any classified documents when asked to, or tried to hide them when subpoenaed, feel free to indict them.

Oops. There goes your memory again.

Who brought up President Biden and Hilary Clinton again? Not me.

See above.

Nah, Trump's corrupt activities are pretty unique, I'd have to say. Even Nixon's seem pale by comparison.

I'm sure he's the first person in real estate to claim a property is worth more than others think. That definitely doesn't happen every time a house is sold.

We were on the topic of Trump's charges, remember?

I think the more important question is do you remember? You forgot what you said on this page. No wonder you're so confused.

 

[Halbhh]

Trump Can Be Sued For Inciting Jan. 6, Appeals Court Rules

The ruling, striking down Trump’s claims he has “presidential immunity,” could help the criminal cases against him.

www.forbes.com

As it should be. A President has immunity for his actions related to his job, but campaigning does not fall under immunity. Looks like he will be receiving scores of lawsuits now.

Justice is coming for all, but we can be glad if there is some correction/justice here, in this fallen world.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It's double spaced for crying out loud. Read the narrative for count #1 (pp 3-42). It's all of a whole thing.

I'll grant its not as bad as some posters....I've seen 2 hour videos in OPs. I've seen long research papers but that's a little easier to critique when you can examine the relevant parts.

You linked a 45 page indictment to prove...something. I don't actually know what it's supposed to prove. It's an indictment, it just gives a reason for charges.

If you want to tell me what exactly you think it proves....and what page it can be found on (or even a general 5 page guess) I'll gladly look.

What I won't do is read 45 pages, only to find out it doesn't say what you think it does....tell you that....and have you tell me to "read it again" or just flat out insist it does say whatever you think it does.

You're insistent that "incitement" must be involved to prove the case (so something like that).

Maybe this is the problem....I never said that let alone insisted it.

Go back and read my words.

I recall saying something along the lines of a guilty of incitement charge being helpful for prosecuting the other charges....but I never claimed it was necessary.

Is it possible you got into a disagreement with what you thought I said....not what I actually said?

I knew there was a reason I had you on ignore. Can you even handle reading paragraph #1?

You and everyone else....yet somehow, people can still see my responses and reply to them. Perhaps the ignore button isn't working. I wouldn't know, I've never used it...this is a discussion board, I think it you're too cowardly to confront the opinions of others, just leave. Find a tiny bubble where everyone pretends to agree.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'll grant its not as bad as some posters....I've seen 2 hour videos in OPs. I've seen long research papers but that's a little easier to critique when you can examine the relevant parts.

You linked a 45 page indictment to prove...something. I don't actually know what it's supposed to prove. It's an indictment, it just gives a reason for charges.

If you want to tell me what exactly you think it proves....and what page it can be found on (or even a general 5 page guess) I'll gladly look.

What I won't do is read 45 pages, only to find out it doesn't say what you think it does....tell you that....and have you tell me to "read it again" or just flat out insist it does say whatever you think it does.

If you don't want to understand what Jack Smith has charged and why from his own work then there really isn't any need to consider what you think he is doing or why.

Maybe this is the problem....I never said that let alone insisted it.

Go back and read my words.

I recall saying something along the lines of a guilty of incitement charge being helpful for prosecuting the other charges....but I never claimed it was necessary.

Is it possible you got into a disagreement with what you thought I said....not what I actually said?

Certainly all posters misread and misinterpret what gets written and I could try and navigate back through several rounds of replies to get the precise wording and triple-nesting the replies, but navigating off the post I am replying to never ends well during the middle of composing. (The site navigation is a bit of a mess.) It's also a poor style of communication.

But that's *precisely* what I was trying to avoid -- a pointless back and forth between our understanding of the role of incitement (or absence thereof) in the government's case against Trump. The very best way for you to get an understanding of why Smith didn't include incitement is to see exactly what *did* charge and *how*. It is a far better path than working through our own understandings. (And if you have questions about what you read in the indictment, I will entertain them.)

You and everyone else....yet somehow, people can still see my responses and reply to them. Perhaps the ignore button isn't working.

Here a more careful reading of my post would be useful as I said I "had" put you on ignore. The past tense meaning in the past, but not currently.

I wouldn't know, I've never used it...this is a discussion board, I think it you're too cowardly to confront the opinions of others, just leave.

Most of my replies are to people I disagree with. That is just the nature of being a liberal, atheist, scientist on this board.

I use the "ignore" button to keep the most annoying posters from wasting my time. Maybe a couple dozen are in my ignore pile. (feel special yet?) I see no point wasting my time reading spammers, trolls, bigots, etc. If someone is annoying and useless, then away they go. (I blocked a Dec 2023 joiner already this month, first block in while.)

Sometimes I unignore when a poster is being responded to in the threads I read and it is easier to just scroll past them than to waste time figuring out what someone was replying to only to realize it is someone not worth reading.

Find a tiny bubble where everyone pretends to agree.

I spend plenty of time talking to myself. The level of the conversation tends to be higher.

 

[Ana the Ist]

If you don't want to understand what Jack Smith has charged and why from his own work then there really isn't any need to consider what you think he is doing or why.

I suppose I didn't consider that because of the larger totality of circumstances I'm considering.

Certainly all posters misread and misinterpret what gets written and I could try and navigate back through several rounds of replies to get the precise wording and triple-nesting the replies, but navigating off the post I am replying to never ends well during the middle of composing. (The site navigation is a bit of a mess.) It's also a poor style of communication.

I went back and looked and I'll admit I could have worded what I was saying better. The original point which I can see you took umbrage with was poorly stated. I was saying that an incitement judgment would help the other charges, because it removes the free speech defense Trump's planning. It makes Trump responsible for the actions of the rioters, directly.

That really is what I meant...but I'll admit, not worded well.

But that's *precisely* what I was trying to avoid -- a pointless back and forth between our understanding of the role of incitement (or absence thereof) in the government's case against Trump. The very best way for you to get an understanding of why Smith didn't include incitement is to see exactly what *did* charge and *how*. It is a far better path than working through our own understandings. (And if you have questions about what you read in the indictment, I will entertain them.)

I read the first five pages but again...I wasn't sure what exactly you were trying to prove with the indictment. It's not the totality of the evidence.

Here a more careful reading of my post would be useful as I said I "had" put you on ignore. The past tense meaning in the past, but not currently.

Does it expire automatically or do you periodically recheck it?

Most of my replies are to people I disagree with. That is just the nature of being a liberal, atheist, scientist on this board.

You're a scientist?

Can I ask what field?

I use the "ignore" button to keep the most annoying posters from wasting my time. Maybe a couple dozen are in my ignore pile. (feel special yet?)

No...judging by the sheer number of posters who absolutely never reply to me, I'd say the number is 12-24.

I may have the record for most ignored member.

I see no point wasting my time reading spammers, trolls, bigots, etc.

I'm not sure what a "reading spammer" is....but I don't troll, and I'm not a bigot.

I'll admit though, the definition of the last one has been stretched and distorted to a degree we may not see eye to eye on.

If someone is annoying and useless, then away they go. (I blocked a Dec 2023 joiner already this month, first block in while.

I block no one. I don't recall being annoyed by anyone here....not really.

Sometimes I unignore when a poster is being responded to in the threads I read and it is easier to just scroll past them than to waste time figuring out what someone was replying to only to realize it is someone not worth reading.

Ok.

I spend plenty of time talking to myself. The level of the conversation tends to be higher.

I talk to myself just to find someone like minded.

 

[A2SG]

That was the case we were discussing.

Yup. And the charges against Trump do not include colluding with Russia. I never said they did.

You can't cite any.

I'm not on the discovery list, so I don't have access to it all. But I do know there was enough for an indictment, so it does exist. We'll see how Trump's defense fares when that particular trial commences.

As to the one that's currently ongoing, well, he has already garnered a guilty verdict for fraud, so we know that there's sufficient evidence for that. It's getting pretty hard to say Trump's completely innocent when he's already been found guilty of fraud, for starters.

Sure sure....you're right, and every expert in real estate is wrong.

I'm not refuting any real estate agent's assumptions. I only know that we're talking about the legal case for fraud here, and for that, Trump has been found guilty.

It was, it got overruled.

Nope. It's been reinstated.

It's a big advantage to the defense as they can argue he was denied his rights if he loses now....get the whole thing thrown out.

At least one appeals court didn't see it that way.

So you say.

Well, he's the judge here, and the one who gets to make the call. You can second guess him all you want to, but he's seen all the evidence. You haven't.

Haven't been following the news, have you?

I do have other things to do, you know. So, when exactly did the House impeach President Biden?

In a civil case....the reason why you don't understand the case, or can explain it, is because you think he's been found guilty of fraud.

He was.

He's merely liable for fraud....and I think it will get tossed.

Like the gag order?

But, if you think being liable for fraud doesn't mean he's guilty of fraud, well, that's just splitting hairs. The question is: did he do the thing?

Yup.

I'm fully aware there are other charges....but that's the nature of persecution.

You misspelled "prosecution" there, dude.

They've been trying to charge him with anything they can, fake or real, for 7 years now.

Yet no crimes convicted.

Except the ones he was found guilty for. Or liable for, if you prefer that word.

You want the specific statute or just the broad strokes?

Whatever you got. Then again, I'm still waiting on other things you claimed you could cite, so I hope you don't mind if I do other stuff while I'm waiting. I wonder what's on Disney+...

Coming.

Let me know when I should look for that, okay?

Oh look, new episodes of Doctor Who!

Really? Back when they found docs in Trump's possession I said "so what? They all have documents in their possession".

Then just a little bit later on I was proven right.

Who knew? Me.

You do know that his just having them wasn't the problem, right? There was the whole bit about refusing to return them, even under a subpoena, and trying to hide them when they came looking. And his possibly showing them to people without clearance....

It was more than he simply forgot he had them.

Last time they accused Clarence Thomas of some minor infraction, I said they must have found some new evidence against the Biden's corruption, and it will be out within a week. Turned out to be 8 days but no one is perfect.

Still waiting on those articles of impeachment. Good thing I've got stuff to read while I wait.

Seems crowded.

No more so than other large cities, less so than some. Fortunately, I don't live in the heart of the city anymore, so it doesn't affect me much.

If I had to guess...you're a lifelong

Well, I'm not dead yet.

You think the topic is Trump being sued over incitement to riot?

Checking the thread title: "Trump Can Be Sued For Inciting Jan. 6, Appeals Court Rules"

I guess instead of saying he is being sued, I should have said he can be sued. My bad.

Still, the bits you threw in about Biden do seem off topic.

Sued...as in civil charges, not criminal?

Yup.

Pointing out the consequences of political persecution seem relevant.

I'm not the OP, I don't police these things. I'm just saying, you were the one insisting we return to the OP topic.

Actually, you are. From this same page....

Hey, if you have evidence that either Clinton or Biden refused to return any classified documents when asked to, or tried to hide them when subpoenaed, feel free to indict them.

Oops. There goes your memory again.

I was responding to you.

See above.

Still responding to you.

I'm sure he's the first person in real estate to claim a property is worth more than others think. That definitely doesn't happen every time a house is sold.

Quite possible. And that doesn't always constitute fraud. But sometimes, it does. As it did in this case.

I think the more important question is do you remember? You forgot what you said on this page. No wonder you're so confused.

I didn't forget anything dude.

-- A2SG, you can stiggy it all you like....

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yup. And the charges against Trump do not include colluding with Russia. I never said they did.

You forgot what you said on the same page you said it so...I'm not going to argue this.

I'm not on the discovery list, so I don't have access to it all. But I do know there was enough for an indictment, so it does exist.

That's assuming that there's no political persecution happening here.

Nope. It's been reinstated.

Again, I don't think there's much point in explaining the legal system if you're struggling with the difference between a civil and criminal case.

At least one appeals court didn't see it that way.

Right but given the rare circumstances of trying an ex president, it could easily go to the SCOTUS.

Well, he's the judge here

True.

I do have other things to do, you know. So, when exactly did the House impeach President Biden?

Don't read the news much?

But, if you think being liable for fraud doesn't mean he's guilty of fraud, well, that's just splitting hairs. The question is: did he do the thing?

My statement was that he wasn't convicted of any crime....which still stands. It's not my fault you don't understand the difference between a civil and criminal case.

You do know that his just having them wasn't the problem, right?

What was the problem then?

 

[A2SG]

You forgot what you said on the same page you said it so...I'm not going to argue this.

A little typo isn't the same as making a claim, but if you're not gonna argue, I won't press.

That's assuming that there's no political persecution happening here.

The assumption is that it's persecution. The fact that there's enough evidence to indict shows there's more to the charges than just persecution.

Again, I don't think there's much point in explaining the legal system if you're struggling with the difference between a civil and criminal case.

I'm not struggling at all. You're simply using that difference to split hairs, and pretend that being found guilty in civil court somehow doesn't mean that Trump sexually assaulted a woman.

Right but given the rare circumstances of trying an ex president, it could easily go to the SCOTUS.

Sure, it's possible. And it's also possible the SCOTUS won't decide to see the case, and let the lower court ruling stand.

If that happens, that will be the end of it.

Don't read the news much?

I don't read everything. If news of Biden's impeachment didn't reach me, perhaps you could provide a news story that reported the passing of articles of impeachment.

My statement was that he wasn't convicted of any crime....which still stands.

But he was still found guilty. You keep pretending that doesn't mean he did the thing.

It's not my fault you don't understand the difference between a civil and criminal case.

I understand the difference quite well, thank you. You seem unclear on the difference, since you seem to think being found guilty in civil court doesn't mean you did the thing you're found guilty of doing.

Let me ask you: did Trump sexually assault E. Jean Carroll?

He was found guilty of that act, based on a preponderance of the evidence, which is the burden of proof in a civil trial. So you can stop pretending I don't understand the difference between civil and criminal courts.

What was the problem then?

Here's the full indictment, if you missed it before.

In short: he retained classified documents that he was no longer authorized to keep, kept them in unsecured locations and showed them to people lacking clearance. When subpoenaed to return these documents, Trump refused, lied about them, and tried to hide them.

-- A2SG, which is what they call obstruction of justice.....

 

[Ana the Ist]

The assumption is that it's persecution.

Oh good...you're thinking.

What would that look like? The persecution of political opponents/opposition?

I'm not trying to play gotcha....I'm simply asking you what sort of things would indicate to you that political persecution is happening in your nation?

 

[A2SG]

Oh good...you're thinking.

Yeah, I do that a lot.

What would that look like? The persecution of political opponents/opposition?

Dunno. But charging someone with crimes in court based on actual evidence would indicate there's more involved that just persecution.

I'm not trying to play gotcha....I'm simply asking you what sort of things would indicate to you that political persecution is happening in your nation?

Were John Mitchell, HR Haldeman, John Ehrlichman and John Dean (among others) being persecuted when they were indicted over Watergate? (All 4 were convicted.) Was Spiro Agnew being persecuted when the DOJ was ready to indict him? (He resigned first, then pled no contest to income tax evasion.)

For that matter, was Al Capone being persecuted when he was indicted all the times he was indicted? Was Ted Bundy?

When is it persecution, and when it is justice? You're the one making the claim of persecution...what's your criteria?

-- A2SG, seems to me, a good sign would be the absence of actual evidence of wrongdoing.....

 

[Ana the Ist]

When is it persecution, and when it is justice? You're the one making the claim of persecution...what's your criteria?

Well what's the point of telling you my idea of political persecution?

You clearly don't believe it's happening.

That's why I'm asking you what it looks like to you when it is happening?

 

[A2SG]

Well what's the point of telling you my idea of political persecution?

No idea. To have a conversation, possibly?

You clearly don't believe it's happening.

I didn't say that. If Trump is being persecuted for his politics, it's happening because there is actual evidence of wrongdoing.

If there are any other politicians out there who are being persecuted for their politics, and there is no evidence of wrongdoing, that could indicate there is nothing other than persecution going on.

That's why I'm asking you what it looks like to you when it is happening?

You can't always tell. Someone can be persecuted because they've done something wrong, and it would look exactly the same as if they weren't being persecuted, just simply being prosecuted.

The only difference comes when there is persecution, but no evidence of wrongdoing. Evidence is key.

At least, that's how I see it. Do you see it differently?

-- A2SG, assuming you care to tell me....

 

[Ana the Ist]

No idea. To have a conversation, possibly?

No...don't quit thinking. One of us is making an assumption. You think I'm assuming that this is political persecution. You're assuming this is normal "pursuit of justice."

I didn't say that. If Trump is being persecuted for his politics, it's happening because there is actual evidence of wrongdoing.

"If Trump is being persecuted...it's because of evidence of wrongdoing."

Well that's not persecution is it? Plenty of evidence Hillary Clinton did the exact same thing Trump did (except she destroyed her private servers)...but she wasn't prosecuted. Plenty of evidence for insider trading on more elected officials than I care to count. Plenty of evidence of election interference, censorship of political speech, first amendment violations of citizens rights, etc. You have a party that decided, de facto, to not hold a primary in a Democracy, and is trying their hardest to put the only other candidate in jail....hmmmm....leaving the public no real choice in a democratic election.

Are you saying that he is being persecuted? Or the evidence that he broke laws and is being charged for them is reason to consider it not persecution?

If there are any other politicians out there who are being persecuted for their politics, and there is no evidence of wrongdoing, that could indicate there is nothing other than persecution going on.

So in your extremely simply view of "political persecution" people who are deemed guilty in court aren't being persecuted? Otherwise, they would be deemed innocent?

No offense...but that doesn't sound the least bit ridiculous to you? You don't think nations that engage in political persecution use the courts to eliminate political opponents?

You can't always tell. Someone can be persecuted because they've done something wrong, and it would look exactly the same as if they weren't being persecuted, just simply being prosecuted.

Well let's imagine circumstances that would be able to tell us if we were able to tell....

We would see officials, who are supposed to be neutral arbiters of justice, pursuing justice evenly....right?

If they only pursue people of one political view or inclination....then it's persecution and no longer neutral, right?

Take a look at this.

The person in charge of protecting your civil rights said that. The biggest case of free speech violations against the citizenry of the US, perpetrated throughout the government....and went straight to the SCOTUS....

She said "never heard of it".

Now I could easily show you official after official...time and again...telling Congress or Senate "I don't know" to some very basic questions they clearly should know. Repeated stonewalling.

Does that appear to be the work of neutral arbiters of justice?

The only difference comes when there is persecution, but no evidence of wrongdoing. Evidence is key.

Like in the Trump/Russia collusion case?

At least, that's how I see it. Do you see it differently?

-- A2SG, assuming you care to tell me....

I think if I came across one of those asylum seekers....fleeing their country....and they told me that he's fleeing a country where people of one party try to ruin the lives of people who disagree about "what a woman is", where they burn cities down, seize control of city blocks and execute people inside, where they use government power to imprison political opponents and media to smear them, where they violate basic human rights while claiming to protect them, where they have effectively ended open democracy by not allowing the people to choose a candidate and attempting to imprison their opponents....

I'd say that's terrible, and he’s definitely fleeing political persecution, but he's going to be really disappointed in the US.

We have a lot of people here who are in favor of it.

 

[A2SG]

No...don't quit thinking.

I don't think I would, even if I could.

One of us is making an assumption. You think I'm assuming that this is political persecution. You're assuming this is normal "pursuit of justice."

Not sure how "normal" it is, given the number of indictments. Then again, Al Capone had more, so it's all relative, I suppose.

"If Trump is being persecuted...it's because of evidence of wrongdoing."

Well that's not persecution is it?

Guess it depends on how you define the term. You can be persecuted for valid reasons, such as legitimate cases of wrong-doing. One could claim that Eliot Ness persecuted Al Capone, for example.

Plenty of evidence Hillary Clinton did the exact same thing Trump did (except she destroyed her private servers)...but she wasn't prosecuted. Plenty of evidence for insider trading on more elected officials than I care to count. Plenty of evidence of election interference, censorship of political speech, first amendment violations of citizens rights, etc. You have a party that decided, de facto, to not hold a primary in a Democracy, and is trying their hardest to put the only other candidate in jail....hmmmm....leaving the public no real choice in a democratic election.

Well, I'm not sure if your assessment of the evidence is entirely correct, or complete. That no indictments have come forward could mean the evidence isn't quite as conclusive as you think. Neither of us are prosecutors, so we have neither the experience or the specific knowledge to know for sure.

Are you saying that he is being persecuted? Or the evidence that he broke laws and is being charged for them is reason to consider it not persecution?

I can't speak to the motivations of the different prosecutors here, but the evidence was sufficient to bring the indictments. Whether it all holds up in court remains to be seen. Trump has been found guilty in at least one case so far, though, so we know the evidence isn't entirely inconclusive.

So in your extremely simply view of "political persecution" people who are deemed guilty in court aren't being persecuted?

Nope, never claimed that. People who are found guilty in court are guilty of the crimes they were convicted for. As to why prosecutors pursued the case in the first place, that I can't say.

Otherwise, they would be deemed innocent?

Well, not guilty isn't exactly the same as innocent, but courts can't declare anyone innocent, so that's as far as they can go.

No offense...but that doesn't sound the least bit ridiculous to you? You don't think nations that engage in political persecution use the courts to eliminate political opponents?

I have no doubt they do. But it's very difficult to prove precisely why someone has been targeted by law enforcement or any other government agency. All we can determine for sure is whether or not they can be found guilty of the crimes they are accused of.

Well let's imagine circumstances that would be able to tell us if we were able to tell....

Oh good, this is always fun.

We would see officials, who are supposed to be neutral arbiters of justice, pursuing justice evenly....right?

If they only pursue people of one political view or inclination....then it's persecution and no longer neutral, right?

Is it persecution, or simply bias?

For example, I've heard some Trump supporters call everyone on the left "evil" (even when they can't articulate exactly what makes them evil). Does this indicate their desire to persecute everyone on the left, or are they just blinded by their bias? Who can say, really?

I tend to apply Hanlon's Razor to cases like this.

Take a look at this.

The person in charge of protecting your civil rights said that. The biggest case of free speech violations against the citizenry of the US, perpetrated throughout the government....and went straight to the SCOTUS....

She said "never heard of it".

Now I could easily show you official after official...time and again...telling Congress or Senate "I don't know" to some very basic questions they clearly should know. Repeated stonewalling.

Does that appear to be the work of neutral arbiters of justice?

What? Someone, under oath, claiming to not know something? I imagine there are any number of reasons why she might answer that way, she might not have all the facts available to her at the moment, she might even need time to review the pertinent details, or she could be nervous. Saying "I don't know" rather than guessing about what the questioner wants to know seems a better strategy, especially if she's under oath.

That, that aside, I'm not sure how "neutral" anyone in that video is, to be honest.

Like in the Trump/Russia collusion case?

Like what in the Trump/Russia collusion case? Do you mean the evidence that Russia did, in fact, interfere in the 2016 election, or that representatives from the Trump campaign did meet with Russian officials? That evidence exists. Whether or not that constitutes "collusion" in a legal sense wasn't provable, so no charges were brought against Trump.

Whether that proves, or disproves, persecution, I can't say.

I think if I came across one of those asylum seekers....fleeing their country....and they told me that he's fleeing a country where people of one party try to ruin the lives of people who disagree about "what a woman is", where they burn cities down, seize control of city blocks and execute people inside, where they use government power to imprison political opponents and media to smear them, where they violate basic human rights while claiming to protect them, where they have effectively ended open democracy by not allowing the people to choose a candidate and attempting to imprison their opponents....

I'd say that's terrible, and he’s definitely fleeing political persecution, but he's going to be really disappointed in the US.

We have a lot of people here who are in favor of it.

Sure seems like it. But if we work together to make sure Trump isn't elected next year, that dystopian vision can be avoided.

-- A2SG, at least, that's what I hope for.....

 

[Ana the Ist]

Not sure how "normal" it is, given the number of indictments. Then again, Al Capone had more, so it's all relative, I suppose.

Fair enough...how about a "neutral" pursuit of justice?

Guess it depends on how you define the term. You can be persecuted for valid reasons, such as legitimate cases of wrong-doing.

I've never heard of "justified persecution"....I'm going off the standard dictionary definition.

Definition of PERSECUTE

to harass or punish in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict; specifically : to cause to suffer because of belief; to annoy with persistent or urgent approaches (such as attacks, pleas, or importunities) : pester… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

But to put it in political contexts...persecuted because of one's political views/social views/etc.

Well, I'm not sure if your assessment of the evidence is entirely correct, or complete.

Oh I haven't made any assessment of the evidence in the January 6th stuff. I know E Jean Carroll was privately funded...she couldn't afford her own case. I know Trump is guilty of taking classified documents but so is Joe and Hillary.

Neither of us are prosecutors

I've worked with several prosecutors now. I don't claim expertise but I'm not a complete newbie.

I can't speak to the motivations of the different prosecutors here, but the evidence was sufficient to bring the indictments. Whether it all holds up in court remains to be seen. Trump has been found guilty in at least one case so far, though, so we know the evidence isn't entirely inconclusive.

If I were to guess...I'd say he's likely guilty of a few things.

Nope, never claimed that. People who are found guilty in court are guilty of the crimes they were convicted for. As to why prosecutors pursued the case in the first place, that I can't say.

You understand that's not 100% of the time though...people get incarcerated on false evidence, coercion, etc., right?

Well, not guilty isn't exactly the same as innocent, but courts can't declare anyone innocent, so that's as far as they can go.

You've got a rather backwards understanding of our justice system...a person is supposed to be considered innocent until found guilty, indictments or not.

Is it persecution, or simply bias?

Well given generally that the government is supposed to not infringe upon the rights of individuals because of their political beliefs I'd say that it's persecution.

For example, I've heard some Trump supporters call everyone on the left "evil" (even when they can't articulate exactly what makes them evil).

Right.

Does this indicate their desire to persecute everyone on the left, or are they just blinded by their bias? Who can say, really?

Well if we were in some completely different situation where people weren't being fired by angry social media mobs, slandered by elected officials as white supremacists and put on trial, or called domestic terrorists for attending a protest turned riot....

And merely talking about name calling....I'd agree.

I tend to apply Hanlon's Razor to cases like this.

Not familiar with that one.

What? Someone, under oath, claiming to not know something? I imagine there are any number of reasons why she might answer that way, she might not have all the facts available to her at the moment, she might even need time to review the pertinent details, or she could be nervous. Saying "I don't know" rather than guessing about what the questioner wants to know seems a better strategy, especially if she's under oath.

The guy asking the question wanted to know if she ever heard of the case.

She said no. She's in charge of protecting your civil rights from infringement.

This is the case...

Murthy v. Missouri - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Let's take a look at what the judges all seem to agree on what happened...

In his 155-page ruling, Doughty wrote: "The Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits in establishing that the Government has used its power to silence the opposition. Opposition to COVID-19 vaccines; opposition to COVID-19 masking and lockdowns; opposition to the lab-leak theory of COVID-19; opposition to the validity of the 2020 election; opposition to President Biden’s policies; statements that the Hunter Biden laptop story was true; and opposition to policies of the government officials in power. All were suppressed. It is quite telling that each example or category of suppressed speech was conservative in nature. This targeted suppression of conservative ideas is a perfect example of viewpoint discrimination of political speech. American citizens have the right to engage in free debate about the significant issues affecting the country."[15] He continued: "If the allegations made by plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States' history. The plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits in establishing that the government has used its power to silence the opposition."

Now, there's multiple federal agencies under Biden involved in this....and the idea that the worst violation of civil rights committed by the US government since Jim Crow is not being pursued by the very people who are supposed to protect your rights doesn't in any way tell you that there is political persecution taking place???

She said she didn't know what case he was talking about. Even if true....that's unbelievable that she would still have a job. It's clearly not true.

Like what in the Trump/Russia collusion case? Do you mean the evidence that Russia did, in fact, interfere in the 2016 election, or that representatives from the Trump campaign did meet with Russian officials?

Wait...you think Trump is innocent, right? After all, they didn't indict...didn't charge him with any crimes....

Isn't that your standard of guilt?

You've been saying that if there's no indictments then they must be innocent. If he was guilty and they had evidence....they'd indict him, right?

 

[A2SG]

Fair enough...how about a "neutral" pursuit of justice?

Sure, that'd be nice. Not sure how "neutral" any of us might be, though. We all have our biases.

I've never heard of "justified persecution"....

Ness and Capone would be an example.

I'm going off the standard dictionary definition.

Definition of PERSECUTE

to harass or punish in a manner designed to injure, grieve, or afflict; specifically : to cause to suffer because of belief; to annoy with persistent or urgent approaches (such as attacks, pleas, or importunities) : pester… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

But to put it in political contexts...persecuted because of one's political views/social views/etc.

Again, that speaks to the motives of the prosecutor. No one can really know what the motives of any specific prosecutor are, all that can be evaluated is the evidence they present, and that would determine whether or not the accused is guilty of wrong-doing. And that means the motives of the prosecutor are irrelevant.

Oh I haven't made any assessment of the evidence in the January 6th stuff.

That case is still pending, anyway.

I know E Jean Carroll was privately funded...she couldn't afford her own case.

I have no idea what that's relevant to, if anything.

I know Trump is guilty of taking classified documents but so is Joe and Hillary.

He wasn't charged with just taking them. Read the indictment, you'll see exactly what he's been accused of. I provided a summary, but if that was insufficient, I did provide the full indictment.

I've worked with several prosecutors now. I don't claim expertise but I'm not a complete newbie.

Be that as it may, working with a prosecutor doesn't necessarily give you full knowledge of all the evidence for any specific case, let alone the ones we are discussing here.

If I were to guess...I'd say he's likely guilty of a few things.

We know he's guilty of fraud, at least. And other stuff that came before.

You understand that's not 100% of the time though...people get incarcerated on false evidence, coercion, etc., right?

Of course. No system is perfect. That's also why appeals courts exist.

You've got a rather backwards understanding of our justice system...a person is supposed to be considered innocent until found guilty, indictments or not.

Absolutely. What did I say that made you assume I thought otherwise?

Well given generally that the government is supposed to not infringe upon the rights of individuals because of their political beliefs I'd say that it's persecution.

And you're entitled to your opinion.

Well if we were in some completely different situation where people weren't being fired by angry social media mobs, slandered by elected officials as white supremacists and put on trial, or called domestic terrorists for attending a protest turned riot....

A society where people have freedom of speech, in other words.

And merely talking about name calling....I'd agree.

What else are we talking about, exactly?

Not familiar with that one.

Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

The guy asking the question wanted to know if she ever heard of the case.

She said no. She's in charge of protecting your civil rights from infringement.

This is the case...

Murthy v. Missouri - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Let's take a look at what the judges all seem to agree on what happened...

In his 155-page ruling, Doughty wrote: "The Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits in establishing that the Government has used its power to silence the opposition. Opposition to COVID-19 vaccines; opposition to COVID-19 masking and lockdowns; opposition to the lab-leak theory of COVID-19; opposition to the validity of the 2020 election; opposition to President Biden’s policies; statements that the Hunter Biden laptop story was true; and opposition to policies of the government officials in power. All were suppressed. It is quite telling that each example or category of suppressed speech was conservative in nature. This targeted suppression of conservative ideas is a perfect example of viewpoint discrimination of political speech. American citizens have the right to engage in free debate about the significant issues affecting the country."[15] He continued: "If the allegations made by plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States' history. The plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits in establishing that the government has used its power to silence the opposition."

Now, there's multiple federal agencies under Biden involved in this....and the idea that the worst violation of civil rights committed by the US government since Jim Crow is not being pursued by the very people who are supposed to protect your rights doesn't in any way tell you that there is political persecution taking place???

She said she didn't know what case he was talking about. Even if true....that's unbelievable that she would still have a job. It's clearly not true.

Okay...

Not sure how this relates to the topic at hand, but ....

Wait...you think Trump is innocent, right? After all, they didn't indict...didn't charge him with any crimes....

Isn't that your standard of guilt?

You've been saying that if there's no indictments then they must be innocent. If he was guilty and they had evidence....they'd indict him, right?

It's possible the evidence the DOJ had wasn't sufficient to make the case in court, which could be why they chose not to proceed. I'm not privy to all of that evidence, nor to their decision process, so I can only guess.

Trump is innocent until proven guilty, that much is legally true.

I, on the other hand, may have a differing opinion.

-- A2SG, but since Trump can't be charged based on my opinion, who cares what I think?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Sure, that'd be nice. Not sure how "neutral" any of us might be, though. We all have our biases.

That's a rather wild opinion.

After all, we saw people on the left crying and screaming and throwing tantrums every time a cop shot and killed a black person....even if it was entirely justified.

You're saying you don't mind if law enforcement isn't making any effort to avoid enforcement of the law in a biased manner?

Ness and Capone would be an example.

No that's justice. I don't recall anyone going after Capone for his political or religious beliefs or ethnicity or anything considered to be equal under the law.

Again, that speaks to the motives of the prosecutor. No one can really know what the motives of any specific prosecutor are, all that can be evaluated is the evidence they present, and that would determine whether or not the accused is guilty of wrong-doing. And that means the motives of the prosecutor are irrelevant.

Really? So the Durham Report pointing out the FBI had decided to pursue a case against Trump because they were extremely biased against him and wanted him out of office (to the point of violating their own rules and procedures) isn't a problem?

Seems like motives matter if we want to avoid persecution.

I mean, suppose I worked for an extremely intrusive government agency that investigates certain crimes, and decided to investigate you because I think you're a "bad person" whom I disagree with and should be punished.

That would be wrong, wouldn't it?

I have no idea what that's relevant to, if anything.

Well let's see...a law had to be changed for her to pursue her case. It's one that only changed in the state required for her to pursue her case. And on top of that, a mysterious benefactor funded her case. Those are facts. Perhaps you believe in coincidence though.

If so, would I be correct in guessing you also think that covid came from a wet market, and the emails between Fauci and other experts who believed covid to be lab made, and their subsequent change of heart 3 days later, due to a paper that was purely theoretical and funded by Fauci, and peer reviewed by Fauci, is also just a remarkable set of coincidences?

If you fail to see the point....it's that the truth matters. Sure, maybe you don't think it matters in politics....but when some folks are calling cops on people who don't want to wear masks or demanding they shut down their businesses....truth can be the difference between life and death.

He wasn't charged with just taking them.

I know the details of the case. I know you probably believe that the reason why Biden wasnt is "he cooperated" but even if you think that's true...it's not.

Plenty of lower tier personnel have faced criminal charges for the exact same thing and been successfully prosecuted because nobody really believes that they didn't realize they were in possession of classified documents.

We know he's guilty of fraud, at least. And other stuff that came before.


Of course. No system is perfect. That's also why appeals courts exist.


Absolutely. What did I say that made you assume I thought otherwise?

The statement about a court not declaring someone innocent.

Nobody wanted to try Rittenhouse, it's almost a perfect example of self defense. Same with Breonna Taylor...same with Trayvon Martin....same with several officers charged in the George Floyd trial.

We learned some of these things after the fact. But at least it Rittenhouse's case....it was clear to anyone who bothered to look that there was no crime. Even his gun possession was legal despite lies spread by the media.

So we can say that political persecution is driving the prosecution of certain individuals without any or much merit.

A society where people have freedom of speech, in other words.

And therein lies the difference. It's not a question of whether or not political pressure caused someone to be tried unjustly. If you seek to punish people through speech for political reasons....you're engaging in persecution.

It's not mere disagreement, but the inflicting of financial or harm or loss of opportunities.

What else are we talking about, exactly?

We've had the discussion.

Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

You don't seem to be applying that at all.

Let's pretend you did though....someone that stupid should be fired and replaced. Biden can't even finish a speech...same goes for him. These aren't small matters to be handled by a pack of morons.

Okay...

Not sure how this relates to the topic at hand, but ....

You were under the impression that this administration was pursuing justice. I just provided information that isn't true.

It's possible the evidence the DOJ had wasn't sufficient to make the case in court, which could be why they chose not to proceed.

That would mean he's innocent, right?

If you're judging him guilty of crimes because of indictments....surely an investigation spanning years, thousands of hours, extensive surveillance, etc. and results in nothing means he's innocent of collusion with Russia and all claiming hum guilty lied.

Trump is innocent until proven guilty, that much is legally true.

I, on the other hand, may have a differing opinion.

Well, I think that sums up your bias.

 

[A2SG]

That's a rather wild opinion.

After all, we saw people on the left crying and screaming and throwing tantrums every time a cop shot and killed a black person....even if it was entirely justified.

Some might have done that. So?

You're saying you don't mind if law enforcement isn't making any effort to avoid enforcement of the law in a biased manner?

I have never said that. And you will confirm that fact in your next post when you fail to quote me saying that.

No that's justice. I don't recall anyone going after Capone for his political or religious beliefs or ethnicity or anything considered to be equal under the law.

Some have contended that Eliot Ness had a personal vendetta against Capone, and was determined to get him, no matter what. Some might call that persecution.

Really? So the Durham Report pointing out the FBI had decided to pursue a case against Trump because they were extremely biased against him and wanted him out of office (to the point of violating their own rules and procedures) isn't a problem?

Never said that. A fact which you will confirm...you know the drill.

Seems like motives matter if we want to avoid persecution.

Perhaps. But, regardless of the motivation behind what may have started an investigation, if the evidence proves wrong doing, it should be pursued.

I mean, suppose I worked for an extremely intrusive government agency that investigates certain crimes, and decided to investigate you because I think you're a "bad person" whom I disagree with and should be punished.

That would be wrong, wouldn't it?

Possibly. On the other hand, if you were able to find evidence of wrong doing, you'd be entirely justified in pursuing it.

Of course, since I didn't do anything, this is purely hypothetical.

Well let's see...a law had to be changed for her to pursue her case. It's one that only changed in the state required for her to pursue her case. And on top of that, a mysterious benefactor funded her case. Those are facts. Perhaps you believe in coincidence though.

And all that proves what, exactly?

If so, would I be correct in guessing you also think that covid came from a wet market, and the emails between Fauci and other experts who believed covid to be lab made, and their subsequent change of heart 3 days later, due to a paper that was purely theoretical and funded by Fauci, and peer reviewed by Fauci, is also just a remarkable set of coincidences?

You can guess whatever you like. I have no idea what you're talking about.

If you fail to see the point....it's that the truth matters. Sure, maybe you don't think it matters in politics....but when some folks are calling cops on people who don't want to wear masks or demanding they shut down their businesses....truth can be the difference between life and death.

Is it true or not that whoever you're talking about wore a mask?

Either way, though, it still seems off topic.

I know the details of the case. I know you probably believe that the reason why Biden wasnt is "he cooperated" but even if you think that's true...it's not.

Plenty of lower tier personnel have faced criminal charges for the exact same thing and been successfully prosecuted because nobody really believes that they didn't realize they were in possession of classified documents.

So charge him, then.

Why you keep assuming I am defending Predident Biden, despite me repeatedly telling you otherwise is a mystery to me.

The statement about a court not declaring someone innocent.

Courts don't do that. The verdict is guilty or not guilty.

Our system of justice does presume one to be innocent, though. Of course, that isn't the same as saying they didn't do the thing.

Nobody wanted to try Rittenhouse, it's almost a perfect example of self defense. Same with Breonna Taylor...same with Trayvon Martin....same with several officers charged in the George Floyd trial.

We learned some of these things after the fact. But at least it Rittenhouse's case....it was clear to anyone who bothered to look that there was no crime. Even his gun possession was legal despite lies spread by the media.

So we can say that political persecution is driving the prosecution of certain individuals without any or much merit.

You can say whatever you like. I'm not arguing for or against whatever your point is here.

And therein lies the difference. It's not a question of whether or not political pressure caused someone to be tried unjustly. If you seek to punish people through speech for political reasons....you're engaging in persecution.

Perhaps. But regardless of that, if there is evidence someone did something illegal, that doesn't mean they can't be tried for the crime.

It's not mere disagreement, but the inflicting of financial or harm or loss of opportunities.

Unless there is there is evidence of wrong doing.

You don't seem to be applying that at all.

Let's pretend you did though....someone that stupid should be fired and replaced. Biden can't even finish a speech...same goes for him. These aren't small matters to be handled by a pack of morons.

I never said a word about this person, or about Biden in relation to her.

You were under the impression that this administration was pursuing justice. I just provided information that isn't true.

I never said that, a fact you will confirm...

Sing along if you know the words.

That would mean he's innocent, right?

Well, we presume he's innocent, sure.

I can't say for sure he didn't do the thing.

If you're judging him guilty of crimes because of indictments....

Which I have not done.

surely an investigation spanning years, thousands of hours, extensive surveillance, etc. and results in nothing means he's innocent of collusion with Russia and all claiming hum guilty lied.

Well, it means it can't be proven.

It doesn't mean he didn't do it.

We simply presume that he's innocent.

Well, I think that sums up your bias.

I never claimed I was without bias regarding Trump. I don't trust him, and I don't believe he's qualified to lead this nation.

-- A2SG, just as you clearly demonstrate a bias against President Biden....

 

[Ana the Ist]

I have never said that. And you will confirm that fact in your next post when you fail to quote me saying that.

You said this...

Sure, that'd be nice. Not sure how "neutral" any of us might be, though. We all have our biases.

Since you weren't excusing or dismissing an unbiased application of the law...what exactly did you mean?

Some have contended that Eliot Ness had a personal vendetta against Capone

Who?

Never said that. A fact which you will confirm...you know the drill.

Hopefully you already answered this above.

Perhaps. But, regardless of the motivation behind what may have started an investigation, if the evidence proves wrong doing, it should be pursued.

So a cop gets divorced from his wife, wants revenge, finds a narcotics in her car, and she claims he planted them but cannot prove it....

You would say that's a valid criminal case because "regardless of the motives for investigation the evidence proves wrong doing"?

Possibly. On the other hand, if you were able to find evidence of wrong doing, you'd be entirely justified in pursuing it.

We're talking about political persecution...for your words. You can easily be found and laid low without any trial at all if this is the direction you feel is justified.

I mean...as long as we're excusing the violation of basic human rights, why bother with trials?

Of course, since I didn't do anything, this is purely hypothetical.

Sure you have. You've said things people dislike. Things people disagree with.

And all that proves what, exactly?

It's a lot of rather remarkable circumstances that happened to coincidence with a large number of cases against a former president.

Is it true or not that whoever you're talking about wore a mask?

Either way, though, it still seems off topic.

I'm sorry...the point was over your head.

Truth matters, right?

So charge him, then.

It appears he's going to face impeachment proceedings. You've made it abundantly clear it's a mystery to you how all this works but I don't know why you think I can impeach the president lol.

Courts don't do that. The verdict is guilty or not guilty.

Right...and until a verdict of guilty is issued, they're innocent.

Our system of justice does presume one to be innocent, though. Of course, that isn't the same as saying they didn't do the thing.

It is in a legal sense....you can imagine whatever you want though.

Perhaps. But regardless of that, if there is evidence someone did something illegal, that doesn't mean they can't be tried for the crime.

We sort of already covered this above. I understand that you don't have any clue why a neutral and fair application of justice is important. You probably look at that statue of her and you're baffled as to why she's depicted as blind.

Unless there is there is evidence of wrong doing.

Right. And since you're real cool with political persecution and violation of rights....I'll just wish you good luck should things go south for you next year.

After all, you won't be complaining about dictators or any of that nonsense.

I never said a word about this person, or about Biden in relation to her.

You did.

I never said that, a fact you will confirm...

You literally did. A fact I can confirm. You said you don't attribute malice to her words when stupidity suffices.

That's an argument that she's stupid.

Well, we presume he's innocent, sure.

Well I do...I thought you considered someone guilty once an indictment was brought.

I can't say for sure he didn't do the thing.

Can't seem to say for sure about much.

I never claimed I was without bias regarding Trump. I don't trust him, and I don't believe he's qualified to lead this nation.

-- A2SG, just as you clearly demonstrate a bias against President Biden

How so? By bringing up his crimes or his stupidity?

 

[A2SG]

You said this...

Sure, that'd be nice. Not sure how "neutral" any of us might be, though. We all have our biases.

Since you weren't excusing or dismissing an unbiased application of the law...what exactly did you mean?

I meant what I said. We all have our biases. I made no mention of any applications of the law.

Who?

This, from The Crime Museum:

Ness found Capone’s ability to evade justice infuriating and developed a personal vendetta against him. Ness would intentionally antagonize Capone; he once repossessed all of Capone’s expensive cars and parading them down the street for all of Chicago to see. This only angered Capone.​

Hopefully you already answered this above.

Done and done.

So a cop gets divorced from his wife, wants revenge, finds a narcotics in her car, and she claims he planted them but cannot prove it....

Please note that, in every example I proposed, I never claimed the evidence was false or planted. That's an entirely different scenario than we've been discussing.

You would say that's a valid criminal case because "regardless of the motives for investigation the evidence proves wrong doing"?

Not if the evidence doesn't prove it.

We're talking about political persecution...for your words. You can easily be found and laid low without any trial at all if this is the direction you feel is justified.

Depends on what evidence you have.

I mean...as long as we're excusing the violation of basic human rights, why bother with trials?

Since I have never, not even once, excused the violation of basic human rights, I have no idea what you're going on about here.

Sure you have. You've said things people dislike. Things people disagree with.

Quite possible. That's not illegal. I haven't slandered anyone, though, nor have I committed libel.

It's a lot of rather remarkable circumstances that happened to coincidence with a large number of cases against a former president.

With a large body of evidence to support it. But, Trump will get due process and can defend himself in court.

I'm sorry...the point was over your head.

Truth matters, right?

Does it, though?

Take this, for example: is it true that Trump colluded with Russia in the 2016 election? Sure, it can't be proven in court, so he's presumed to be innocent...but there is evidence that strongly suggests some form of cooperation between Russia and the Trump campaign. Does that matter, or doesn't it?

Another example: previously, you made a big deal about Trump only being tried in civil court for the E. Jean Carroll case, and that him being found liable for sexual assault didn't mean the same as him being convicted of the crime. Even though the court found he did sexually assault her.

Does it matter to you if Trump did it or not? How much does truth matter in that case?

It appears he's going to face impeachment proceedings.

I'll believe it when the articles of impeachment are passed.

You've made it abundantly clear it's a mystery to you how all this works but I don't know why you think I can impeach the president lol.

You keep claiming to have solid evidence, but the House still hasn't impeached President Biden. I wonder if your evidence is as inconclusive, or imaginary, as theirs seems to be.

Right...and until a verdict of guilty is issued, they're innocent.

Well, they are presumed innocent.

The truth of whether or not they did the thing hasn't been shown yet. And truth matters, right? Isn't that what you keep saying?

It is in a legal sense....you can imagine whatever you want though.

Yup.

We sort of already covered this above. I understand that you don't have any clue why a neutral and fair application of justice is important.

Making up stuff again, are you?

You probably look at that statue of her and you're baffled as to why she's depicted as blind.

And here I was, thinking it was a fashion statement.

Sheesh...

Right. And since you're real cool with political persecution and violation of rights....

There you go again, making stuff up.

I'll just wish you good luck should things go south for you next year.

I'm fine, thank you very much.

After all, you won't be complaining about dictators or any of that nonsense.

If a certain dictator wannabe gets elected next year, I very well might be. Who knows?

You did.

Nope.

You literally did. A fact I can confirm. You said you don't attribute malice to her words when stupidity suffices.

I never referred to her directly. I said: "I tend to apply Hanlon's Razor to cases like this."

That's an argument that she's stupid.

No, it was a general statement about cases like that.

As I said.

Truth matters, doesn't it?

Well I do...I thought you considered someone guilty once an indictment was brought.

Nope. There would need to be a guilty verdict before I would consider them guilty.

Can't seem to say for sure about much.

I wasn't there.

How so? By bringing up his crimes or his stupidity?

Either one. Your bias is clear.

-- A2SG, but, as I've said, everyone has their biases...you're perfectly entitled to it....