" IF, on the other hand, he's found guilty, you can count on anger and protests from Trump and his allies."
1. As we've seen multiple left wing experts agreeing that the Trump trail was a sham, I'm not sure that some level of anger and protest are not justified.
2. Given that both Clinton and P-BO somehow got off with fines for their violations of campaign finance laws, I fail to see how ONE instance of allegedly violating campaign finance laws magically turns into 34 felonies or a violation that a negotiated fine wouldn't be appropriate for.
3. Given that right wing protests tend to be significantly less violent and destructive than left wing protests, I fail to see where this fear is justified.
4. Somehow the US congress paying 17 million to assorted victims of sexual misconduct or Clinton paying off Paula Jones aren't crimes, but Trump paying of one person a relatively small amount of money for an act that the "victim" claims never happened is worthy of this farce.
5. Meanwhile Biden dropped the charges against 350,000 immigrants who violated US law when they entered the country.
6. The Trump prosecutor is a record of filing to prosecute and releasing on minimal bail large numbers of violent criminals.
"As a side note, I went exploring today.
Stan
Craig
Marshal
Neil
Glenn
Jesse
...and
almost NONE of the other Trump loyalists (and I know Craig and Stan
will complain about being noted that way, but they are what they are)
who I've engaged with over the years have had ANYTHING to say about this
story of the century yesterday or today."
As I rarely post anything on Friday afternoon, Saturday or Sunday, it's not surprising that I didn't post on this nothing burger of a story. When something happens that is preordained to happen, it's not really much news.
I have been compiling news stories from liberal legal experts about how much of a joke this trial has been and how many obvious reversible errors there are for the defense to argue. I've said repeatedly that this case is not over until the appeals process ends, and that I expect the appeals process to reverse the trial court decision. It also wouldn't shock me to see the judge and prosecutor receive sanctions for their political activities and donations.
As I noted above, the fact that Bragg invested millions of dollars of money and thousands of hours of time into this prosecution while actual violent criminals have not been prosecuted tells me all I need to know about his commitment to protect his constituents from harm.
48 comments:
Dan made a couple of semi hysterical comments where he cited a "source" or two which indicated that some people (no actual numbers of people given as usual) are availing themselves of their first amendment right to free speech in expressing their views online. Dan seems to equate this online speech with actual violence, and his fear of some massive "right wing" violent outburst seems to be growing. The fact that there hasn't been any actual outbreak of the violence Dan fears, seems irrelevant. The fact that left wing violent protests from 2014 to this year have caused significantly more damage, harm, and involved larger numbers of people than the one "right wing" example doesn't seem to be a concern when it comes to him spreading his fear.
Speech is protected by the first amendment whether or not it offends Dan, yet Dan seems determined to treat protected speech exactly the same as violent protest.
"Embrace grace", my ass.
"As we've seen multiple left wing experts agreeing that the Trump trail was a sham, I'm not sure that some level of anger and protest are not justified."
IF that were true, maybe. IF it were true that this was a "rigged" "sham" trial, yes.
IF, IF, IF.
But therein lies the rub, right?
You all are jumping the gun and presuming that this was a rigged, faked, kangaroo court trial IN SPITE of having no proof of that.
Do you agree that there's only cause for anger IF it were a bad trial with an unjustified conclusion?
There is zero evidence of a corrupt jury.
Zero evidence of corrupt prosecutors.
Zero evidence of Biden making this happen.
Your house is built upon sand.
The modern GOP has gone on full scale assault on our media, legal, election and justice systems.
You all are believing in unproven and nonsensical conspiracy theories. Puppets in the hands of bad actors. Useful tools for actually corrupt deviants.
That's the problem.
Dan
Indeed. Many people have expressed desires, but as yet I've seen no true call for rebellious action. I would agree that this situation provides more evidence which justifies such a thing than has already happened previous to it, and that wasn't without justification as well. Yet, nothing. Jan 6 was an indication such frustration exists, but we didn't need unnecessary flash bangs hurled into a peaceful crowd or agents provocateur inciting a small group to act badly to know that frustration has been rising. I would think if there was really something afoot, it will make Jan 6 look like the spontaneous dust up it actually was. Imagine how wet Dan's panties will be should that ever actually happen!
I much prefer no such thing occurs. I would caution against it, especially given the very low character of those in power at the present time. Every need hold tightly until the election. Should Dan's scum prevail, I've no doubt they will provide even more justification for rebellion. Seems they're doing all they can to emulate King George...if not Stalin.
Anyway, with regard to your comment referring to the story as a nothing burger, I would correct you and say the case certainly was a nothing burger which should never have been heard, and wouldn't have by a truly justice-minded judge. But the story is no nothing burger as the manner in which this shit-show trial proceeded...and really all the trials...and its outcome is incredibly serious stuff. It has high potential for lasting harm and repercussions. The irony is that includes the actions of the scum coming back to bite them in the ass really hard at some point.
"IF that were true, maybe. IF it were true that this was a "rigged" "sham" trial, yes."
Well, it is True. Unfortunately for you, your obsession with making shit up and concluding that my not doing something on your schedule means that I'm afraid or something. In this case, in addition to not blogging on weekends and having company, I have a job which occasionally requires that I prioritize work over fulfilling your demands. Especially on Mondays.
"IF, IF, IF."
You assume that because I haven't provided anything YET, that nothing exists. That's the problem when you're a narcissist and assume that everything revolves around you. In this case, I've been accumulating news reports for the past few days and will post the results when I have the chance to go through them all.
"But therein lies the rub, right?"
The rub is that you are impatient, uninformed, and narcissistic.
"You all are jumping the gun and presuming that this was a rigged, faked, kangaroo court trial IN SPITE of having no proof of that."
OK, Danthustera has spoken, his legal expertise is so vast that he has knowledge that no one else has and he's now declared that no proof exists.
"Do you agree that there's only cause for anger IF it were a bad trial with an unjustified conclusion?"
Sure.
"There is zero evidence of a corrupt jury."
I haven't made a single claim that the jury was corrupt. As far as I know there is zero evidence either way about the jury. Excellent straw man though.
"Zero evidence of corrupt prosecutors."
If you say so. But let's ignore the violent criminals that Bragg chose not to prosecute, his campaign promise to go after Trump, and the fact that Soros funded his campaign.
"Zero evidence of Biden making this happen."
Again with the straw men. Of course there is evidence of the DOJ being involved in state cases against Trump. Of course, zero evidence doesn't prove that the DOJ isn't involved.
"Your house is built upon sand."
If you say so, based on your assumptions about what actual legal experts for left wing/MSM outlets are saying.
"The modern GOP has gone on full scale assault on our media, legal, election and justice systems."
Really, I was unaware that Hillary was a member of the GOP. But hey, there's nothing wrong with using the legal system to go after political appointments.
"You all are believing in unproven and nonsensical conspiracy theories. Puppets in the hands of bad actors. Useful tools for actually corrupt deviants."
Oh look, one more false claim.
That's the problem.
Brad Smith, former FEC commissioner. Expert on election law.
"There was no illegal contribution or expenditure made, and no failure to report an expenditure... the prosecution’s theory made no sense, suggesting no criminal intent."
Former Commissioner of the Federal Elections Commission (FEC)
@CommishSmith
, a preeminent expert on campaign finance law has taken to social media to lash out against the Manhattan trial that led to the conviction of former President Donald Trump.
Judge Juan Merchan had prevented Trump’s defense team from seating Smith as a witness or even submitting his testimony to the jury. Smith had planned on testifying that Donald Trump’s filing of a “hush money” payment as a “legal expense” was not a crime against federal elections law.
Indeed, federal prosecutors had passed up on the case prior to Alvin Bragg, the District Attorney in Manhattan, bringing the case by claiming that Trump had “falsified business records” in the furtherance of committing a crime. One of the implicit crimes that Bragg had left open as an option was covering up Trump’s alleged affair with an adult actress “Stormy Daniels” (Stephanie Cliffords) so that it would not negatively impact the 2016 election.
However, among the controversies in the case, beyond it hinging on Michael Cohen’s unreliable testimony, was that Trump had purportedly used “unlawful” means to impact the election.
Former Commissioner Smith put this notion to rest in a lengthy thread that he posted on social media. It is reposted in its entirety below (lightly edited for readability):
Let’s take a stab… Falsifying business records under NY law is a misdemeanor, unless done to hide a crime. Bragg says that crime was a violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), or of a NY statute making it illegal to influence an election by “unlawful” means.
But if the latter, what is the “unlawful means?” An alleged violation of FECA. So it comes down to FECA. There are two potential violations here. One is acceptance of an unlawful contribution by the campaign. The other is incorrect reporting of a contribution by the campaign.
Either way, we have to have a campaign contribution. That allegedly occurred when Cohen advanced money to pay the Stormy Daniels settlement. FECA defines a contribution as any payment made “for the purpose of influencing an election.” The 2016 max legal contribution was $2700.
This looks bad for Trump–it’s pretty easy to conclude the payment was made to influence the election by buying Daniels’ silence, right? And Cohen paid Daniels $130K, way over the limit. Well, it’s not so simple.
1st, let’s clear up something. Cohen just loaned the money–he was paid back and then some. So where, some ask, is the contribution? But this is not a winner for Trump–under the law a “contribution” includes a loan, unless made in the ordinary course of business (e.g. a bank)
But, for context, note that there is no limit on how much Trump can contribute to his own campaign. By Oct 27, when Daniels was paid, Trump had already spent >$60 million of his own $$ on the campaign. It would have been easy for him to toss in another $130K.
Now, back to that definition of “contribution.” If they bought Daniels silence to “influence an election”–what the prosecution alleged–isn’t that a “contribution?” (And also a campaign “expenditure,” which mirrors the contribution definition?) Well, no.
1st, Common Sense. We know that a campaign expense is not literally any payment made “for the purpose of influencing an election,” and reading the statute that way would be WAY too broad. For example, in 1999, Bill & Hillary Clinton bought a house in New York.
One reason they did so was that Hillary could run for U.S. Senate from New York. In other words, the expenditure was clearly done, in part, “for the purpose of influencing an election.” Is it a campaign expenditure under FECA? Of course not. Common sense.
How about if a would-be candidate pays a lawyer to seal old divorce records, because he is afraid that, if revealed, they would be damaging to his candidacy. Campaign expense? No, clearly not–even though done “for the purpose of influencing an election.”
Or suppose a business owner wants to settle pending lawsuits against his business before running for Congress. He think the lawsuits are BS–but he’s afraid the press will make a big deal of the allegations. Can he pay the settlements with campaign funds?
The answer, obviously, is no–even though there is no legal obligation to pay them, and the settlements would be paid specifically to “influence an election.” In fact, in each of these examples, it would be unlawful to make the payments with campaign funds.
This is because FECA also prohibits using campaign funds for “personal use.” What is “personal use?” Under Federal Election Commission regulations–and the FEC has primary authority-for interpreting the law-it is any obligation that would exist “irrespective” of the candidacy.
Indeed the FEC regulations make clear that a mixed motive doesn’t make something a campaign expense-if the obligation would exist “irrespective” of the campaign, paying it with campaign funds is “personal use,” and therefore illegal.
Certainly Daniels used the campaign to pressure Trump and for the most $$ she could. The timing affected the *value* of her allegations, but the *obligation* did not exist because Trump was a candidate. It predated his candidacy, & was not created by him being a candidate.
Let’s use common sense. Is it a “campaign” expense to pay for a non-disclosure agreement for something arising out of events 10 years earlier, and not caused by the act of being a candidate? Is paying “hush money” a campaign expense? Duh, no.
And we wouldn’t want it to be. We don’t want candidates using campaign funds to pay personal expenses, whether new clothes, a weight loss program, or a gym membership (purchased to help the candidate look better, and therefore “for the purpose of influencing an election.”)
And certainly not to pay non-disclosure agreements to keep embarrassing info hidden. In summary, “for the purpose of influencing an election is an objective standard. The motive of the donor or spender doesn’t matter. So what are expenditures?
Paying campaign staff is a campaign expenditure. Buying ads for the candidate. Paying fundraising costs. Paying a campaign accountant. Paying for polling. Travel to campaign events. Basically, all the obligations you incur solely because you are campaigning for office.
The FEC’s approach is consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court, has consistently held, in every case since FECA was passed 50 years ago, that it’s definitions of “contribution” and “expenditure” must be objective, not subjective, to avoid being unconstitutionally vague.
After all, almost any political act or communication could be considered a “campaign contribution” or “expenditure.” Protesting “Genocide Joe” for Biden’s Israel policy? That could, and could have the purpose of, influencing this fall’s election.
If an environmental group advocates for green energy policies, is that a campaign contribution? Doing so could shape views on the issue, and so how people vote this fall–that might even be its purpose. Campaign contribution? Expenditure?
So none of these things violate FECA, even though they are what we would normally call “expenditures,” and even though done “for the purpose of influencing an election.” Again, its an objective standard. But none of this went to the jury, either as evidence or in instructions.
Instead, the jury heard only from Michael Cohen and the prosecutors, who claimed this was clearly a violation of FECA. In a second thread, I’ll explain why there was no FECA reporting violation.
The second thread is also posted below:
In another thread, , I explain why payments to Stormy Daniels were not a violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). In this thread, I’ll explain why no FECA reporting obligations were violated, and why the prosecution’s theory makes no sense.
M. Cohen testified that Trump wanted to keep Daniels allegations under wraps until after the election. Prosecutors claim they therefore illegally did not report the campaign expenditure, and by doing so intended to, and did, have “the purpose of influencing an election.”
Presidential campaigns file monthly reports with the Federal Election Commission (FEC). These are filed on the 20th of each month, and cover expenditures and contributions for the prior month. So in 2016, the Sep. report was filed 9/20, and covered expenditures made in August.
The Oct. report was filed 10/20, reporting expenditures made in September. But after the October monthly report, the schedule changes. 12 days before the election, campaigns file a Pre-Election Report, covering expenditures up to 20 days before the election.
In 2016, the Pre-election Report was filed on October 27, covering expenditures made only through Oct. 19. The payment to Daniels was made on Oct. 27. So the payment would not have been reported on the Pre-election report.
The next report is the Post-Election Report. This covers expenditures made from 20 days before the election until 20 days after the election, and is filed 10 days after that. So this was the 1st report that would have included any expenditure to Cohen for paying Daniels.
In 2016, the Post-Election Report was required to be filed on December 8, one month after the election. So the prosecution’s theory, that Trump wanted to hide the expenditure until after the election, makes no sense at all.
Even if we assume, incorrectly, that it was a campaign expenditure, it wouldn’t have been reported until 30 days after the election. But again, none of this got to the jury, either through testimony or the judge’s instructions.
Merchan was rather obviously biased here, but I’ll give him the benefit of a doubt and say he was just thoroughly ignorant of campaign finance law, and had no interest in boning up on it to properly instruct the jury.
There was no illegal contribution or expenditure made, and no failure to report an expenditure. And even if we assume otherwise, the prosecution’s theory made no sense, suggesting no criminal intent.
I’m not a criminal law guy. But I do know campaign finance law. The failure to properly instruct the jury on the law would seem to be reversible error.
Donald Trump was found guilty in the Manhattan trial of 34 counts of falsification of business records and potentially faces prison time in his sentencing on July 11th.
The Trump legal team intends to file an appeal to the New York State Appellate Court.
Chris Cuomo
“This was a misdemeanor that was trumped up to felonies. To call it 34 counts is laughable because the 34 counts are different checks that were signed to pay back Cohen.”
“I think it was a case that should not have been brought. And it was brought for the wrong reasons.”
https://www.yahoo.com/news/cnn-legal-guru-says-york-191505499.html
CNN Legal Expert Elie Honig had quite a bit to say as well.
None of these people are "right wing" or Trump supporters by any standard. Maybe listen to experts. Maybe listen to what I actually said, rather than your distorted version of what I said driven by your narcissism and impatience.
As always, there's a difference between "zero" evidence and you having not seen the evidence. You seem to confuse those two things.
For the record, I've always said that Trump will likely be convicted and that he'll likely see the conviction overturned on appeal. Ultimately, I suspect that when it's overturned that you'll find reasons to disbelieve that verdict.
Art,
Dan confuses frustrated people venting on line with actual violence. Dan seems determined to strip those he disagrees with of their first amendment rights to say things that he doesn't like and finds offensive.
We both know that the likelihood of any actual violent (certainly not on the scale of the left wing riots 2014-2024) actions are minimal. We also know that if something does happen it will be a few people who'll protest for a short time. We also know that the vast majority of conservatives will condemn any violence and support any who might engage in violence being charged, tried and convicted.
What's interesting is that Dan is vociferously supporting Biden who was determined to be unfit to stand trial.
I don't usually discuss politics at my apologetics blog but my "The Thought Provoker" blog has lots of political thoughts.
There is nothing I can say about the Trump trial except that it was a fraud and definitely election interference. Dan is an ignorant, indoctrinated peon of Satan and the LEFT so he's not worth bothering with in regard to the Trump trial.
Here is an excellent examination of lots of problems with the trial and why it should have been thrown out to begin with.
https://amac.us/newsline/elections/34-reasons-the-bragg-biden-show-trial-should-have-been-tossed-out/
Glenn,
Thanks for the link. My plan was to do a post outlining the problems, but Dan's impatience and narcissism messed with that plan. Perhaps this comment section can be a clearinghouse for exposing the problems with the conviction.
If nothing else the fact that it was intentionally timed to come during the election screams election interference. They could easily have brought these cases 12/18 months ago, but chose not to. It's an excellent example of the "by any means necessary" strategy we hear about.
Dan confuses frustrated people venting on line with actual violence.
Of course, I do not confuse that. Of course, people vent online regularly.
But the reality is that some portion of those who vent are also those who are prepared to act violently. That is why the FBI and other law enforcement agencies keep an eye on right wing groups and people, BECAUSE they are the ones most likely to act out violently.
The data is what the data is.
Add to that an idiot pervert conman president (and those are not pejoratives, just observable reality) who is willing to relentlessly, ceaselessly send out to his useful idiots a long series of false claims about how those in the middle and to the left of you all are "evil" and "trying to take over the country" and "steal our elections" and "weaponize the justice system..." given all that, OF COURSE, some people are going to say, "That jury, that judge, those Democrats, those New Yorkers... these are NOT fellow citizens engaging in good faith disagreements... they are EVIL AND WANT TO DESTROY OUR WAY OF LIFE..." OF COURSE, some useful idiots are going to believe your pervert prince conman and act violently. We've already seen it, this is not guesswork, it's reality.
So, no, I do not confuse merely venting with actual violence. I DO recognize the actual threat (identified by various experts and legal officials) of some percentage of those venting who have and will act out based upon the conspiracy theories and lies they're believing.
There's a difference.
That you would try to frame it that way is just what the Trump and MAGA types hope to accomplish. Don't be a useful idiot to dangerous liars.
My plan was to do a post outlining the problems, but Dan's impatience and narcissism messed with that plan.
What "impatience?" What "narcissism?" Does it matter to you that you're just throwing out stupidly false and unsupported lies?
Are you suggesting I have to wait for you to provide a list of a handful of people who agree with your theories to disagree with the notion behind your theories?
You know, other people read, too, right?
I've read from experts, from lawyerly types and legal scholars. Of course, there's nothing innately wrong with this conviction that went through the proper systems, through a legitimate justice system and that he was convicted with a jury of his peers. That you don't care for the outcome doesn't mean it wasn't a good faith legal exercise.
In almost any disputed legal case, there will be some people - legal experts, even - who have different ideas about the strength (or lack thereof) of the case. That doesn't mean that it was a sham.
Look, let's say that you've found FIVE ENTIRE legal experts who agree with your opinions about it being a sham. Let's further say that TWO of them were actually Democrats, once upon a time. At the same time, there are, no doubt, dozens or hundreds of legal scholars/experts who DO find the case compelling.
Are you so narcissistic (actually narcissistic, not whatever it is you think you're accusing me of, with no support) to think that ONLY those who tickle your little ears are the only legitimate legal scholars and ALLLLLL other scholars are part of the vast conspiracy to convict a sweet, innocent saint?
Come on. Get serious.
Here's the thing: Trump was convicted in a legitimate court of law in the free USA by a jury of his peers because of actions HE took and corruption HE engaged in as verified by the very disreputable people HE associated with in the words of his OWN former supporters.
IF Trump had actually been a boy scout,
IF he wasn't a lying, perverted cheater himself,
IF he hadn't surrounded himself with corrupt liars and cheaters,
IF he didn't have a history of cheating people out of money
IF he didn't have a history of abusing the system to get away with cheating people,
IF he had actually "drained the swamp" of corrupt people...
In other words, IF Trump was not so overtly dishonest and corrupt himself, he would not be in this situation. It was not the Democrats who testified to his cheating, lying and corruption. It has been his allies and his former allies... who at the same time often were corrupt themselves.
Brothers, when you lie down with the diarrheic pigs, you're going to get filthy and full of shit. That is Trump, objectively, observably. HOW do we know? Because the Democrats say so? Because liberals say so? NO! Because his own people will tell you so.
The man is sick and needs help, not people defending him without cause.
If nothing else the fact that it was intentionally timed to come during the election screams election interference.
Bullshit. Prove it.
You all can't just make stupidly false, dangerously idiotic and inflammatory claims that WILL rile up the violent amongst the useful idiots.
We are a nation of brothers and sisters, neighbors and cousins. We have GOT to stop the demonizing of the others as if they are evil incarnate seeking to steal, lie, rape and abuse. YES, people of good will can and do disagree with you all. We CAN see the corruption in Trump that you appear willing to blind yourselves to. That we disagree with you or see what you're not willing to see doesn't mean that we're evil or cheating or anything but trying to do the right thing.
Your collective attempts to demonize and divide is sick and needs to stop.
You assume that because I haven't provided anything YET, that nothing exists.
No. I KNOW because EVEN IF you can find a handful of lawyers who say what you think is right, that this does not mean that those handful of lawyers have it right.
Law is often not clean-cut. There are often good faith disagreements about cases. That there may (or may not) be a handful of legal experts who agree with what you, as a non-expert, happen to believe in your head does not mean that they are right and it certainly doesn't mean that those who disagree with that handful of opinions are wrong and certainly not they are INTENTIONALLY, malevolently wrong.
Do you recognize that reality?
I'm a rational, reading adult in the real world. I DO NOT need you to pass on a handful of people that happen to say to you things you like to hear.
In reality:
The DA in this case is a legitimate public servant and legal expert.
The prosecutors in this case are legitimately public servants and legal experts.
The jury in this case are legitimate citizens doing their best to do the right thing and listen to the evidence and reach a conclusion.
You have nothing to dispute this in any conclusive way. That you don't like these people or you imagine that they are not acting in good faith is absolutely meaningless. No one cares that you want to slander the name of fellow citizens because you, as a person not involved in this trial in any way at all and who are not an expert in any way at all, think you have the capacity to somehow second guess them.
Shame on you. Be a better person.
Stop attacking and slandering and gossiping about your fellow citizens who you do not even know.
Thou shalt not.
Look, let's take this down a notch and step through it more reasonably and dispassionately, without all the partisan angst and emotion.
I had said:
"IF that were true, maybe. IF it were true that this was a "rigged" "sham" trial, yes."
And you responded:
Well, it is True. Unfortunately for you, your obsession with making shit up and concluding that my not doing something on your schedule means that I'm afraid or something.
Now, from where I sit, that sounds pretty point blank. It SOUNDS like you're saying that for those who disagree with your (non-expert, guy on the street) personal opinion and understanding of this case, that we're just factually wrong. That to disagree with your understanding is just objectively, factually wrong. It "is True," you say, that this was a sham trial.
That's what I'm hearing. Am I understanding you correctly?
Now, can you allow that people might have good faith disagreements with your assessment?
Can you allow that there is a legitimate difference of opinion as to the merits of Trump's conviction? That indeed, there are at least a handful of legal experts who find fault with this conviction AND that there are other legal experts who think this is legitimately a Win for the notion that no one was above the law? That Trump violated laws and is being held accountable in a legitimate system as ultimately determined by a jury of his fellow citizen peers?
Or is there only ONE way to see this case and all who disagree with your personal take on it are just wrong?
And are you thinking that those who disagree with you are intentionally malevolent and trying purposefully to convict an innocent man?
If so, do you see how that might be seen by some as bad faith and irrational and not consistent with reality?
Never let Dan pressure you to do anything. He's scum and not deserving of consideration regarding when and how you respond. As eager as I generally am to read what you have to say, I fully understand you have this think called "a life" and it takes priority over blogging for most people, Dan included as we witnessed during the unhappy period leading to the passing of his mother.
Personally, I think you'd be justified in stopping here, given the details you've provided around which Dan is incapable of arguing. But don't let that stop you from continuing. You're doing yeoman's work here and I greatly appreciate it.
Wouldn't it be great if Dan ever chose to support his claims in this manner?
Ah, to dream!
"What "impatience?" What "narcissism?" Does it matter to you that you're just throwing out stupidly false and unsupported lies?"
"...and almost NONE of the other Trump loyalists (and I know Craig and Stan will complain about being noted that way, but they are what they are) who I've engaged with over the years have had ANYTHING to say about this story of the century yesterday or today.""
Impatience. The narcissism is displayed every time you assume everything revolves around you.
"Are you suggesting I have to wait for you to provide a list of a handful of people who agree with your theories to disagree with the notion behind your theories?"
No, but maybe wait before you bitch about the fact that I "haven't". It's strange that you regularly make excuses for your silence, but bitch when others are silent.
"You know, other people read, too, right?"
I'm sure you do, but you named me specifically. Since you called me out specifically, I'm responding to you specifically calling me out.
"Look, let's say that you've found FIVE ENTIRE legal experts who agree with your opinions about it being a sham. Let's further say that TWO of them were actually Democrats, once upon a time. At the same time, there are, no doubt, dozens or hundreds of legal scholars/experts who DO find the case compelling."
Look, Dan is making shit up so he can argue against it. I'll note that you haven't offered even ONE of these "hundreds" of "legal scholars/experts" you claim exist.
"Are you so narcissistic (actually narcissistic, not whatever it is you think you're accusing me of, with no support) to think that ONLY those who tickle your little ears are the only legitimate legal scholars and ALLLLLL other scholars are part of the vast conspiracy to convict a sweet, innocent saint?"
No. I am pointing out that legal experts, employed by the MSM you place so much faith in, are explicit about how bad this trial/verdict has been.
Do you really not have a problem with a prosecutor running specifically on a platform of convicting Trump, while allowing violent criminals to go free? Or with a judge who has a long and well documented track record of animus against one of the parties in the case he's presiding over?
"In other words, IF Trump was not so overtly dishonest and corrupt himself, he would not be in this situation. It was not the Democrats who testified to his cheating, lying and corruption. It has been his allies and his former allies... who at the same time often were corrupt themselves."
So, you seem to be saying that Trump wasn't convicted because the evidence of this one (usually) misdemeanor act was overwhelming, that he was convicted because of other things that he wasn't charged with. Am I understanding you? The primary witness perjured himself, and admitted under oath to committing felonies, but you still believe him, excellent.
It's amusing discussing anything legal with someone who has such ignorance about the legal system. I'm prepared to wait for the appeals process and a venue where Trump isn't faced with a prosecutor and judge who have publicly expressed animus toward Trump.
Maybe Al can actually prosecute violent felons now.
"Bullshit. Prove it."
This "crime" happened before the 2016 election. They had plenty of time to bring these charges before now.
"You all can't just make stupidly false, dangerously idiotic and inflammatory claims that WILL rile up the violent amongst the useful idiots."
Now your make believe, fantasy violence is my fault. Well played, if entirely made up.
"We are a nation of brothers and sisters, neighbors and cousins. We have GOT to stop the demonizing of the others as if they are evil incarnate seeking to steal, lie, rape and abuse. YES, people of good will can and do disagree with you all. We CAN see the corruption in Trump that you appear willing to blind yourselves to. That we disagree with you or see what you're not willing to see doesn't mean that we're evil or cheating or anything but trying to do the right thing."
We just watched weeks of the pro-Hamas protesters doing exactly this and you said nothing. But heaven forbid anyone point out the well documented animus of the prosecutor and the judge against Trump.
"Your collective attempts to demonize and divide is sick and needs to stop."
Coming from someone who's accusing people of violence and all sorts of things for exercising their protected speech, this is deeply troubling.
your entire fear of the horrible "right wing" bogymen is because they say mean things online. It's literally the only proof you offered to demonstrate the big revolution after the trump verdict.
??
The proof is precisely what I've cited over and over.
According to law enforcement officials across the nation, right wing extremists represent the most serious threats of violence to the nation.
According to law enforcement officials across the nation, right wing extremists have long wanted a civil war.
According to law enforcement officials across the nation, right wing extremists are the ones who've killed the most people in politically motivated violence over the last ~20 years.
According to law enforcement officials across the nation and just observable reality from watching the TV, right wing extremists listened to the idiot Trump and have been inspired by him to act violently.
Jan 6 insurrection attempt
El Paso
Charlottesville
PizzaGate
etc, etc, etc
https://www.adl.org/resources/report/right-wing-extremist-terrorism-united-states
https://www.csis.org/analysis/rise-far-right-extremism-united-states
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/blame-abc-news-finds-17-cases-invoking-trump/story?id=58912889
“Someone in NY with nothing to lose needs to take care of Merchan,” wrote one commentator on Patriots.Win. “Hopefully he gets met with illegals with a machete,” the post said in reference to illegal immigrants.
On Gateway Pundit, one poster suggested shooting liberals after the verdict. “Time to start capping some leftys,” said the post. “This cannot be fixed by voting."
“1,000,000 men (armed) need to go to Washington and hang everyone. That's the only solution,” said one poster on Patriots.win. Another added: “Trump should already know he has an army willing to fight and die for him if he says the words...I’ll take up arms if he asks.”
Other posts specifically urged targeting Democrats, in some cases suggesting they be shot. “AMERICA FULLY DESTROYED BY DEMOCRATS. LOCK AND LOAD,” wrote a commentator on Gateway Pundit.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-supporters-call-riots-violent-retribution-after-verdict-2024-05-31/
And on it goes. These are vulgar, often racist, despicable attacks upon public servants by the far right precisely because Trump is saying that the election is being stolen, that the middle and left are evil and wanting to take over and destroy the US. Those are dangerous, stupid, stupidly false words.
You can't yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater.
My concern is not based on words ranting on line, only. My concern is that the data shows some portion of them DO have a history of violent actions on behalf of their idiot pervert king. As they continually say publicly and in private.
"No. I KNOW because EVEN IF you can find a handful of lawyers who say what you think is right, that this does not mean that those handful of lawyers have it right."
And there goes the goal post move. Your original bitch was that I hadn't said anything about a story that's been a foregone conclusion for months, now you are changing your tune and passing judgement on legal experts employed by the MSM you venerate so.
"Do you recognize that reality?"
Yes, that's why it makes more sense to wait for the appeal. You're the one demanding a response now.
"I'm a rational, reading adult in the real world. I DO NOT need you to pass on a handful of people that happen to say to you things you like to hear."
I'll simply note that I've provide you with some examples of legal experts who work for the MSM you venerate so, and you haven't addressed any of the specific issues they raised, or pointed out where they are wrong. You've opted for these vague and general appeals to disagreement. The fact that you claim that they are wrong, doesn't mean they they are actually wrong.
In reality:
The DA in this case is a legitimate public servant and legal expert.
The prosecutors in this case are legitimately public servants and legal experts.
The jury in this case are legitimate citizens doing their best to do the right thing and listen to the evidence and reach a conclusion.
You have nothing to dispute this in any conclusive way. That you don't like these people or you imagine that they are not acting in good faith is absolutely meaningless. No one cares that you want to slander the name of fellow citizens because you, as a person not involved in this trial in any way at all and who are not an expert in any way at all, think you have the capacity to somehow second guess them.
Shame on you. Be a better person.
Stop attacking and slandering and gossiping about your fellow citizens who you do not even know.
Thou shalt not.
2. What specific kinetic actions have that "some portion" engaged in the compare in scope/harm/damage to the left wing riots of 2014-2024?
Trump has tens of millions of followers. Only a small portion of them are deranged enough to be inspired by his violent words to engage in violence. And that small portion has been willing to kill and beat up and cause harm according to the data.
You have no data to support your inane nothing-burger claims and fearmongering about "left wing riots." Give that one up. You're listening to fearmongers who have scared you into being afraid of your fellow citizens. Don't be a coward and don't be stupid.
3. Given the fact that none of these "some portion" have actually engaged in any kinetic action, how are you so positive that they will do so?
Because experts warn about it. Because they have an actual history of doing so. Pay attention. IF only 1% of 100 million loyal idiots engage in violence, that's potentially 1 million dangerous idiots. AND because Trump continues to beat the drum and ratchet up the violent language.
WE ARE NOT THE ENEMY. We are Sunday School teachers, preachers, neighbors, sons, daughters, nurses, teachers, deacons, social workers, givers and caretakers... we are the public servants in the media and in the legal system and on the juries. We're not part of some vast left (and moderate) wing conspiracy to "overthrow" and "destroy" the country.
Those words are violent that Trump and his idiot allies are using. They're dangerous and need to stop. We are not the enemy.
4. Given your inability to provide any examples beyond J6, what makes you so positive that this "some portion" will "act out violently", when they haven't done so yet?
HISTORY. Reality and shit. Open your eyes. Listen to the experts. Use some basic common sense. You can NOT continue to drone on and on, foaming at the mouth claiming that "they" are "stealing our elections" and holding "kangaroo courts" and "overthrowing our nation" without some violent responses eventually. Those are inflammatory and stupidly false words. Now typically, when some rightwingnut is spouting like that, he's been recognized as mentally ill and a conspiracy theorist and dismissed as irrelevant. But we can't do that with Trump, because he's being believed by useful idiots willing to be frightened into hating your neighbors.
Be better.
Craig...
Impatience. The narcissism is displayed every time you assume everything revolves around you...
No, but maybe wait before you bitch about the fact that I "haven't".
The irony. The illiterate, non-understanding irony.
I was not saying (I have not said anywhere), "Why isn't Craig posting something about Trump's conviction TODAY, NOW?! HE SHOULD BE!"
I did not say that.
I was wondering why the silence on the right in general amongst the dozen or so conservative blogs I visit. It's not about you. Any ONE person might be in the hospital or helping with family. The point was NOT "Why isn't THIS guy saying something..." The point was, this IS the biggest story of the century, at least one of them. Why the radio silence in general?
We're beginning to see the answer, in part... is that you all are delusionally believing this conviction was a foregone conclusion and part of some vast conspiracy that made it certain to happen and you all irrationally believe that it's all a "rigged system," believing. your idiot chief in his stupidly inane lies. You all are diving deep into conspiracy theories and hatred of the majority of the nation, thinking we're out here trying to lie, steal and destroy and your cowardice and fear that you're "losing" "your" country is making you see everything as a plot, because "the world hate us 'true Christians...'" kind of nonsense.
But even given all that insanity, still, why would none of you all be posting on this? Whatever you think about your various conspiracy theories, this is STILL a huge story, an historic shame (but not for the reasons you all delusionally believe).
"Now, from where I sit, that sounds pretty point blank. It SOUNDS like you're saying that for those who disagree with your (non-expert, guy on the street) personal opinion and understanding of this case, that we're just factually wrong. That to disagree with your understanding is just objectively, factually wrong. It "is True," you say, that this was a sham trial."
Again, given the undisputed facts that the Judge has a history of animus towards Trump and the DA ran specifically on going after Trump, it's safe to say that the court and prosecutor did NOT treat Trump with the presumption of innocence to which he is constitutionally entitled. The judge specifically excluded relevant evidence and testimony regarding the underlying federal crime they allege was teh basis for these (usually misdemeanors) magically becoming felonies. FYI both Clinton and P-BO did similar things, and negotiated a settlement and fines, yet Trump gets charged with 34 felonies for one action. But that's not a problem at all.
"That's what I'm hearing. Am I understanding you correctly?"
The two above statements are completely unrelated. What you hear regularly has little to do with what I say, as does what you claim to understand. Yes, I believe that the legal experts are correct in saying that there is ample evidence that will get this conviction overturned on appeal.
"Now, can you allow that people might have good faith disagreements with your assessment?"
Sure, I haven't deleted one of you comments disagreeing with me. I haven't engaged in ad hom attacks against you. I haven't even suggested in any way that anyone who disagrees with me should be prevented from doing so. I regularly allow much more disagreement at my blog than you do at yours. But please, bitch about me not allowing disagreement.
"Can you allow that there is a legitimate difference of opinion as to the merits of Trump's conviction? That indeed, there are at least a handful of legal experts who find fault with this conviction AND that there are other legal experts who think this is legitimately a Win for the notion that no one was above the law? That Trump violated laws and is being held accountable in a legitimate system as ultimately determined by a jury of his fellow citizen peers?"
See my response above. See my previous response regarding the appeals process.
It'll be interesting to see how a reversal on appeal will get you all exercised about a miscarriage of justice or a biased court or some other bullshit. I'm willing to wait, why aren't you?
"Or is there only ONE way to see this case and all who disagree with your personal take on it are just wrong?
See above.
"And are you thinking that those who disagree with you are intentionally malevolent and trying purposefully to convict an innocent man?"
No. Although teh judge and DA have a long, public history of animus towards Trump that should have seen them recuse themselves from the trial. And your history of animus and vitriol towards Trump is also well established.
"If so, do you see how that might be seen by some as bad faith and irrational and not consistent with reality?"
So.
"The proof is precisely what I've cited over and over."
Blah, blah, blah. The problem is that your "proof" doesn't answer the questions I've asked and merely documents a small group of people exercising their 1st amendment right of free speech. I've seen zero "proof" of any large scale violent actions.
"According to law enforcement officials across the nation, right wing extremists represent the most serious threats of violence to the nation."
Yet, it's all protected speech and no action. I can see why you live in fear of people who talk a lot, but do very little or nothing.
"According to law enforcement officials across the nation, right wing extremists have long wanted a civil war."
I'm sorry is "wanting" a civil war a crime? Are they actively engaging in civil war? Is it more accurate to say that they are greatly concerned that conditions in the US might change and make a civil war of some sort unavoidable?
"According to law enforcement officials across the nation, right wing extremists are the ones who've killed the most people in politically motivated violence over the last ~20 years."
Based on the "proof" you've offered this statistic seems heavily weighted toward the past, not an accurate snapshot of the past 10 years or so. Especailly as you cannot provide one single bit of evidence of a right wing event on the scale of the left wing riots of 2014-2024.
"Jan 6 insurrection attempt
El Paso
Charlottesville"
Three small examples, which don't compare in scale to the left wing riots of 2014-2024. But OK.
"PizzaGate
etc, etc, etc"
Pizza Gate, The Steele Dossier, Russia Gate, etc have all been proven to be false.
"“Someone in NY with nothing to lose needs to take care of Merchan,” wrote one commentator on Patriots.Win. “Hopefully he gets met with illegals with a machete,” the post said in reference to illegal immigrants."
Given Bragg's history of allowing people (illegal immigrants) to go free on violent felonies, to have him be a victim of what he's allowed other New Yorkers to be victims of seems like poetic justice. However, this is SPEECH, not action. SPEECH is not a criminal act.
"My concern is not based on words ranting on line, only. My concern is that the data shows some portion of them DO have a history of violent actions on behalf of their idiot pervert king. As they continually say publicly and in private."
yet the only "proof" you've shown is "ranting online" to justify your fear of these "right wing" bogymen.
Look, I disagree with what's being said by this small example of people. Yet is it really any worse than left wing protesters chanting "kill the pigs! Fry 'em like bacon1"? Is it really worse than blocking traffic and dropping chunks of concrete on LEO?
That you miss my issue, is no surprise. That you're so one sided in your condemnation of speech, is what I expect.
"Trump has tens of millions of followers. Only a small portion of them are deranged enough to be inspired by his violent words to engage in violence. And that small portion has been willing to kill and beat up and cause harm according to the data."
Please show evidence that this alleged "small portion" have killed, beaten people up, or caused harm. The J6 protesters killed no one (although one was killed), did very little damage, and very little harm to anyone. if a couple of Capitol Police were harmed, how much of that is because the leaders of congress and DC officials refused additional LE help?
"You have no data to support your inane nothing-burger claims and fearmongering about "left wing riots." Give that one up. You're listening to fearmongers who have scared you into being afraid of your fellow citizens. Don't be a coward and don't be stupid."
I simply watched the news for the last 10 years and used my eyes and ears.
"Because experts warn about it. Because they have an actual history of doing so. Pay attention. IF only 1% of 100 million loyal idiots engage in violence, that's potentially 1 million dangerous idiots. AND because Trump continues to beat the drum and ratchet up the violent language."
Wasn't there a dystopian movie about a world where people were convicted of crimes they hadn't committed? Are you really saying that the existence of someone telling you that something might happen at some point in the future is a crime now? I've never heard Trump use "violent" language. I did hear the left wing protesters between 2014 and 2024 use "violent language", yet you weren't particularly bothered by that. I watched left wing protesters burn chucks of DC, STL, MSP, and take over Seattle, and heard very little from you. But I get it, it's this tiny made up number of "right wing extremists" that haven't actually done anything that has you living in fear.
"HISTORY. Reality and shit. Open your eyes. Listen to the experts. Use some basic common sense. You can NOT continue to drone on and on, foaming at the mouth claiming that "they" are "stealing our elections" and holding "kangaroo courts" and "overthrowing our nation" without some violent responses eventually. Those are inflammatory and stupidly false words. Now typically, when some rightwingnut is spouting like that, he's been recognized as mentally ill and a conspiracy theorist and dismissed as irrelevant. But we can't do that with Trump, because he's being believed by useful idiots willing to be frightened into hating your neighbors."
So, you still can't provide evidence of actual events that are comparable in scope/damage/harm to the left wing riots of 2014-2024. Got it. FYI, speech is still protected by the first amendment, even when it's "inflammatory and false".
"Be better."
You won't, but you demand that I conform to your subjective hunches about what "better" is.
"I was not saying (I have not said anywhere), "Why isn't Craig posting something about Trump's conviction TODAY, NOW?! HE SHOULD BE!""
You're right, the quote I used from you didn't say that at all.
"I was wondering why the silence on the right in general amongst the dozen or so conservative blogs I visit. It's not about you."
You literally used MY NAME in your rant. You literally called ME out specifically (along with a small number of others). But you just go right ahead and pretend otherwise. FYI, "silence" during the time frame you expect something is NOT permanent silence. It;s you being impatient.
"Any ONE person might be in the hospital or helping with family. The point was NOT "Why isn't THIS guy saying something..." The point was, this IS the biggest story of the century, at least one of them. Why the radio silence in general?"
It's not the "biggest story of the century" it was a foregone conclusion long before Friday. Most of the conservatives I saw had been posting/writing about this for quite some time before it happened, and continued to do so after it happened. The point remains that this is you bitching and jumping to conclusions because some conservatives didn't write about it as fast as you thought they should have. It's you being impatient. As you frequently offer as the excuse for your silence, we all have lives and are finite human beings, we don't blog on your schedule, we blog on ours and we write bout things that interest us, not what you demand, when you demand it.
"But even given all that insanity, still, why would none of you all be posting on this? Whatever you think about your various conspiracy theories, this is STILL a huge story, an historic shame (but not for the reasons you all delusionally believe)."
Because we're not required to live by or post according to your demands or expectations. Because you don't define what is acceptable. Because we don't have to post when you demand it. Just because you're impatient, and limit yourself in what you look at, doesn't mean e have to accommodate your impatient demands.
Had I not seen the left wing, MSM experts blasting the verdict, I probably wouldn't have bothered. It was always about the appeals process, that's the point. Drag this out as long as possible.
Maybe we're not as obsessed with trump as you are. Maybe some of us wouldn't object to Trump being forced out of the race to allow a better candidate in his place. Maybe y'all are just desperate.
"Never let Dan pressure you to do anything. He's scum and not deserving of consideration regarding when and how you respond. As eager as I generally am to read what you have to say, I fully understand you have this think called "a life" and it takes priority over blogging for most people, Dan included as we witnessed during the unhappy period leading to the passing of his mother."
I don't. The fact that he thinks he can demand that we do things at his whim and on his schedule is just one more example of the double standard he lives. For someone who ruthlessly deletes comments that disagree with him to be pulling this bitching about me "allowing disagreement" is just bizarre. The fact that I provided him legal experts from his beloved MSM that profoundly disagree with him, and he doesn't even bother to address the issues they raise, tells me that he's the one not interested in disagreement.
"Personally, I think you'd be justified in stopping here, given the details you've provided around which Dan is incapable of arguing. But don't let that stop you from continuing. You're doing yeoman's work here and I greatly appreciate it."
At this point, I probably won't do the post I planned on because it'd be pointless.
"Wouldn't it be great if Dan ever chose to support his claims in this manner?"
Yes, it would be great if Dan actually held himself to the standards he demands from us.
Ah, to dream!
Right wing extremists have been killing about 20+ people a year for the last two decades (and beyond). Those are deaths. That's not counting those harmed or plots that were foiled.
https://www.adl.org/sites/default/files/images/2023-02/Murder%20and%20Extremism%20in%20the%20United%20States%20in%202022-table1.jpg
https://www.adl.org/resources/report/murder-and-extremism-united-states-2022
But we've covered all this before, haven't we? There is no significant legal authorities concern about left wing violence, at least not like there is for right wing extremists. And that is precisely because of the actual numbers involved.
When you espouse violent rhetoric - as the far right/MAGA movement has been doing for over a decade now - you get violent responses.
We are your neighbors, not your enemies. That is ONE way you can start to be a better human: Start treating those who dare to disagree with your political opinions and conspiracy theories as neighbors, beloved and given some level of the benefit of the doubt. STOP espousing conspiracy theories. Stop defending the far right. Stop comparing the far right's violence to the "far left," as there is no comparison.
You know, just be better.
It'll be interesting to see how a reversal on appeal will get you all exercised about a miscarriage of justice or a biased court or some other bullshit. I'm willing to wait, why aren't you?
The system will play out. But as of today, you all have a criminal president. In ANY period in our nation's history, that alone would have been sufficient for a widespread demand that he step down from office. Trump has broken the GOP.
WE are not the unusual ones, the outliers, in thinking he is an unfit president and a corrupt idiot. Historians, legal scholars, political experts and regular citizens left to right recognize this.
And as I've made clear: IF Trump goes through the system and is exonerated, then that's what will happen. IF H Biden is convicted, then he'll be convicted. There is no vast conspiracy to criminalize these two. They committed misdeeds and they are simply being held accountable for it.
We won't call for the murder of the judge or jury if H Biden is convicted. We'll hope he gets the help he needs. We won't try to undermine the legal system.
But that is exactly what Trump and his useful idiots are doing.
Tell me true: IF J Biden had sufficient criminal charges against him - dozens of indictments! 34 convictions! - you would call him unfit for president, wouldn't you?
Trump has broken the GOP. You all aren't willing to do the very small basic step of saying, "No more. This will not stand." You won't take the stand against your fellow "conservatives" and say, "NO! This is wrong, wrong, wrong! Trump's words are wrong and dangerous. Our legal system is not corrupt or being stolen..." (with the caveat that it IS extremely difficult to get any rich, powerful white dude convicted of anything. The Justice system certainly, demonstrably leans towards the rich, powerful and white - it is corrupted in that sense... but that's only further testimony of the triumph of our justice system in this case. IN SPITE of Trump's abuse of the justice system, his wealth and power, he has been held accountable. God bless the justice system.)
It's interesting that Dan allows such blatant lies at his blog. That he allows commenters to claim that the words of the CNN legal analyst are my words simply reinforces my belief that he has little regard for Truth when the Truth doesn't help his narrative.
"But we've covered all this before, haven't we? There is no significant legal authorities concern about left wing violence, at least not like there is for right wing extremists. And that is precisely because of the actual numbers involved."
Yes we have, and you still haven't answered the questions I've asked. The fact that you live in fear over a tiny (un quantified) number of "right wing" extremists (which by definition are on the fringes of any movement) who are primary engaging in protected speech seems a bit hysterical. I noticed that the metric of your one source focused only on ONE measure (deaths), it seems strange to ignore widespread destruction, looting, physical injury, and other violent actions in searching for a more complete picture. In any case, you still can't provide the answers I asked for.
"When you espouse violent rhetoric - as the far right/MAGA movement has been doing for over a decade now - you get violent responses."
Interesting, so it's the "MAGA movement" that is actually responsible for the upsurge of left wing violent riots since 2104. The notion that the left wing rioters lack agency and cannot be responsible for their actions is novel. The fact that the left wing rioters are protesting the actions of cities/states which are NOT controlled by MAGA movement folks, but have been controlled by left wing governments for decades, doesn't help your desperate hunch.
"We are your neighbors, not your enemies. That is ONE way you can start to be a better human: Start treating those who dare to disagree with your political opinions and conspiracy theories as neighbors, beloved and given some level of the benefit of the doubt. STOP espousing conspiracy theories. Stop defending the far right. Stop comparing the far right's violence to the "far left," as there is no comparison."
1. I have no problem getting along with my left wing neighbors. I'm outnumbered and I have no choice but to get along.
2. I'm not the one calling for protected speech to be limited or punished, that's you.
3. I'm not "defending" the "far right". I am pointing out that speech I disagree with on either side is still protected by the first amendment.
4. I'll stop espousing conspiracy theories when you do. Although believing legal experts that contend that the Trump conviction has ample reversible errors and will be overturned on appeal is hardly a conspiracy theory.
5. The entire paragraph above is a totally false characterization of me and how I relate to those who disagree with me. Your dependence on straw men is pathetic.
"The system will play out. But as of today, you all have a criminal president."
As of today we have a candidate for president who has been convicted of a crime that has historically been a misdemeanor. A crime which both P-BO and Hillary engaged in, an were not charged with, but instead negotiated a fine. A crime, which Clinton held a press conference to pay off Paula Jones. A crime which the US congress appropriated 17 million dollars to pay off claims of sexual harassment by multiple members of congress. If the conviction is overturned, then we will not have a "criminal" candidate. In any case, being convicted of a crime does not mean that the crime was committed.
"In ANY period in our nation's history, that alone would have been sufficient for a widespread demand that he step down from office. Trump has broken the GOP."
I have absolutely zero objection to trump stepping aside, or the GOP removing him from the ballot. Although US code does NOT prohibit Trump from continuing to run for president. FYI, Trump does not currently hold an office to step down from.
"And as I've made clear: IF Trump goes through the system and is exonerated, then that's what will happen. IF H Biden is convicted, then he'll be convicted. There is no vast conspiracy to criminalize these two. They committed misdeeds and they are simply being held accountable for it."
Sure you have.
"We won't call for the murder of the judge or jury if H Biden is convicted. We'll hope he gets the help he needs. We won't try to undermine the legal system."
That's quite a guarantee. You're speaking for every single leftist wacko in the country. The fact that Hunter isn't being tried on drug charges, is just a manifestation of how unequal the justice system is for those in power or related to those in power.
Also, Craig, you (and Stan, and others) keep saying that this was no suprise, that we "knew" this was going to be the outcome.
? Who? Who knew that? I certainly didn't. I figured the odds were in favor of him getting off, again, because that's what routinely happens to the wealthiest and most privileged of criminals, especially if they're white men. I didn't see any large number of experts saying, "Yeah, this is certainly going to end up with a Trump conviction."
WHO said that they "knew" this would happen? Where?
Look, one thing is clear: Amongst the fragile conservative crowd, where white conservatives have long whined about being "oppressed" and under attack ("war on Christmas," blah, blah, blah)... there has been an increasing chorus of fearful conservatives saying, "They're taking our country from us..." and "They're using the election to steal our country from us..." and now, "They're weaponizing the justice system to steal our country from us..." but you all are a large group of outliers. I have not been reading historians, legal analysts, political experts, etc, who've been saying that this was a foregone conclusion.
You all are just using this, it seems, to justify your irrational conspiracy theories that "your" nation is being "stolen" from "you," as if the conservative white crowd owned the nation. Isn't it possible that people other than conservative white religious types are coming more in power and that your ideas are losing traction in the court of public opinion... and you all are conflating "We're having to share this nation with people who disagree with our opinions" with "'THEY' are 'stealing' our nation..."? Isn't that possible? Likely, even?
"? Who? Who knew that? I certainly didn't."
Most of the conservative, and some liberal, commentators I follow were clear that the likelihood of Trump overcoming this stacked deck was small. After the Judge prevented significant portions of the defense's case, and gave his jury instructions, it didn't look good for this round. Now all of that stuff can constitute reversible error, so it might actually help.
" I figured the odds were in favor of him getting off, again, because that's what routinely happens to the wealthiest and most privileged of criminals, especially if they're white men. I didn't see any large number of experts saying, "Yeah, this is certainly going to end up with a Trump conviction.""
Your problem is that you judge everything by what "you see". I've seen your Facebook, and don't recall seeing any indication that you follow any conservatives, you regularly bash Fox, so it seems strange that you'd watch it regularly. I know it's hard, but maybe if you stop judging others by yourself, it'd be a good thing. Again, it was clear from the beginning that the judge was going to stack the deck against Trump in any way he could.
"WHO said that they "knew" this would happen? Where?"
If you're playing a semantic game and only using "knew" in a wooden/literal/100% perfect sense, then no one. If I said that I "knew", I was using it in a less literal, more colloquial sense. I believe I've usually said that it was a foregone conclusion. The point is that I can't recall a single conservative commentator who was confident that Trump would get off.
I don't care what your hunches are. I don't need your name calling either. It's a waste of time and I'm moving on.
"You all are just using this, it seems,..."
When I see you say "seems", "think", "guess", or something similar I am confident that what follows will be you projecting or creating a straw man to argue against. When I see those words, I simply ignore anything that follows, as it's highly likely to be made up bullshit.
"We're having to share this nation with people who disagree with our opinions" with "'THEY' are 'stealing' our nation..."? Isn't that possible? Likely, even?"
Anything is possible, but it's not likely.
It's interesting that you claim conservatism is "losing", yet virtually every poll shows Trump's numbers higher than Biden's, and increasing support from minority and Jewish voters. But hey, I don't want to rain on your fantasy parade.
This is a nothing conversation but just to deal with this...
I've seen your Facebook, and don't recall seeing any indication that you follow any conservatives, you regularly bash Fox, so it seems strange that you'd watch it regularly.
It's literally false to say that I regularly bash Fox. I don't know whose FB page you're looking at, but I'd be quite surprised if I've mentioned Fox even ONE time in the years I've been on FB. But it's possible that a handful of times over the last 20 years, it's happened, but "regularly..."? No.
I don't watch any news regularly, for what it's worth. I read my news and from a variety of sources. I don't spend much time on Fox because they are just so bad at journalism. I don't spend any time of note on non-journalistic websites. For instance, I don't watch KKK and You, or Q-anon Weekly. Garbage in, garbage out.
Also, I'm noting with no surprise that you provided not one source of people saying they knew this was going to happen. Not one.
I believe I've usually said that it was a foregone conclusion.
But it wasn't. It just wasn't. We had no way of knowing how the trial would go or what the jury would decide. How could we? I mean, the evidence IS pretty strong that he broke laws and they prosecutors did lay down a pretty strong case... but Trump has regularly avoided being held accountable, so we just literally did not know that it was a foregone conclusion. You did not know that.
But by all means, make yourself clear: HOW did you know this was a "foregone conclusion..."? Because Biden had rigged the trial? Because the jury was corrupt? HOW did you know this "foregone conclusion..."?
I said:
You all are just using this, it seems, to justify your irrational conspiracy theories that "your" nation is being "stolen" from "you," as if the conservative white crowd owned the nation.
Craig responded:
When I see you say "seems", "think", "guess", or something similar I am confident that what follows will be you projecting or creating a straw man to argue against.
So, do you think it's NOT the case that you modern conservatives think "your" country is being "stolen" from you? Do you think it's NOT the case that conservatives feel aggrieved and under "attack," that they fear that elections are being "stolen" and juries have been "rigged..."?
It's interesting that you claim conservatism is "losing"
Conservative ideas/views/opinions/morality is losing.
The nation supports some degree of a pro-choice position and are opposed to the draconian rules that conservatives want to install regarding abortion.
The nation supports LGBTQ folks being free to live their lives, get married, make their own bodily decisions and adopt children if they want, while conservatives are opposed to all of that.
The nation recognizes the reality of the dangers of pollution and anthropogenic climate change and wants our air and water protected while conservatives ironically deny conservation concerns and climate science.
The nation recognizes the value of unions and supports unions while conservatives tend to be more pro-big business.
The nation recognizes the value of DEI while conservatives demonize it. (Did you happen to listen to "Wintery Knight's" podcast recently on DEI? Good lord!)
The nation supports national health care initiatives, conservatives tend to oppose it.
etc, etc, etc.
https://www.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/20/2023/06/PP_2023.06.21_national-problems_00-04.png
Yes, it's true that the nation leans more conservative on border issues and they tend to think that the GOP has better policies for the economy, but I think the latter is not supported by the data. It's a perception thing, not an agreement thing.
"So, do you think it's NOT the case that you modern conservatives think "your" country is being "stolen" from you?"
Unlike you, I almost never speak as if I represent every "conservative" in the US. While I do see efforts by Biden and the DFL to import "voters" beholden to the DFL and making efforts to facilitate non citizens voting, I realize that it's not as simplistic as a slogan. In any case, I don't see this rogue prosecutor and judge using their well documented animus towards Trump as an attempt to "steal" anything. It's simply one more in a growing example of DFL candidates using every means necessary to win elections.
"Do you think it's NOT the case that conservatives feel aggrieved and under "attack," that they fear that elections are being "stolen" and juries have been "rigged..."?"
Some probably do. But unlike you, I only speak for myself.
"ONE, that your FB page is devoid of an hint that you follow anyone could be remotely considered conservative. TWO, that you have a history of bashing Fox in ALL of the forums you comment on."
1. I don't talk much about politics on my fb page. I don't refer to following EITHER liberal or conservative sources on my fb page.
It's an empty and meaningless charge.
2. I don't have a history of regularly bashing Fox ANYWHERE. Blogs, fb... anywhere.
It's a stupidly false charge.
On my blog, in 20 years, I probably haven't ever mentioned them in any of my posts.
In comments, I have probably mentioned Fox as a biased, right-leaning source a few times, but that's only bashing if you think correctly identifying them as right-leaning is bashing.
It's a stupidly false claim, devoid of support in reality.
Dan
"Conservative ideas/views/opinions/morality is losing."
1. Well, if you say so.
2. These sorts of measures almost always pendulum back and forth, between more conservative and more liberal.
3. Strangely enough, the polls still tell us that Biden is losing to Trump on virtually every category.
"The nation supports some degree of a pro-choice position and are opposed to the draconian rules that conservatives want to install regarding abortion."
Yes, polls do show that a majority of people in the US support some, restricted access to abortion. However, the majority do not support unlimited, taxpayer funded, unrestricted access to abortion up to or after birth. Most polls that I recall show support for a ban on abortions somewhere between 16 and 20 weeks (if I remember correctly). So while on this one issue, you could argue that people "support" a slightly more liberal position, I'm not sure that they support the current position of the DFL.
"The nation supports LGBTQ folks being free to live their lives, get married, make their own bodily decisions and adopt children if they want, while conservatives are opposed to all of that."
That is simply false, and I see no reason to dignify falsehood with a response.
"The nation recognizes the reality of the dangers of pollution and anthropogenic climate change and wants our air and water protected while conservatives ironically deny conservation concerns and climate science."
If you say so. Despite the well documented issues with the "data", and the fact that all of the big name leftist climate shills don't actually live a lifestyle that minimizes their carbon footprint.
"The nation recognizes the value of unions and supports unions while conservatives tend to be more pro-big business."
Whatever you say.
1. "Unions" at this point are primarily public service unions, which donate heavily to the DFL and generally benefit from DFL policies.
2. The environmental agenda you tout above, is diametrically opposed to and intent on shutting down (or significantly reducing) virtually every industry the relies on union labor. Strangely enough, union miners in the Iron Range of MN are abandoning the DFL in significant and growing numbers as the DFL seems intent on putting them out of work.
The nation recognizes the value of DEI while conservatives demonize it. (Did you happen to listen to "Wintery Knight's" podcast recently on DEI? Good lord!)
"The nation supports national health care initiatives, conservatives tend to oppose it."
This is so vague and undefined as to have virtually no meaning.
"Yes, it's true that the nation leans more conservative on border issues and they tend to think that the GOP has better policies for the economy, but I think the latter is not supported by the data. It's a perception thing, not an agreement thing."
Your right, the perception that virtually every single item that most people purchase on a regular basis: food, gas, insurance, homes, utilities, etc is significantly more expensive than it was 4 years ago. Bloomberg just reported that the jobs numbers might be inflated by 750,000 over the last year. We're seeing an astronomical rise in credit card usage and a corresponding drop in savings, and we're seeing an increasing number of financial institutions in trouble. The problem is that in this case, perception is reality. Unfortunately Biden is trying to tell people to ignore the evidence they see every time they go to the store or gas station, and believe him.
"1. I don't talk much about politics on my fb page. I don't refer to following EITHER liberal or conservative sources on my fb page."
So, my observation was correct. Your FB page does NOT reflect your openness to opposing views, or any awareness of conservative sources in social media. It's impressive when you confuse supporting my actual claim with a win for you.
"2. I don't have a history of regularly bashing Fox ANYWHERE. Blogs, fb... anywhere."
If you say so. I'll just point out that in this very thread you accused Fox of being "just so bad at journalism", but no you never bash Fox at all. No evidence, no attempt to prove your claim, just some made up bashing of Fox.
"On my blog, in 20 years, I probably haven't ever mentioned them in any of my posts."
Interesting tactic. Act as if the only possible place you could mention Fox is limited to your "posts" on your blog. As if you never mention your disdain for Fox anywhere else that counts.
"In comments, I have probably mentioned Fox as a biased, right-leaning source a few times, but that's only bashing if you think correctly identifying them as right-leaning is bashing."
NO, identifying FOX as being the only semi mainstream news outlet that does not lean heavily to the left is not bashing in and of itself. If political/social/worldview bias disqualifies a network from being good "at journalism" then why limit your criticism to Fox. Hell, we just had an NPR staffer confirm NPR's heavy left wing bias, yet you continue to offer NPR as some sort of paragon of journalism.
FYI, accurate reporting of the news is the only metric by which to judge a news organization. The most biased organization in the world is capable of accurately reporting the "Who, What, Where, When, How" on any story. Truth and accuracy are the only metrics that matter in journalism.
It's a stupidly false claim, devoid of support in reality.
If political/social/worldview bias disqualifies a network from being good "at journalism" then why limit your criticism to Fox. Hell, we just had an NPR staffer confirm NPR's heavy left wing bias, yet you continue to offer NPR as some sort of paragon of journalism.
I took this conversation over to a more recent post where you were also speaking of journalism and Fox News, but to reiterate: Bias alone doesn't make an outfit bad at journalism. Being bad at journalism makes one bad at journalism. Allowing one's bias to cause you to inaccurate cast stories or even to falsely report facts (as Fox is famous for doing) makes one bad at journalism.
BBC, NPR, Reuters, NYT, WSJ... these are all respected and lauded with awards and recognition for their great journalism. Where are the awards for Fox? They don't have them. BBC, NPR, Reuters, NYT, WSJ are all spoken of highly in journalism schools and circles and pointed to as models. That doesn't happen with Fox, not to my knowledge, anyway.
If you went to journalism school, you probably know all this, right?
Yes, the reporters and staff at these more accredited, credible, revered sources may be more progressive than Trump supporters, but what of it? Is there coverage fair and accurate? Yes, by and large. Those institutions are the gold standard for ethical, quality journalism.
Also, if one is being rational and fair, one has to wonder... is it the case that journalism has more liberal/progressive types because journalism is biased intentionally? OR do those seeking fair, honest, factual reporting those who also tend to be better writers/reporters and, as it turns out, liberal? We've seen in recent years so many conservatives pushing back against expert opinion, especially when it disagrees with their partisan and/or religious views. But maybe it's the case that IF one doesn't value expert opinion and one is a conservative, that such people don't go into journalism because they don't value expert opinion?
Which comes first? Is their causation or correlation?
The most biased organization in the world is capable of accurately reporting the "Who, What, Where, When, How" on any story.
Indeed. But Fox ain't that. Demonstrably and as demonstrated.
Look, you're free to like the bias and sloppy journalism of Fox if you want (although why a journalism student would do so is beyond me), but don't pretend like they're some sort of great reporting organization.
1. Is it the case that the letter and the information in it was false?
Yes.
2. Did the media fail to do enough research into the letter before they reported it?
Yes.
3. Were there any actual facts in the letter?
No.
"Where's the lie? Where the scam? Where's the false reporting?"
The lie is that the letter and the information in it was false. The scam is that the Biden campaign faked the letter so that Biden could use it in a debate. The falser reporting is because they didn't verify the information, nor has there been (to my knowledge) a retraction.
4. Are journalists required to verify the Truth of what they report?
No, but no one is.
They reported the facts as known.
Move on. You lose, "journalist" friend.
The problem is that the "facts" were all false. The problem is that they continued to report these "facts" long after doubt was cast on these "facts". The problem is that they reported a lie for years.
But really, it's a valiant effort to excuse the MSM laziness when it comes to reporting on any of the DFL conspiracy theories.
FYI, the laptop was verified as NOT being "Russian disinformation" in 2019. So any MSM reporting on this story post 2019 is clearly reporting information they should have known was false.
Post a Comment