West Posted January 16 Author Report Posted January 16 15 minutes ago, robosmith said: And what decision was that? Smith easily sidestepped the "immunity" decision. Do you not know the historical parallels between Trump and Hitler (to this point in time)? It remains to be seen whether Trump proceeds along the same path that Hitler took. It's not looking good for you with Trump talking about a Canadian ANNEXATION. Do you want that? LMAO You're the one who made the claim here. It's your job to substantiate it IF you want to be taken seriously. I have no doubt you believe Trump is Hitler. Hence my previous comment about the radicalization by the content you consume earlier. 1 minute ago, godzilla said: Trump fake electors plot "The Trump fake electors plot was a scheme to submit illegitimate certificates of ascertainment to falsely claim U.S. president Donald Trump had won the Electoral College vote in certain states, following Trump's loss in the 2020 United States presidential election. After the results of the 2020 election determined Trump had lost, the scheme was devised by him, his associates, and Republican Party officials in seven states,[1] and it formed a part of Trump and his associates' attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election. The intent of the scheme was to pass the illegitimate certificates to then-vice president Mike Pence in the hope he would count them, rather than the authentic certificates, and thus overturn Joe Biden's victory. This scheme was defended by a fringe legal theory developed by Trump attorneys Kenneth Chesebro and John Eastman, detailed in the Eastman memos, which claimed a vice president has the constitutional discretion to swap official electors with an alternate slate during the certification process, thus changing the outcome of the electoral college vote and the overall winner of the presidential race. The scheme came to be known as the Pence Card." What are your "other points of view" about these matters? Hard to know whether or not this was "illegal" as the Georgia case also has some pretty significant holes in it. Quote
godzilla Posted January 16 Report Posted January 16 (edited) 1 minute ago, West said: I have no doubt you believe Trump is Hitler. Hence my previous comment about the radicalization by the content you consume earlier. i agree that comparisons of Trump to Hitler are overblown. Trump is not going to start killing Jews. its difficult for people when Trump follows an age old fascist populist program not to bring up... you know, the king of the fascists. Edited January 16 by godzilla 1 Quote
West Posted January 16 Author Report Posted January 16 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Radiorum said: Like what? Please provide evidence and sources. This is inaccurate. the only thing the Supreme Court ruled on is immunity for presidents. I have doubt that the press talked about the laws that Trump contravened. Did the press make specific reference to the laws that Trump broke? re: conspiring against rights From Page 49 of the report: Conspiracy Against Rights (18 U.S.C. § 241) Section 241 makes it unlawful for two or more persons to "conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States." A violation of Section 241 requires proof of three elements: (1) Mr. Trump entered into a conspiracy, (2) to willfully injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate a person in the United States, (3) in the exercise or enjoyment of a right secured by the Constitution or federal law. 18 U.S.C. § 241; see, e.g., United States v. Epley, 52 F.3d 571, 575-576 (6th Cir. 1995). You can read the supporting evidence in the report, as well as Smith’s immunity filing from last October. Again, you are making broad claims without substantiation. The report is not a point-of-view. And it sure has nothing to do with Hitler. Left-leaning, right-leaning, doesn't matter. The truth is the truth. 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 Edited January 16 by West Quote
Radiorum Posted January 16 Report Posted January 16 1 minute ago, West said: Judge Eileen Cannon for starters who tossed the case. Lol, she was about the Classified Documents case, and she tossed the case on a very questionable analysis of Smith's credentials to bring the case forward. Basically, what Cannon did, was conclude that the statutes do not authorize that the attorney general to appoint a special counsel. She focused on the fact that Smith was not a DoJ employee at the time of the appointment but was working at the Hague. Not clear why that matters, as he is working for the DoJ today. Oh, I know why it matters. She is angling for a Supreme Court seat. Quote
West Posted January 16 Author Report Posted January 16 2 minutes ago, Radiorum said: Lol, she was about the Classified Documents case, and she tossed the case on a very questionable analysis of Smith's credentials to bring the case forward. Basically, what Cannon did, was conclude that the statutes do not authorize that the attorney general to appoint a special counsel. She focused on the fact that Smith was not a DoJ employee at the time of the appointment but was working at the Hague. Not clear why that matters, as he is working for the DoJ today. Oh, I know why it matters. She is angling for a Supreme Court seat. 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 Quote
Radiorum Posted January 16 Report Posted January 16 (edited) 10 minutes ago, West said: Jack Smith flung a lot of poo but when it got in front of a judge it was discredited. No, his evidence was never discredited. The case against Trump, re: illegally trying to overturn the 2020 election, was put aside because sitting presidents cannot be tried, and the case, re: Classified Documents, was put aside because of a technicality Cannon invented. 10 minutes ago, West said: 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 Any reasonable person would see Trump for what he is. 3 minutes ago, West said: So because she didn't give the opinion that you wanted it is questionable? This isn't about me. Why do right-wingers have so much trouble with facts? Edited January 16 by Radiorum Quote
West Posted January 16 Author Report Posted January 16 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Radiorum said: No, his evidence was never discredited. The case against Trump, re: illegally trying to overturn the 20202 election, was put aside because sitting presidents cannot be tried, and the case, re: Classified Documents, was put aside because of a technicality Cannon invented. Any reasonable person would see Trump for what he is. This isn't about me. Why do right-wingers have so much trouble with facts? 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? Edited January 16 by West Quote
West Posted January 16 Author Report Posted January 16 29 minutes ago, godzilla said: i agree that comparisons of Trump to Hitler are overblown. Trump is not going to start killing Jews. its difficult for people when Trump follows an age old fascist populist program not to bring up... you know, the king of the fascists. One of many reasons why I find it challenging to accept this at face value Quote
Radiorum Posted January 16 Report Posted January 16 21 minutes ago, West said: What's your credentials to say that Cannon's (the authority in the case) analysis was wrong? I'm not relying on my credentials. I am relying on Harvard Law. The DoJ has been appointing Special Counsels for decades, but Cannon makes the decision that the statutes do not authorize the DoJ to do so. In a first for a district judge, she looks at the history, and determines (according to - Liz Mineo, Harvard Staff Writer) … that a sentence in a Supreme Court opinion that was decided 9-0 was, in fact, “dicta,” which means that it is not binding in subsequent cases as legal precedent. And as a result, she as a district judge was entitled to disregard it. I’ve never seen a district court conclude that a portion of a Supreme Court opinion is not binding; that was a first for me. Quote
West Posted January 16 Author Report Posted January 16 3 minutes ago, Radiorum said: I'm not relying on my credentials. I am relying on Harvard Law. The DoJ has been appointing Special Counsels for decades, but Cannon makes the decision that the statutes do not authorize the DoJ to do so. In a first for a district judge, she looks at the history, and determines (according to - Liz Mineo, Harvard Staff Writer) … that a sentence in a Supreme Court opinion that was decided 9-0 was, in fact, “dicta,” which means that it is not binding in subsequent cases as legal precedent. And as a result, she as a district judge was entitled to disregard it. I’ve never seen a district court conclude that a portion of a Supreme Court opinion is not binding; that was a first for me. 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. Quote
godzilla Posted January 16 Report Posted January 16 (edited) 22 minutes ago, West said: One of many reasons why I find it challenging to accept this at face value so, if people just discuss things in exaggerated terms then thats sufficient to not believe the merits? that just too easy. Edited January 16 by godzilla Quote
West Posted January 16 Author Report Posted January 16 1 minute ago, godzilla said: so, if people just discuss things in exaggerated terms then thats sufficient to not disbelieve the merits? that just too easy. When it reads like a tabloid level smear, then one should use that in assessing the merits. Just my two cents. Quote
godzilla Posted January 16 Report Posted January 16 (edited) 8 minutes ago, West said: 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. Cannon did not provide that Trump was not guilty of an offence. Whats your point here? 2 minutes ago, West said: When it reads like a tabloid level smear, then one should use that in assessing the merits. Just my two cents. you didn't comment on my previous post: "The Trump fake electors plot was a scheme to submit illegitimate certificates of ascertainment to falsely claim U.S. president Donald Trump had won the Electoral College vote in certain states, following Trump's loss in the 2020 United States presidential election. After the results of the 2020 election determined Trump had lost, the scheme was devised by him, his associates, and Republican Party officials in seven states,[1] and it formed a part of Trump and his associates' attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election. The intent of the scheme was to pass the illegitimate certificates to then-vice president Mike Pence in the hope he would count them, rather than the authentic certificates, and thus overturn Joe Biden's victory. This scheme was defended by a fringe legal theory developed by Trump attorneys Kenneth Chesebro and John Eastman, detailed in the Eastman memos, which claimed a vice president has the constitutional discretion to swap official electors with an alternate slate during the certification process, thus changing the outcome of the electoral college vote and the overall winner of the presidential race. The scheme came to be known as the Pence Card." participants in the scheme provided this information. is this a tabloid smear? Edited January 16 by godzilla Quote
West Posted January 16 Author Report Posted January 16 (edited) 1 minute ago, godzilla said: Cannon did not provide that Trump was not guilty of an offence. Whats your point here? Based on western legal systems, he is de facto innocent. Another issue I take with the left is this notion that a mere allegation is proof of anything. It's not really an American idea that one must prove they are innocent Edited January 16 by West Quote
godzilla Posted January 16 Report Posted January 16 Just now, West said: Based on western legal systems, he is de facto innocent. in the eyes of the law. and in fact people often do outrageous things that are not against the law. so Trumps activities, as provided by his accomplices, but as of yet not guilty in the eyes of the law... were insufficient for you not to vote for him? Quote
West Posted January 16 Author Report Posted January 16 1 minute ago, godzilla said: in the eyes of the law. and in fact people often do outrageous things that are not against the law. so Trumps activities, as provided by his accomplices, but as of yet not guilty in the eyes of the law... were insufficient for you not to vote for him? For one I can't vote in the US but am interested due to friends that are there. For two, what I see is a pattern of accusations emerging against politicians. Perhaps both sides should take a step back and take them with a grain of salt? Quote
godzilla Posted January 16 Report Posted January 16 1 minute ago, West said: For one I can't vote in the US but am interested due to friends that are there. For two, what I see is a pattern of accusations emerging against politicians. Perhaps both sides should take a step back and take them with a grain of salt? what level of unlawfulness or corruption would you say is acceptable from our political leaders then? Quote
West Posted January 16 Author Report Posted January 16 6 minutes ago, godzilla said: what level of unlawfulness or corruption would you say is acceptable from our political leaders then? I just find it difficult to know what is factual about Trump. Again, when I see that CNN as an example is willing to use a child as a face of one of their talking points, it would lead me to believe these are some pretty morally bankrupt people behind some of this stuff. Would you agree that this is a fair point? Quote
godzilla Posted January 16 Report Posted January 16 back to the OP. its prudent given Facebooks about face on fact checking... and since people are increasingly getting their "news" from social media platforms. Rohingya genocide 'The chairman of the U.N. Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar stated that Facebook played a "determining role" in the Rohingya genocide.' "Facebook...did not do enough to prevent the proliferation of anti-Rohingya hate speech because it was interested in prioritizing engagement." Quote
West Posted January 16 Author Report Posted January 16 4 minutes ago, godzilla said: back to the OP. its prudent given Facebooks about face on fact checking... and since people are increasingly getting their "news" from social media platforms. Rohingya genocide 'The chairman of the U.N. Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar stated that Facebook played a "determining role" in the Rohingya genocide.' "Facebook...did not do enough to prevent the proliferation of anti-Rohingya hate speech because it was interested in prioritizing engagement." I learned maybe a couple of months ago that people can buy and sell large social media accounts for big money. I would agree that monetization of filth is an issue but I don't think that's just one sided. The issue with the discussions around censorship on social media that I have is that it's generally one sided and used as a weapon. I see it as a psychological game. Quote
NAME REMOVED Posted January 16 Report Posted January 16 6 hours ago, West said: I haven't watched CNN since probably the 2016 election cycle. The fact that you bother to mention CNN, negates everything you have said. Quote
godzilla Posted January 16 Report Posted January 16 4 minutes ago, West said: I just find it difficult to know what is factual about Trump. Again, when I see that CNN as an example is willing to use a child as a face of one of their talking points, it would lead me to believe these are some pretty morally bankrupt people behind some of this stuff. Would you agree that this is a fair point? that situation was unfortunate. nothing and no one are infallible. it would appear that CNN did not act maliciously, as the cite you supplied states: "Another video that surfaced days later provided additional context for the encounter" CNN has since settled. they should apologize. i'm hearing that this single incident has great weight for you in determining whether CNN should be trusted as a whole? it might be worth reviewing the Wikipedia page regarding Fox News... and all of the other news outlet pages as well. i really like the Fox News photo manipulations! 1 Quote
West Posted January 16 Author Report Posted January 16 (edited) 6 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said: The fact that you bother to mention CNN, negates everything you have said. How so? I guess the point is while many distrust Fox, which network should we rely on? Edited January 16 by West Quote
godzilla Posted January 16 Report Posted January 16 (edited) 10 minutes ago, West said: I learned maybe a couple of months ago that people can buy and sell large social media accounts for big money. I would agree that monetization of filth is an issue but I don't think that's just one sided. The issue with the discussions around censorship on social media that I have is that it's generally one sided and used as a weapon. I see it as a psychological game. you may be caught in the echo chamber. try watching YouTube or Facebook posts that "Trump is bad" for a couple of days... the algorithms will stop feeding you your regular content and just feed you "Trump is bad" stuff. because thats how the algorithms work. Edited January 16 by godzilla Quote
West Posted January 16 Author Report Posted January 16 4 minutes ago, godzilla said: that situation was unfortunate. nothing and no one are infallible. it would appear that CNN did not act maliciously, as the cite you supplied states: "Another video that surfaced days later provided additional context for the encounter" CNN has since settled. they should apologize. i'm hearing that this single incident has great weight for you in determining whether CNN should be trusted as a whole? it might be worth reviewing the Wikipedia page regarding Fox News... and all of the other news outlet pages as well. i really like the Fox News photo manipulations! I see the Sandmann issue as kind of a final straw more so. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.