Crime Mango Molester's sentencing

[Gutter Chris]

lol boo hoo

Just stating the facts.

Calm down

 

[mkess101]

Who is to say that Garland's primary motivation isn't a job well done? I understand that for some that might be hard to imagine and especially for uninformed populists who see everything as politically motivated. But many career bureaucrats actually care more about their reputation, that of their agency, and doing a job well done within the confines of the constitution than they do loyalty to any party. In fact its precisely this fact that bothers people like Trump, that the federal agencies aren't staffed with lapdogs who sit on command. Hence some of Trump's biggest roadblocks to carrying out his Jan 6th conspiracy were Republicans some of whom were appointed by Trump himself like Bill Barr.

If Trump, who specifically chose people for their loyalty to him, was unable to bend the bureaucracy to his will the way he wanted why would Biden, who purported to represent the exact opposite impulse and who is far weaker within his party than Trump is, be able to pressure Garland and Smith? Why did Garland drag his feet in appointing a special counsel to go after Trump but appointed one to go after Biden three days after it his documents incident was reported?

Its because if anything his "political motivation" was precisely the opposite of what you're alleging here, he was trying to restore faith in the DOJ by taking it easy on Trump while being tough on Biden in the hopes that the Trump investigations would be seen as fair. But it backfired, people like you who care nothing for the facts of the matter will always assume everything is political so you'

You were the one who said that rhetoric suggested political motivation

And yet when I ask you to produce the rhetoric by either Merrick Garland or Jack Smith suggesting any political motivation you move the goalposts by saying that they're aligned in a general sense with the Dems and thus are guilty for the rhetoric of others. Absurd.

I'm talking specifically about the Jack Smith indictment here because it relates to Jan 6th. Unlike you I care about the facts of the matter so I am going to talk about the case I am most informed on.

What's comical is your level of detachment from reality and disregard for evidence.

In the silly and completely unrelated example you mentioned there you would have evidence, the evidence would be testimony from you and your roommates. When you build a case that kind of evidence isn't a silver bullet but it absolutely helps create context. The way to counter that is to undermine the credibility of those witnesses but the more witnesses the harder it is to do that. If one floozy woman accuses a man of raping her but the circumstances are murky that is one thing but if ten women accuse the same man with similar stories then even if you can undermine the credibility of one in a vacuum their testimony as a whole becomes stronger.

Even if you have limited testimony of this kind you can pair it with other kinds of evidence to make your case. For example if you and your other roommates all had alibis and the only one who didn't was Jake that, combined with out testimony regarding the falling out, would help make the case against Jake.

Can you point me to a credible witness who claims that the Jack Smith special counsel was politically motivated?

The rhetoric of those who appointed Garland! It doesn't have to come directly from him.

The "testimony of me and my roommates"?? We had no proof. Nothing Jake said back then was him admitting it. Jake was also friends with Jeff, but better friends with Tommy by far and when Tommy and Jeff had their falling out...we just "had a feeling" Jake did it. We could never prove it and didn't try. He'd never done anything previously that would make us think that was something he'd do. It was just a vibe we had. But according to you, we were all out of bounds to hold that view. There were like 25 people at the party when it happened (obviously you didn't read that or digest it). There was no more "evidence" that he did it than that anyone else did. Why does there need to "testimony"? I'm not trying this in court, I'm giving my view. You keep trying to paint this as though this is more than just my opinion but it's not.

Having an opinion about something based on a "gut feeling" isn't absurd or out of the ordinary. There are obviously limits to what sort of action (if any, and most of the time it would be none) would be taken based off that.

Again, if your contention is that none, not ONE SHRED of the legal actions against Trump had ANY political motivation at all, fine? I think that's absurd, but it doesn't matter. You're asking for things like "credible witnesses". Credible as determined by...you?

 

[Islam Imamate]

The rhetoric of those who appointed Garland! It doesn't have to come directly from him.

So we're tarring Merrick Garland for the rhetoric of others? What rhetoric in particular are you referring to that would suggest Garland or Smith were politically motivated? Is the fact that Maxine Waters said bad things about Trump enough to assume Jack Smith was politically motivated just because he was appointed by Garland who was appointed by Biden who is in the same party as Waters? We're talking about guilt via three degrees of association here or what?

The "testimony of me and my roommates"?? We had no proof. Nothing Jake said back then was him admitting it. Jake was also friends with Jeff, but better friends with Tommy by far and when Tommy and Jeff had their falling out...we just "had a feeling" Jake did it. We could never prove it and didn't try. He'd never done anything previously that would make us think that was something he'd do. It was just a vibe we had. But according to you, we were all out of bounds to hold that view. There were like 25 people at the party when it happened (obviously you didn't read that or digest it). There was no more "evidence" that he did it than that anyone else did. Why does there need to "testimony"? I'm not trying this in court, I'm giving my view. You keep trying to paint this as though this is more than just my opinion but it's not.

Testimony can be admitted in a court of law. In this case if I was the "prosecution" against your roommate Jake I would call you and your roommates to the stand so you can testify about the falling out. I would then ask you to establish that Jake was at the party and thus a reasonable suspect. Would that be enough for a conviction? No but it would be significant in the court of public opinion, hence why you and your other roommates suspect Jake was the culprit.

Can you point to a credible witness that has claimed the Jack Smith special counsel investigation was politically motivated?

Having an opinion about something based on a "gut feeling" isn't absurd or out of the ordinary. There are obviously limits to what sort of action (if any, and most of the time it would be none) would be taken based off that.

Being completely uninterested in reality and insisting on your opinion in the face of contrary evidence is absurd or at least suggests that one's opinion isn't worth much. Because to be clear I know I can't convince you of anything your gut has already told you, I'm just trying to make it clear on just how flimsy a basis your opinion rests on.

Again, if your contention is that none, not ONE SHRED of the legal actions against Trump had ANY political motivation at all, fine? I think that's absurd, but it doesn't matter. You're asking for things like "credible witnesses". Credible as determined by...you?

Again I never said that and but as usual you like to twist my words. I'm specifically talking about the Jack Smith indictment. If you want to concede that you have no reason to believe that case was politically motivated that's fine.

 

[mkess101]

So we're tarring Merrick Garland for the rhetoric of others? What rhetoric in particular are you referring to that would suggest Garland or Smith were politically motivated? Is the fact that Maxine Waters said bad things about Trump enough to assume Jack Smith was politically motivated just because he was appointed by Garland who was appoiinted by Biden who is in the same party as Waters? We're talking about guilt via three degrees of association here or what?

Testimony can be admitted in a court of law. In this case if I was the "prosecution" against your roommate Jake I would call you and your roommates to the stand so you can testify about the falling out. I would then ask you to establish that Jake was at the party and thus a reasonable suspect. Would that be enough for a conviction? No but it would be significant in the court of public opinion, hence why you and your other roommates suspect Jake was the culprit.

Can you point to a credible witness that has claimed the Jack Smith special counsel investigation was politically motivated?

Being completely uninterested in reality and insisting on your opinion in the face of contrary evidence is absurd or at least suggests that one's opinion isn't worth much. Because to be clear I know I can't convince you of anything your gut has already told you, I'm just trying to make it clear on just how flimsy a basis your opinion rests on.

Again I never said that and but as usual you like to twist my words. I'm specifically talking about the Jack Smith indictment. If you want to concede that you have no reason to believe that case was politically motivated that's fine.

Why do you keep replying as though this is being adjudicated in a court of law.
"In this case if I was the prosecution blah blah blah..."

There's no "case". There's no calling for witnesses. I'm not sure how this is lost on you given that I've tried to get you to see it numerous times. We aren't in court. I'm not advocating that Garland or Smith or anyone face consequences of any kind. I'm not claiming I know how much political motivations may have played a role. I'm saying that to me, given the totality of the rheotric surrounding all of Trump's legal issues (much of it from who directly appointed those assigned to prosecute him)...it's likely that politics entered the minds of all involved to SOME degree. Is there a reason you continue to try to discuss this as though I'm bringing legal action against anyone LOL?

 

[Islam Imamate]

Why do you keep replying as though this is being adjudicated in a court of law.
"In this case if I was the prosecution blah blah blah..."

There's no "case". There's no calling for witnesses. I'm not sure how this is lost on you given that I've tried to get you to see it numerous times. We aren't in court. I'm not advocating that Garland or Smith or anyone face consequences of any kind. I'm not claiming I know how much political motivations may have played a role. I'm saying that to me, given the totality of the rheotric surrounding all of Trump's legal issues (much of it from who directly appointed those assigned to prosecute him)...it's likely that politics entered the minds of all involved to SOME degree. Is there a reason you continue to try to discuss this as though I'm bringing legal action against anyone LOL?

Your reading comprehension has failed you yet again

Testimony can be admitted in a court of law. In this case if I was the "prosecution" against your roommate Jake I would call you and your roommates to the stand so you can testify about the falling out. I would then ask you to establish that Jake was at the party and thus a reasonable suspect. Would that be enough for a conviction? No but it would be significant in the court of public opinion, hence why you and your other roommates suspect Jake was the culprit.

Can you point to a credible witness that has claimed the Jack Smith special counsel investigation was politically motivated?

I'm not asking you to prove your case beyond a reasonable doubt like you would have to in a court of law, I'm asking you for even one shred of evidence. If you had even one bit of evidence you could point to you would've by now but you don't because in fact you're completely clueless.

 

[mkess101]

Your reading comprehension has failed you yet again

I'm not asking you to prove your case beyond a reasonable doubt like you would have to in a court of law, I'm asking you for even one shred of evidence. If you had even one bit of evidence you could point to you would've by now but you don't because in fact you're completely clueless.

You want evidence that my opinion is that a prosecutor would feel beholden to SOME degree to whom had appointed him and that would affect his decision making AT ALL?

You AGAIN use the word "case". You simply aren't getting this. I'm not MAKING A CASE. Talk about a failure of reading comprehension.

 

[Islam Imamate]

You want evidence that my opinion is that a prosecutor would feel beholden to SOME degree to whom had appointed him and that would affect his decision making AT ALL?

You AGAIN use the word "case". You simply aren't getting this. I'm not MAKING A CASE. Talk about a failure of reading comprehension.

I used that language because in the original post you referenced your silly college story you used the framing of a crime scene and court case.

Have you ever watched a true crime show where it's not solved and there's not evidence to charge someone...but you still think they likely did it? Be it circumstances, the vibe they gave...whatever.

When I was in college, I had 3 roommates my sophomore year. My one roommate Tommy had a buddy named Jake that would be over at our place all the time, come out with us, etc. So late in the year Tommy and my other roommate Jeff started not getting along great. Can't remember why, doesn't matter but Jake was around and knew it. Anyway, one weekend we had a party and Jeff wasn't there and someone pissed on his bed. Nobody (that I know) saw it happen and of course everyone denied it. There was no evidence at all about who did it. But we all really got the feeling that it was Jake. We couldn't prove it and didn't try. We knew he'd never admit it. We weren't 100% positive of course, but we thought he did.

Was it preposterous for us to think that sans any evidence? We didn't try to hold him accountable for something we could never prove. We didn't even confront him really. We just, thought that of the ~25 people there, it was likely him. By your logic, we were what? Absurd for voicing to each other our thoughts on Jake?

And anyway notice that in an earlier post I specifically referenced the "court of public opinion" to make the point that you need not meet the standard of evidence required in a court of law to make the argument in favor of your claim here.

Testimony can be admitted in a court of law. In this case if I was the "prosecution" against your roommate Jake I would call you and your roommates to the stand so you can testify about the falling out. I would then ask you to establish that Jake was at the party and thus a reasonable suspect. Would that be enough for a conviction? No but it would be significant in the court of public opinion, hence why you and your other roommates suspect Jake was the culprit.

Can you point to a credible witness that has claimed the Jack Smith special counsel investigation was politically motivated?

Again its not that you don't have enough evidence to convince a jury in a criminal case, its that you have not even one shred of evidence informing your opinion. You keep referring to this damning rhetoric which suggests Merrick Garland and Jack Smith were politically motivated but have yet to point to any such rhetoric. What rhetoric exactly are you referring to which gives you reason to believe Jack Smith's case was politically motivated?

 

[mkess101]

I used that language because in the original post you referenced your silly college story you used the framing of a crime scene and court case.

And anyway notice that in an earlier post I specifically referenced the "court of public opinion" to make the point that you need not meet the standard of evidence required in a court of law to make the argument in favor of your claim here.

Again its not that you don't have enough evidence to convince a jury in a criminal case, its that you have not even one shred of evidence informing your opinion. You keep referring to this damning rhetoric which suggests Merrick Garland and Jack Smith were politically motivated but have yet to point to any such rhetoric. What rhetoric exactly are you referring to which gives you reason to believe Jack Smith's case was politically motivated?

LMAO I didn't frame that story from college as a court case. I asked if YOU thought we were out of bounds believing Jake did it despite not having any actual evidence.

This is the discussion boiled down:

Me: "Yeah I think there was likely SOME level of political motivation with the charges brought against Trump. Not sure how much."

You: "Based on what evidence???"

Me: "I just think it's likely those prosecuting feel some level of loyalty to those who appointed them and that it would probably affect their decision making to some degree. I can't prove that obviously since I'm not a mind reader. Just seems likely to me."

You: "But you have NO evidence of that!!"

Me: " Correct. That's why it's just my opinion based on what I've learned in my lifetime about human nature and politics."

You: "But you're completely misinformed and have no evidence!!"

Me: " Again, I'm simply stating what I think is likely based on who appointed them and human nature. Am I misinformed about who appointed them? No? Okay then."

You: "But you have no evidence! They could have only 100% noble intentions to uphold the law with 0.0% affected by politics!"

Me: " Correct, they could. I just don't think it's likely."

You: "But you're not making your case at all!"

Me: "Correct, because I'm not making a case. I just gave my opinion based on the things I've now repeated probably a good dozen times."

I'm not quite sure how to explain this any more clearly.

 

[Islam Imamate]

LMAO I didn't frame that story from college as a court case. I asked if YOU thought we were out of bounds believing Jake did it despite not having any actual evidence.

You mentioned true crime shows in that post.

You: "But you have no evidence! They could have only 100% noble intentions to uphold the law with 0.0% affected by politics!"

I never said that nor implied it but as usual you have no hesitation in lying about others.

 

[mkess101]

You mentioned true crime shows in that post.

I never said that nor implied it but as usual you have no hesitation in lying about others.

Wait...so where's our disagreement if you agree there could be some level of political motivation? If you aren't asserting I'm out of bounds in not thinking the % is zero in their motivation being political...what exactly are you arguing?

 

[Andy Capp]

Just stating the facts.

Calm down

I'm cool as a cucumber. I think the two--the nicknames and complaining about them--are equally silly. It might as well have stopped at Big Orange Turd but if it didn't, who cares?

I note that people trot out terms like Libtard and Republicunt around here all the time. Can you point out occasions when you criticised a right-leaning poster for Let's Go Brandon, or the rather plentiful variations on VP Harris's first name, or even any of those more general terms*?

Edit: also note, @fingercuffs leans right, irrespective of her feelings about Trump, so the name calling thing seems to stem more from Trump's own tendencies than from some kind of partisan sour grapes, taking a page out of his book, as it were. You might as well complain at him for it.

Edit II: *it's a sincere question FTR--if you have, fair enough, moving on...

 

[Islam Imamate]

Wait...so where's our disagreement if you agree there could be some level of political motivation? If you aren't asserting I'm out of bounds in not thinking the % is zero in their motivation being political...what exactly are you arguing?

I'm arguing you shouldn't assume so without evidence and in the absence of such evidence we should assume the case is being pursued in good faith.

 

[mkess101]

I'm arguing you shouldn't assume so without evidence and in the absence of such evidence we should assume the case is being pursued in good faith.

You literally just replied that you "never said or implied" that those prosecuting him could have 100% noble intentions to uphold the law with 0% political motivation. Meaning you think it's reasonable to think there could be SOME level of political motivation (even if small)? They're your words...

 

[Gutter Chris]

I'm cool as a cucumber. I think the two--the nicknames and complaining about them--are equally silly. It might as well have stopped at Big Orange Turd but if it didn't, who cares?

I note that people trot out terms like Libtard and Republicunt around here all the time. Can you point out occasions when you criticised a right-leaning poster for Let's Go Brandon, or the rather plentiful variations on VP Harris's first name, or even any of those more general terms*?

Edit: also note, @fingercuffs leans right, irrespective of her feelings about Trump, so the name calling thing seems to stem more from Trump's own tendencies than from some kind of partisan sour grapes, taking a page out of his book, as it were. You might as well complain at him for it.

Edit II: *it's a sincere question FTR--if you have, fair enough, moving on...

I have said multiple times all the stupid nicknames are wack but I'm at work at the moment and don't have time to pull that up.

I just think saying the same stupid joke that wasn't funny the first time 100 more times is fuckin stupid and annoying and deserves to be mocked and asked wtf is up with that

I'm not a Maga and I'm pretty sure you know that. I don't have any love for Donald Trump or the Republicans.

 

[LeonardoBjj]

- The only reason Trump doesnt gets re-elected is because he is too old. Trump is just the guy smart enought to capatalize on the joke, that american left is.

Same with Bolsonaro, even thought i dont stand him. He isnt the decease. Is how out of touch the left and liberal(liberals arent the same as the woke-weirdos), are with the regular citzen.

 

[Aurelian]

Why shouldn't Biden and Harris do what Trump did and say the election was stolen and try to overturn it? Worked out for Trump in the end since he wasn't held accountable and was able to win four years later. If Republicans won't concede elections when they lose why should Democrats do so going forward?

You're basically asking for civil war. It's sad that's where our countries politics have turned. If the Trump side won then he would have more power than just a President does. You'd be looking at something that resembles a permanent right wing rule over the country.

 

[Scerpi]

I'm cool as a cucumber. I think the two--the nicknames and complaining about them--are equally silly. It might as well have stopped at Big Orange Turd but if it didn't, who cares?

I note that people trot out terms like Libtard and Republicunt around here all the time. Can you point out occasions when you criticised a right-leaning poster for Let's Go Brandon, or the rather plentiful variations on VP Harris's first name, or even any of those more general terms*?

Edit: also note, @fingercuffs leans right, irrespective of her feelings about Trump, so the name calling thing seems to stem more from Trump's own tendencies than from some kind of partisan sour grapes, taking a page out of his book, as it were. You might as well complain at him for it.

Edit II: *it's a sincere question FTR--if you have, fair enough, moving on...

When you're so far left, you think @fingercuffs leans right...

lol, ok buddy

 

[ShadowRun]

When you're so far left, you think @fingercuffs leans right...

lol, ok buddy

Had to ignore that loser awhile ago. Just straight trolling is an old gimmick now days .

 

[Islam Imamate]

You're basically asking for civil war. It's sad that's where our countries politics have turned. If the Trump side won then he would have more power than just a President does. You'd be looking at something that resembles a permanent right wing rule over the country.

Worked for Trump didn't it? Just bitch and moan for four years about how the election was stolen and hope the news cycle is in your favor next time around. He even bungled the "red wave" in 2022 after losing in 2020 and yet the party doubled down on him. Why isn't that the lesson Democrats should learn from all this?

You literally just replied that you "never said or implied" that those prosecuting him could have 100% noble intentions to uphold the law with 0% political motivation. Meaning you think it's reasonable to think there could be SOME level of political motivation (even if small)? They're your words...

I never said they could only have noble intentions but to make the argument that they don't you would have to provide evidence which you haven't.

If anything I think the political motivation went in the opposite direction, the Feds were exceedingly lenient on Trump. Meanwhile Garland took no delays in appointing a special counsel to investigate Biden for the incident where he found classified documents in his home, an incident where Biden fully cooperated with authorities and where no wrongdoing was found but still ultimately led to a politically damaging report by Robert Hur.

 

[kflo]

What I think is that in the context of "is there political motivation?", what he did/didn't do isn't all that relevant. Unless your argument is that every crime no matter the circumstances are pursued the exact same way by someone looking to prosecute it.

Trump appointees are going to (and have) defend, deflect, and downplay to protect him. That's politically motivated. Trump's political rivals' appointees are going to pursue the maximum of what's available to them even if they may well not in a scenario where the accused was more politically aligned with them.

You guys REALLY think this is some kind of bombshell LOL?

This wasn’t some set of actions that happened without any knowledge of the public. It literally had to be investigated. Do you acknowledge that?

Again, if you have lots of evidence he committed a serious crime, the only reason not to prosecute is political.

Hand waving aside.