West

Yes. But there's obviously parameters around anything the government does. And in her opinion, who was far more familiar with the case, this did not meet the standards for a special counsel as, from what I recall, it's congress who approves a SC. This is obviously an important check in the American judicial system As an aside, the fact that folks who ran some of the other cases against Trump ran for DA office on getting Trump seems like an abuse of the office.

One of many reasons why I find it challenging to accept this at face value

You said that the federal judge who in essence tossed Jack Smith's case made a questionable ruling. Eileen Cannon is responsible for overseeing the proceedings of a trial against a citizen. She did her duty by tossing the case based on the fact Smith couldn't bring the charges to begin with. What's your credentials to say that Cannon's (the authority in the case) analysis was wrong?

So because she didn't give the opinion that you wanted it is questionable? This is sort of like Chuck Schumer threatening to "release the whirlwind" against Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, two judges. Further evidence of the radicalization of the Democrat party

Jack Smith flung a lot of poo but when it got in front of a judge it was discredited. He tried again but it just showed the man was desperate for a headline. Any reasonable person can come to that conclusion based on the sequence of events over the past few years

I have no doubt you believe Trump is Hitler. Hence my previous comment about the radicalization by the content you consume earlier. Hard to know whether or not this was "illegal" as the Georgia case also has some pretty significant holes in it.

Judge Eileen Cannon for starters who tossed the case.

There's many sources that you can look for yourself seeing as you claim you take information from multiple places.

The issue with the Jack Smith case is many well respected people, tenured professors at prestigious law schools in the US etc, were raising alarms about the case. The Supreme Court then dealt it a major blow furthering the evidence that it's not just a "bias" but rather the case itself was faulty and as a result warranted criticism. I read the report and there really wasn't much in there that hadn't already been talked about in the press over the passed few years and was already criticized. Likely because the experts critiquing the case already had access to the information. Really what this comes down to is people who are probably more left leaning will not accept others points of views that do not confirm their bias that Trump is like Adolf Hitler.

It's not really a "Fox News" view. In the case of Nick Sandmann, a 16 or 17 year old kid who was smeared in the press, I would consider that to be a radicalized view point that grown ass adults would find this to be okay. I also see this nonstop predatory behavior in the justice system to be fairly radical. There was a bit of a push especially when the Supreme court was left leaning to ram everything through the Supreme Court instead of through the act of persusion. I also consider many other things radical such as the Democrat lockdowns during covid, villianization of the unvaccinated, etc as being radical. He was a minor smeared by grown ass adults. Pretty radical and disgraceful

Leaving aside the settlement value, do you believe it's morally repugnant to do what they did to a child?

I've read many of these pieces. However watching Trump's speeches in their entirety do not really support the hit pieces. Just my opinion.

Fox is definitely right of center especially in their prime time. However, there's also Fox Business, and their weekend programming which is more information based. Many of their articles are Associated Press as well. I think you honestly need to watch CNN and MSNBC with a bit more of a critical lense. There's a lot of things they do or say on there that is hateful toward different groups of people. They've labelled half the country as racist degenerates and have run multiple hit pieces on people. Do Democrats hate America? I would say their party has become significantly more radicalized since probably Obama's second term than they were under lets say Al Gore or Bill Clinton of the late 90s early 2000s. Hence why you've seen some splinter off such as RFK, or even Joe Manchin who left the party to sit as an independent.

CNN settled an undisclosed amount with Nick Sandmann, a 16 or 17 year old CHILD at the time where he had his face plastered all over the internet. This, alongside other reasons, was a reason why I stopped watching CNN; the coverage of this as well as other stories that they ran are quite vile. You actually think these are good people? https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/07/media/cnn-settles-lawsuit-viral-video/index.html How do you filter based on reputation? Your opinions? How would you suggest I filter this knowing I have a moral issue with how CNN has historically conducted themselves?

Okay so you are mad that I consider CNN to be what you consider Fox? How do you filter and come to the conclusions you do? And that's not really my point about UNESCO but since you asked here you go https://www.unesco.org/en/newsroom

How is my source of news narrow? I've allowed academic type resources such as UNESCO to shape how I would view the world and have emerged myself in other cultures. When you meet someone who, as an example, was an orphan in a 3rd world country because their parents were murdered because of minor appearance differences had them determined to be a people group worthy of being hunted and murdered that'll shape your world view more than reading about it on your preferred news website Fair to some extent. However, part of that is we live in an era where they've been somewhat weaponized. Honestly I couldn't watch CNN mostly because I saw what they do on their network as having major red flags for me based on lived experience abroad. The Rwandan genocide, as one example, used mass media to label one group of people as termites and everything else. CNN used different language, but with similar outcomes from what I could tell.

In another thread, there was a discussion with another poster about developing opinion based on the information that's recieved. For the sake of improving communication, and to help in moving discussion along in a manner that helps to see others perspectives, here's how I would develop opinion. If I'm doing it wrong, or if you have further suggestion, I would open it up to bring that forward: 1. I have education and lived life experience, experienced other culture, and have learned extensively about the histories of varying countries who've had atrocities. This would include: -The killing fields of Cambodia -Holocaust memorials in Europe -Genocide memorials in Rwanda -Various educational tours to learn of the history of South Africa -UNESCO heritage sites in Canada -Slavery in the US Based on using this as a framework, I see some parallels in society that are not heading in the right direction imo. 2. I would consider myself leaning right of center but can understand the value of economic social policies to improve the livelihoods of people who are vulnerable in society I.e. people with varying disabilities, children, etc. I try to root my worldview in fairness and is why I would feel passionate about some of the nonsense that I feel is coming out of the USs legal system under Biden. 3. I haven't watched CNN since probably the 2016 election cycle. Prior to that I would have considered myself to support Obama, but this was probably more the product and power of the media to prop him up and maintain his image. I believe social media and platforms like YouTube had have removed somewhat that "filter" where you have to interpret the world through the lense of journalism and exposed in a way the spin machine. This likely contributes to a level of distrust in the press. I believe Harder has made some decent points in the past on some of the downsides of social media, and now essentially giving ill informed people a bull horn in a sense; to me the answer is learning how to siphon through the noise which I'm sure will come with time. 4. Usually what I'm responding to is what's currently the broader discussion going on on places like Fox or even influencer accounts on social media. Feel free to critique.

In my view they had a theory and Smith manufactured circumstantial evidence at best to fit his theory. Opposite of how any functioning legal system should operate

Your evidence you accept is very narrow. Any time previous I've pulled an article you find a reason to reject it. Again, I'm posting opinions like anybody else based on reading news articles, listening to nightly news, and just a general concept of fairness within society. I'm not going to go back over the past few years that Smith has turned your system into a circus just to demonstrate how I reached my conclusion. If you think going after Trump and his allies with the legal system is okay, or trashing a guy because of an issue in his marriage is okay, you are seriously bankrupt of any sort of morals and I doubt we will ever share the same opinions on politics.

I've never once claimed to have a legal background on here. And again, I'm not going to go through every nightly newscast to crop out the discussion on Smith. When I hear you say this bullshit I know you are a leftard just trying to control the narrative by only accepting information that confirms your bias. So if you aren't a serious person, perhaps just put me on ignore like you do to everybody else.

You observe his behavior and form an opinion. That's what I'm doing. Another poster has already demonstrated his questionable conduct on other cases.

No, it wasn't. It very likely would've been slapped down had he brought the case. Of course I'm giving my opinions. That's the whole point of a political forum.

You are right. Which is why I rely on the ruling of the Supreme Court. And as I've already explained to you, Canadians have been deployed to fight in wars alongside the US in no small part because of lawlessness. The US under Biden was a lawless country who settle political disputes through gossip columns and lawfare against their political adversary. Choose a better way, America or stop championing yourself as a beacon of democracy

Thank you.

It's my opinion based on his behavior that he's a danger to a functioning legal system. For all the talk about Trump abusing the institutions, that was done way more these past four years to smear Trump's base as well as to silence oppisition to the Biden regime