Crime Mango Molester's sentencing

[Islam Imamate]

Again: YOU have asserted in this thread that Garland "went easy" on Trump specifically due to public perception. Quoting him stating that he wants to restore faith in the DOJ speaks absolutely nothing of that. Do you have actual evidence that his intentions were to go easier on Trump (these are your assertions of him "going easy", I'm sure there are those who'd argue otherwise but that's mostly irrelevant to this part of the discussion) to achieve that end? Do you have anything other than a "gut feeling" that says he'd be willing to not just be fair and uphold the law--but to actually skew toward Trump to appear fair?

I understand that you're trying to equate our positions here but of course that's wildly unfair, I've actually pointed to statements made by Garland as well as concrete actions which I can tie together with plausible motivations. That's completely different from your clueless opinion made with no reference to the facts of the matter.

 

[mkess101]

I understand that you're trying to equate our positions here but of course that's wildly unfair, I've actually pointed to statements made by Garland as well as concrete actions which I can tie together with plausible motivations. That's completely different from your clueless opinion made with no reference to the facts of the matter.

So him claiming to be fair and impartial and YOUR interpretation of his actions after is "evidence" of him "going easy" on Trump? I dont need to "try" to equate anything.

 

[Islam Imamate]

So him claiming to be fair and impartial and YOUR interpretation of his actions after is "evidence" of him "going easy" on Trump?

I think it suggests that though there could be alternative explanations. What evidence do you have of your competing claim?

 

[fedorthegoat777]

Most people see this as political persecution. It wasn't fair. It was one of the reasons why he won.

The only people that take it seriously are found in the far left corners of reddit

 

[Kassitus]

I hope so so the democrats have another meltdown.

Then to top it off after 4 years if Vance doesn't win. Then he resigns after the election and Vance takes over and gives him a full pardon covering all the from birth to the Then.

I hope to see Vance win but that is a good fall back plan.

The TDS will run rampant fit the next 4 years and with any luck we can extent it for long into the future.

Nah Trump will declare America the new imperium and designate Baron Trump as its Caesar. Vance can lead the praetorian guard though he is ex army.

 

[mkess101]

I think it suggests that though there could be alternative explanations. What evidence do you have of your competing claim?

"Suggests" how? You're now conceding it's not "evidence". The fact he was appointed by and owes his job to Trump's rivals "suggests" it just the same. Neither is backed by the "evidence" you were so adamant about.

Edit: also, you've changed from outright stating that you believe in practice the DOJ was lenient on Trump to now there "could be alternative explanations". How curious.

 

[Islam Imamate]

"Suggests" how? You're now conceding it's not "evidence".

His statements about his approaching the issue in a non-partisan manner combined with his actions, such as appointing the special counsel to look into Biden shortly after the documents story became public compared to the delay in the appointing of a special counsel to go after Trump, suggests to me he was being extra careful with Trump while taking liberties to go after Biden for the purpose of restoring faith in the DOJ.

The fact he was appointed by and owes his job to Trump's rivals "suggests" it just the same.

No it doesn't unless you can point to relevant statements and actions that would suggest as much.

Neither is backed by the "evidence" you were so adamant about.

I've been able to point to statements and actions and only then suggested a plausible underlying motivation. You did no such thing.

Edit: also, you've changed from outright stating that you believe in practice the DOJ was lenient on Trump to now there "could be alternative explanations". How curious.

Uh, yeah? If you cited evidence to the contrary I'd have to address it. Of course you haven't because you can't as you're completely clueless on the matter.

 

[CantCucktheTuck]

Trump vindicated again lol

 

[mkess101]

His statements about his approaching the issue in a non-partisan manner combined with his actions, such as appointing the special counsel to look into Biden shortly after the documents story became public compared to the delay in the appointing of a special counsel to go after Trump, suggests to me he was being extra careful with Trump while taking liberties to go after Biden for the purpose of restoring faith in the DOJ.

No it doesn't unless you can point to relevant statements and actions that would suggest as much.

I've been able to point to statements and actions and only then suggested a plausible underlying motivation. You did no such thing.

Uh, yeah? If you cited evidence to the contrary I'd have to address it. Of course you haven't because you can't as you're completely clueless on the matter.

It's hilarious that you assign your own interpretation of things and assume I'd take them as gospel. I can say "he was held in contempt for refusing to turn over Biden's entire interview with Hur to congress" as "evidence" of his bias. It's as much "evidence" as your wildly ridiculous claims that what you're presenting is such. And you could rebut with his reasoning behind it and I could say "Well of course he has to say that". Every bit as "plausible" as what you're offering.

"Uh yeah" is your reply LOL? You made an OUTRIGHT CLAIM that he went easy on Trump because of public perception. When cornered and shown that you also have zero evidence, you've now walked that back to "well, it at least presents an alternative to the claim he's biased against Trump!" Well no shit...I never said it was undeniably true that he'd be biased against Trump. You're acting as though I stated my own opinion as fact when quite clearly, page after page, I've done nothing of the sort. And the only way you can attempt to save face is to keep trying to hold me to a standard that you were unable to meet yourself.

It's such a tiresome tactic to debate things that have a ton of gray area (and can't be proven true or false) in absolutes the way you're attempting to.

 

[Islam Imamate]

It's hilarious that you assign your own interpretation of things and assume I'd take them as gospel. I can say "he was held in contempt for refusing to turn over Biden's entire interview with Hur to congress" as "evidence" of his bias. It's as much "evidence" as your wildly ridiculous claims that what you're presenting is such. And you could rebut with his reasoning behind it and I could say "Well of course he has to say that". Every bit as "plausible" as what you're offering.

This is the first time you've made any reference to any fact of the matter, glad you're starting to learn even if it took this long.

The House vote holding Garland in contempt was almost entirely along partisan lines with only one GOP voting against. Yeah between the DOJ and Congress surely its the DOJ that is politically motivated

"Uh yeah" is your reply LOL? You made an OUTRIGHT CLAIM that he went easy on Trump because of public perception. When cornered and shown that you also have zero evidence, you've now walked that back to "well, it at least presents an alternative to the claim he's biased against Trump!" Well no shit...I never said it was undeniably true that he'd be biased against Trump.

This is the first time I made mention of it.

The fact that Garland appointed Robert Hur as a special counsel to investigate the nothingburger that was the Biden documents incident three days after it was reported on suggests that if anything Garland's political motivations went in the opposite direction, that he was so committed to appearing impartial that he was willing to go after Biden for a minor offense while dragging his feet in holding Trump accountable.

And here's the 2nd

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.

Since your reading comprehension needs a little work I'll help you out here. From Google:

if anything

phrase of if

1. used to suggest tentatively that something may be the case (often the opposite of something previously implied).
   "I haven't made much of this—if anything, I've played it down"

I never claimed I had irrefutable evidence that it was the case that Garland was politically motivated to take it easy on Trump, that's just my impression of his actions given his statements and some of his decisions. Hence my tentatively suggesting it.

You're acting as though I stated my own opinion as fact when quite clearly, page after page, I've done nothing of the sort. And the only way you can attempt to save face is to keep trying to hold me to a standard that you were unable to meet yourself.

I did meet my standard though, I made references to public statements and actions and only then suggested a plausible motivation. I never asked you for irrefutable evidence, in fact I said the opposite.

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.

I'm not asking you to read minds, what an absurd thing to say. I'm asking for one shred of evidence of this supposed political motivation

I have pointed to public statements and actions to make my case here but nowhere did I claim with certainty that it was the case and if anything I specifically used language that implies the opposite.

It's such a tiresome tactic to debate things that have a ton of gray area (and can't be proven true or false) in absolutes the way you're attempting to.

What's tiresome is debating with clueless hacks who demand to be taken seriously despite being unaware of all the facts of the matter.

 

[mkess101]

This is the first time you've made any reference to any fact of the matter, glad you're starting to learn even if it took this long.

The House vote holding Garland in contempt was almost entirely along partisan lines with only one GOP voting against. Yeah between the DOJ and Congress surely its the DOJ that is politically motivated

This is the first time I made mention of it.

And here's the 2nd

Since your reading comprehension needs a little work I'll help you out here. From Google:

I never claimed I had irrefutable evidence that it was the case that Garland was politically motivated to take it easy on Trump, that's just my impression of his actions given his statements and some of his decisions. Hence my tentatively suggesting it.

I did meet my standard though, I made references to public statements and actions and only then suggested a plausible motivation. I never asked you for irrefutable evidence, in fact I said the opposite.


I have pointed to public statements and actions to make my case here but nowhere did I claim with certainty that it was the case and if anything I specifically used language that implies the opposite.

What's tiresome is debating with clueless hacks who demand to be taken seriously despite being unaware of all the facts of the matter.

Learn? It's still irrelevant! I'm only mentioning it to show you how absurd it is. OMG it was along party lines! Hey, was Garland's appointment bi-partisan LMAO? Or was it ONLY by Trump's direct political rival?

Hmm...post #183 of yours. Wanna tell me this isn't your quote: "that in fact the DOJ was exceedingly lenient on Trump to avoid the impression that they were politically motivated"

How's my reading comprehension? I don't see "if anything" prior to that statement. You state "in fact". Hey, how about you post what the definition of "in fact" is! Okay, fine...I'll help you out:










in fact
phrase of fact

1. used to emphasize the truth of an assertion, especially one contrary to what might be expected or what has been asserted.
   "the brook trout is in fact a char"
   
   
   
   
   
   So now the question is: did you get over your skis and actually make the assertion and forget and now are retracting? Or did you think it would slip by and you'd get away with outright lying about what you'd said previously? I'm not "demanding to be taken seriously" but I can tell you that trying to pull a bait and switch and hoping not to be called out when you state something as "in fact" and later try to pass it off as "if anything" isn't a very solid path to that goal if it's one you have.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Learn? It's still irrelevant! I'm only mentioning it to show you how absurd it is. OMG it was along party lines! Hey, was Garland's appointment bi-partisan LMAO? Or was it ONLY by Trump's direct political rival?

The Garland vote went through 70-30 so it was bipartisan.

Judge Garland was confirmed 70 to 30, with 20 Republicans joining all 50 Democrats in supporting him. He is expected to be sworn in at the Justice Department on Thursday.

Hilarious that you didn't look that up beforehand.

Hmm...post #183 of yours. Wanna tell me this isn't your quote: "that in fact the DOJ was exceedingly lenient on Trump to avoid the impression that they were politically motivated"

How's my reading comprehension? I don't see "if anything" prior to that statement. You state "in fact". Hey, how about you post what the definition of "in fact" is! Okay, fine...I'll help you out:



in fact
phrase of fact

1. used to emphasize the truth of an assertion, especially one contrary to what might be expected or what has been asserted.
   "the brook trout is in fact a char"
   
   
   
   
   
   So now the question is: did you get over your skis and actually make the assertion and forget and now are retracting? Or did you think it would slip by and you'd get away with outright lying about what you'd said previously? I'm not "demanding to be taken seriously" but I can tell you that trying to pull a bait and switch and hoping not to be called out when you state something as "in fact" and later try to pass it off as "if anything" isn't a very solid path to that goal if it's one you have.

Quote the whole post like I do. Here it is.

Its theoretically possible. In practice I think the political motivation is precisely the opposite of what you're alleging here, that in fact the DOJ was exceedingly lenient on Trump to avoid the impression that they were politically motivated. The political motivation worked in Trump's favor, not against him. I point to how long it took for the cases against Trump to get moving while Garland immediately appointed a special counsel to look into Biden.

So yes in that context I was claiming that "I think"(specifically to suggest uncertainty) that if there's any political motivation its the opposite though you're right that I shouldn't have said "in fact" and should've repeated "if anything" as I had said in the previous post to that one.

And in the next post I said this:

I am engaging, you're the one who refuses to engage on the actual facts of the matter to instead talk in the most vague manner about anything other than the case at hand.

As I said there was possibly a political motivation but its the exact opposite motivation you're assuming, the DOJ was if anything exceedingly lenient on Trump for political reasons. Namely, that they knew rubes like you would perceive any legal action against Trump as being politically motivated. Its a huge mistake though because people like you are clueless and will assume that anyway, they should've focused on bringing Trump to justice instead of trying to play with the court of public opinion like this.

Do you know what possibly means? Here's some help

pos·si·bly
/ˈpäsəblē/
adverb

1. 1.
   perhaps (used to indicate doubt or hesitancy).
   "he found himself alone, possibly the only surviving officer"

So yes your reading comprehension still needs lots of work.

 

[mkess101]

The Garland vote went through 70-30 so it was bipartisan.

Hilarious that you didn't look that up beforehand.

Quote the whole post like I do. Here it is.

So yes in that context I was claiming that "I think"(specifically to suggest uncertainty) that if there's any political motivation its the opposite though you're right that I shouldn't have said "in fact" and should've repeated "if anything" as I had said in the previous post to that one.

And in the next post I said this:

Do you know what possibly means? Here's some help

So yes your reading comprehension still needs lots of work.

Well it doesn't when you state "in fact". That's an assertion any way you try to spin it. Making contradictory comments that are less assertive doesn't just magically undo what you typed. Is that how you think things work? You can type whatever and then pick and choose later which one you REALLY meant when called out? The bottom line is that only one of us made an actual assertion and that was you stating that the DOJ went easy on Trump.

"I think OJ Simpson murdered Nicole. In fact, it was premeditated."

^^^That's not a statement reflecting uncertainty. If someone said that, any reasonable person would call that an assertion. Which I'd hope you know, but I'm starting to wonder.

Edit: the Garland vote? Why would I look up his confirmation vote LMAO? Youre the one who implied Congress were the partisan ones and then you point out their bi partisan confirmation of him?? I referenced his APPOINTMENT, which was by one individual that happens to be Trump's direct rival. Good lord.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Well it doesn't when you state "in fact". That's an assertion any way you try to spin it. Making contradictory comments that are less assertive doesn't just magically undo what you typed. Is that how you think things work? You can type whatever and then pick and choose later which one you REALLY meant when called out? The bottom line is that only one of us made an actual assertion and that was you stating that the DOJ went easy on Trump.

"I think OJ Simpson murdered Nicole. In fact, it was premeditated."

^^^That's not a statement reflecting uncertainty. If someone said that, any reasonable person would call that an assertion. Which I'd hope you know, but I'm starting to wonder.

So the fact that I used language indicating uncertainty in the previous post, the next post, and arguably in that very post doesn't mean anything? Btw here's two other subsequent post of mine where I use to tentative framing of my opinion.

Like I said if anything the Feds were exceedingly lenient on Trump and tough on Biden.

As you said earlier I can't read his mind but I can read his statements and observe his actions and if there's any political motivation here at all it was the motivation to restore trust in the DOJ even if it meant taking it easy on Trump.

Your claim here is that I was asserting with absolute certainty that Garland was politically motivated despite the language of these posts indicating otherwise? Is your reading comprehension truly this bad?

Also noticed you completely ignored your flub on Garland's appointment being bipartisan but that's to be expected given you're one of the most weaselly hacks on this forum.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Edit: the Garland vote? Why would I look up his confirmation vote LMAO? Youre the one who implied Congress were the partisan ones and then you point out their bi partisan confirmation of him?? I referenced his APPOINTMENT, which was by one individual that happens to be Trump's direct rival. Good lord.

The confirmation vote suggests his appointment had bipartisan support, I really have to explain that? Geez, you really are clueless.

 

[mkess101]

The confirmation vote suggests his appointment had bipartisan support, I really have to explain that? Geez, you really are clueless.

Yes, bipartisan support in Congress. Again, his appointment was solely from one person and without that there is no confirmation hearing. So yes, an appointee is generally going to feel more beholden to who apponted them than to any random collection out of a group of 100 that confirmed that selection. For crying out loud.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Yes, bipartisan support in Congress. Again, his appointment was solely from one person and without that there is no confirmation hearing. So yes, an appointee is generally going to feel more beholden to who apponted them than to any random collection out of a group of 100 that confirmed that selection. For crying out loud.

His appointment requires Senate confirmation, that Biden chose a candidate who could get 40% of Senate Republicans to vote for his confirmation suggests he was a moderate. Is your contention here that 20/50 Senate Republicans voted for a Biden lapdog? Come on now.

 

[mkess101]

So the fact that I used language indicating uncertainty in the previous post, the next post, and arguably in that very post doesn't mean anything? Btw here's two other subsequent post of mine where I use to tentative framing of my opinion.


Your claim here is that I was asserting with absolute certainty that Garland was politically motivated despite the language of these posts indicating otherwise? Is your reading comprehension truly this bad?

What I'm saying that's unequivocally true is that between the two of us, only you made a comment that had any sort of definitive assertion. You "didn't mean it", and are using your other phrasing as evidence? Fine? The thing is, I dont even need to do that because I haven't ONCE made that type assertion. You've continually tried to infer that I have, but I've made it far more clear than you that I was giving only my opinion--and was never stating with ANY level of certainty whether there was political motivation OR if there was, how much.

 

[mkess101]

His appointment requires Senate confirmation, that Biden chose a candidate who could get 40% of Senate Republicans to vote for his confirmation suggests he was a moderate. Is your contention here that 20/50 Senate Republicans voted for a Biden lapdog? Come on now.

I'm not asserting ANYTHING about congress. I commented on political appointees often feeling beholden to whom appointed them. YOU brought up congress, my comment was about the appointment aspect only. Because no appointee ever has felt loyalty to a bipartisan group that's confirmed them. They feel loyalty to the one who appointed them.

That's not to say many don't override that loyalty in the name of integrity and doing their job correctly.

 

[Islam Imamate]

What I'm saying that's unequivocally true is that between the two of us, only you made a comment that had any sort of definitive assertion. You "didn't mean it", and are using your other phrasing as evidence? Fine? The thing is, I dont even need to do that because I haven't ONCE made that type assertion. You've continually tried to infer that I have, but I've made it far more clear than you that I was giving only my opinion--and was never stating with ANY level of certainty whether there was political motivation OR if there was, how much.

Its not true though, you just have bad reading comprehension in addition to being an ignorant hack. Anyone with a 10th grade reading level could read the totality of my posts and see I framed that opinion tentatively, even in the very post you zeroed in on but didn't quote because you knew I had a qualifier there("I think") which itself was in between two other posts with similar framing(e.g. "possibly", "if anything"). You're desperately reaching for something here to suggest I tripped up or acted hypocritically but to no avail. People like you are used to farting out your clueless opinions with no pushback, bends you're lazy thinking here.

I'm not asserting ANYTHING about congress. I commented on political appointees often feeling beholden to whom appointed them. YOU brought up congress, my comment was about the appointment aspect only. Because no appointee ever has felt loyalty to a bipartisan group that's confirmed them. They feel loyalty to the one who appointed them.

That's not to say many don't override that loyalty in the name of integrity and doing their job correctly.

That there was a bipartisan vote confirming Garland suggests that he was a moderate with a strong reputation for doing his job absent political pressure and his confirmation was seemingly defined by his insistence that this was the case. That 40% of Senate Republicans voted to confirm in the divisive climate we have now suggests that even a significant minority of Republicans might've felt that way. Zero reason to think Garland had any political pressure or motivation to go after Trump and IF ANYTHING it was POSSIBLY the opposite.