A Deeply Fractured US

[shiska]

" Biden administration is 'leveling a direct attack on hunters’ "​

 

[KevinB]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1686765169760686081

and crack kills

https://twitter.com/x/status/1686510035789115392

 

[Fishbone Jones]

" Biden administration is 'leveling a direct attack on hunters’ "​

Sorry. I thought you were speaking of commentators here

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Alan Dershowitz weighs in on the indictments (watch to the end where he explains the electoral college.)

I've read the indictment and here is my legal analysis

Alan Dershowitz's podcast. Dershow media APPLE PODCAST:https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-dershow/id1531775772 SPOTIFY:https://open.spotify.com/show/7Cx3Okc9mMNWtQyKJZoqVO?si=1164392dd4144a99 _

rumble.com

And on the latest Smith indictment

Jack Smith 'should be indicted for stupidity' after latest Trump charges: legal analyst

Harvard Law Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz and Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett sounded off on Jack Smith's indictment of former President Donald Trump.

www.foxnews.com

 

[brihard]

Alan Dershowitz weighs in on the indictments (watch to the end where he explains the electoral college.)

I've read the indictment and here is my legal analysis

Alan Dershowitz's podcast. Dershow media APPLE PODCAST:https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-dershow/id1531775772 SPOTIFY:https://open.spotify.com/show/7Cx3Okc9mMNWtQyKJZoqVO?si=1164392dd4144a99 _

rumble.com

And on the latest Smith indictment

Jack Smith 'should be indicted for stupidity' after latest Trump charges: legal analyst

Harvard Law Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz and Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett sounded off on Jack Smith's indictment of former President Donald Trump.

www.foxnews.com

Have you read literally any of the Trump indictments yet, and do you have any of your own resulting thoughts on them?

 

[Brad Sallows]

Wait, aren't people supposed to be heeding expert opinions?

 

[brihard]

Wait, aren't people supposed to be heeding expert opinions?

The actual indictment documents are exactly that- an expert application of laws to facts by, y’know, the prosecutors who went to law school, work in this field, and have the best possible acquaintance with all of the fruits of the investigation. Actually reading the alleged events and facts as laid out in the indictment is a necessary start point for anyone who wants their opinion on the criminal allegations to be taken seriously- even if their opinions are entirely second hand.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Wait, aren't people supposed to be heeding expert opinions?

I would think so, which is why I posted expert opinion.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Some people believe their layman's opinion is more factual than a celebrated constitutional lawyer. Or they are just to stubborn too admit maybe they didn't get it right. Listening to actual American lawyers, familiar with what is happening and actually know the law intimately is far and away a better option that arguing hypotheticals with someone on the internet that isn't even qualified to speak to the issue except for their opinion.

Dershowitz is no friend of Trumps. People should read about his background and who he really is before discounting his opinion(s).

I agree with him that Trump can't get a fair jury and will be convicted no matter what. However, his enemies, naysayers and detractors shouldn't celebrate. If Dershowitz says he'll win on appeal, that's all I can hope for. I won't get upset when he loses in a partisan court, because the game won't be over.

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I pretend to be. As such, in these legal proceedings, expert opinion is all I have to go on for the best info on the subject. That expert opinion is far more educational and factual than anything found here. And those opinions help me understand what is going on when I read the indictments.

I don't know if that answers your question Brad, but I had trouble figuring out what you were asking.

 

[FJAG]

Dershowitz is no friend of Trumps. People should read about his background and who he really is before discounting his opinion(s).

True enough about Trump. In fact he's a strong supporter of Biden's.

Dershowitz is a strong proponent of the constitution - unless its the 2nd amendment which he thinks ought to be repealed. He basically stands as a civil-libertarian and takes the view that if a thing isn't a crime (or evil in itself) then it shouldn't be prosecuted. His general view is that much of what Trump does is protected by free speech or not a crime per se. All of which gets us back to the yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre scenario.

The problem with Dershowitz is that he thinks that he's the smartest guy in the room and often he's right - but not always. When you get like that you often don't see the other guys side and denounce it out of hand. You fixate on neat little details that you think prove your case and often miss the bigger picture.

I won't take issue with his arguments as I certainly know very little about the laws involved. I'll go so far as to say that there are other experts who have different opinions and eventually one "expert" will be right and another "expert" will be wrong. What disturbs me more than anything else is regardless of the outcome, a very, very large portion of the population will be thoroughly convinced that the system was rigged.

 

[Pelorus]

Dershowitz is no friend of Trumps. People should read about his background and who he really is before discounting his opinion(s).

First off, I just want to say that it's incredible to me that good-faith actors here continue to engage with you.

This specific thread on this forum is an amazing study of the human psyche: A criminal indictment or other serious, fact-based accusation against Donald Trump is submitted to US federal court. @brihard comments after he's personally reviewed the indictment with a much-better-than-most layperson's interpretation of the document, explaining why he thinks the most recent indictment is significant. You @Fishbone Jones shitpost a bunch of random right wing (note I'm specifically not using the term conservative, because conflating the two here isn't helpful) chaff "articles" designed to stoke right wing anger in response.

@brihard asks you if you've taken the time to read the indictment yourself, and if you have anything to offer to counter the items being discussed. You (by my count near 100% of the time) ignore this, and instead post a National Review, Daily Wire, etc. article about Hunter Biden to try to distract from the facts that he's trying to discuss. This has repeated for nearly 200 pages of this forum.


Regarding Alan Dershowitz: I would think that by this point he's a problematic public figure, given the numerous accusations made against him that peg him as an associate of Jeffery Epstein and a visitor to his island:

Alan Dershowitz Cannot Stop Talking

Alan Dershowitz helped Jeffrey Epstein get a plea deal. Now he’s tweeting about age of consent laws.

Jeffrey Epstein Victim Said She Was Forced Into Threesome With Alan Dershowitz

Etc., etc.

Now since then, one of the key witnesses has come forward to say that she could have been mistaken, likely as part of ongoing legal proceedings:

Epstein Survivor Says Accusation Against Alan Dershowitz May Have Been 'Mistake'

Epstein Victim Says She May Have ‘Made a Mistake’ in Accusing Dershowitz

I have not followed this case closely enough to take an educated position as to whether or not this is indicative of Dershowitz being "innocent", or rather the victim saw an unprovable case in front of her and took a settlement instead.

My gut tells me that Trump, Dershowitz, Prince Andrew, and a number of other Western elites were probably involved in some gross stuff relating to Epstein's Island, and I can only hope that the truth will someday come out. Again, I'm not going to call Dershowitz a sexual predator without proof, but can probably conclude that his reputation as an independent constitutional scholar is likely not as clean as you make it out to be.

Given that the standard of evidence for conspiracy theorists is typically so rock bottom, and that your profile picture says, "I IDENTIFY AS A CONSPIRACY THEORIST. MY PRONOUNS ARE TOLD/YOU/SO", I have to conclude that you have no interest in seeking the truth or any sort of philosophical resolution to the events discussed in this thread whenever they put Donald Trump or his shitty grifter family in a negative light. Instead, I have to conclude that you are here to repost Newsmax et al., trash and hopefully convince others to adopt your angry, paranoid worldview.

Again, the fact that reasonable members of this forum continue to engage with you IMO speaks to their patience, not to your value-added to this community.

 

[brihard]

Dershowitz is a strong proponent of the constitution - unless its the 2nd amendment which he thinks ought to be repealed. He basically stands as a civil-libertarian and takes the view that if a thing isn't a crime (or evil in itself) then it shouldn't be prosecuted. His general view is that much of what Trump does is protected by free speech or not a crime per se. All of which gets us back to the yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre scenario.

He’s exactly right inasmuch that if something isn’t a crime it should be prosecuted. I know you know this and I’m sure feel the same, so maybe slightly awkward wording on your part?

Where Dershowitz sort of blazes his own trail here is in disagreeing about what is and isn’t an actual crime.

There’s a larger, dishonest effort afoot to attempt to portray this whole thing as criminalizing Trump’s exercise of free speech. But it’s not that; this is fundamentally, as we see throughout the indictment, a big fraud. The charges come from actions. In a simple exercise of free speech, something is uttered, and, even if it’s very objectionable, that’s it. In a fraud, someone is dishonestly or corruptly deprived of something, or an attempt is made to do the same. Included in the alleged fraudulent actions is a conspiracy to obstruct the lawful counting of the electoral vote.

Speech has words; a fraud has tangibles. The Jan 6th indictment pulls back the curtain on some of those tangibles. We see fake - that’s false, or fraudulent - electors who purported to be real. The Michigan state charges in that state’s fraudulent elector scheme shine more light on the mechanics of this; I linked that farther upthread in the pst week or two. This branch of the alleged offences went so far as to have forged documents making false claims. It’s compelling stuff. The prosecution of Trump for conspiracy puts Trump at the purported center of these efforts. So, this is about much more than Trump utilizing the lawful methods to try to challenge an elections. He tried those, more than 60 times, without success. The indictment acknowledges the legitimacy of that exercise of legal rights.

A final note I’ll offer; the indictment is a very broad strokes overall description of what’s being charged and, generally, why. It goes into detail only to the extent necessary to establish probable cause to charge. Come trial, there will be witness after witness, document after document and transcript after transcript putting meat on the bones. A great deal of this - probably most - will come from Republican sources; people within Trump’s administration or even inner circle, or those he was politically aligned with at state level.

So that’s what the indictment gives us a bit of a picture of. If what is alleged can be proven, it is likely that crimes will be found to have been committed. That’s why we’re already seeing the reflexive, defensive retorts shifting to “can’t get a fair trial” etc. I’m sure we can expect more of that partisan swamp-talk as matters proceed through court. Though I look forward to see the hand-wringing over trial fairness in the classified documents trial in the southern district of Florida.

 

[KevinB]

First off, I just want to say that it's incredible to me that good-faith actors here continue to engage with you.

This specific thread on this forum is an amazing study of the human psyche: A criminal indictment or other serious, fact-based accusation against Donald Trump is submitted to US federal court. @brihard comments after he's personally reviewed the indictment with a much-better-than-most layperson's interpretation of the document, explaining why he thinks the most recent indictment is significant. You @Fishbone Jones shitpost a bunch of random right wing (note I'm specifically not using the term conservative, because conflating the two here isn't helpful) chaff "articles" designed to stoke right wing anger in response.

@brihard asks you if you've taken the time to read the indictment yourself, and if you have anything to offer to counter the items being discussed. You (by my count near 100% of the time) ignore this, and instead post a National Review, Daily Wire, etc. article about Hunter Biden to try to distract from the facts that he's trying to discuss. This has repeated for nearly 200 pages of this forum.


Regarding Alan Dershowitz: I would think that by this point he's a problematic public figure, given the numerous accusations made against him that peg him as an associate of Jeffery Epstein and a visitor to his island:

Alan Dershowitz Cannot Stop Talking

Alan Dershowitz helped Jeffrey Epstein get a plea deal. Now he’s tweeting about age of consent laws.

Jeffrey Epstein Victim Said She Was Forced Into Threesome With Alan Dershowitz

Etc., etc.

Now since then, one of the key witnesses has come forward to say that she could have been mistaken, likely as part of ongoing legal proceedings:

Epstein Survivor Says Accusation Against Alan Dershowitz May Have Been 'Mistake'

Epstein Victim Says She May Have ‘Made a Mistake’ in Accusing Dershowitz

I have not followed this case closely enough to take an educated position as to whether or not this is indicative of Dershowitz being "innocent", or rather the victim saw an unprovable case in front of her and took a settlement instead.

My gut tells me that Trump, Dershowitz, Prince Andrew, and a number of other Western elites were probably involved in some gross stuff relating to Epstein's Island, and I can only hope that the truth will someday come out. Again, I'm not going to call Dershowitz a sexual predator without proof, but can probably conclude that his reputation as an independent constitutional scholar is likely not as clean as you make it out to be.

Given that the standard of evidence for conspiracy theorists is typically so rock bottom, and that your profile picture says, "I IDENTIFY AS A CONSPIRACY THEORIST. MY PRONOUNS ARE TOLD/YOU/SO", I have to conclude that you have no interest in seeking the truth or any sort of philosophical resolution to the events discussed in this thread whenever they put Donald Trump or his shitty grifter family in a negative light. Instead, I have to conclude that you are here to repost Newsmax et al., trash and hopefully convince others to adopt your angry, paranoid worldview.

Again, the fact that reasonable members of this forum continue to engage with you IMO speaks to their patience, not to your value-added to this community.

One thing I will add to this, is while I think Trump is a crook, and a little creepy, he did get a lot done down for in support of Anti Human Trafficking policies, and enablers in Federal LE and Task Forces to deal with the issues.

I’m not a fan of Alan D, and I think he’s well past his best before date. I disagree with a lot of his opinions in the article that @Fishbone Jones posted, and will note that for those is you who have read the indictment (s) that in the case of the charges levied by Jack Smith, they are not going at some of the things that one would have if one was operating from a partisan approach.

 

[Brad Sallows]

The actual indictment documents are exactly that- an expert application of laws to facts by, y’know, the prosecutors who went to law school, work in this field, and have the best possible acquaintance with all of the fruits of the investigation. Actually reading the alleged events and facts as laid out in the indictment is a necessary start point for anyone who wants their opinion on the criminal allegations to be taken seriously- even if their opinions are entirely second hand.

The actual indictment documents might be ideologically-motivated fluff. Obviously Alvin Bragg's didn't rise to a very high standard. So we know that not all indictments are equal; not all indictments rise to the level of completely rational charges conforming to customary practices. Because some of the employees of the agencies involved in this stuff have been caught acting unethically or even just merely contrary to the usual standards and protocols, it is no longer prudent to assume anything about the integrity of the people and agencies. We can't know when they are just following the law and when they are putting their thumbs on the scale any more. However, the opinions of their peers can provide some clues.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Regarding Alan Dershowitz: I would think that by this point he's a problematic public figure, given the numerous accusations made against him that peg him as an associate of Jeffery Epstein and a visitor to his island:

...

My gut tells me that Trump, Dershowitz, Prince Andrew, and a number of other Western elites were probably involved in some gross stuff relating to Epstein's Island, and I can only hope that the truth will someday come out. Again, I'm not going to call Dershowitz a sexual predator without proof, but can probably conclude that his reputation as an independent constitutional scholar is likely not as clean as you make it out to be.

You might as well have. How close did you think you could get to it and still maintain plausible deniability? You guessed wrong.

 

[brihard]

The actual indictment documents might be ideologically-motivated fluff. Obviously Alvin Bragg's didn't rise to a very high standard. So we know that not all indictments are equal; not all indictments rise to the level of completely rational charges conforming to customary practices. Because some of the employees of the agencies involved in this stuff have been caught acting unethically or even just merely contrary to the usual standards and protocols, it is no longer prudent to assume anything about the integrity of the people and agencies. We can't know when they are just following the law and when they are putting their thumbs on the scale any more. However, the opinions of their peers can provide some clues.

Based on your understanding of what we both read in the indictments, I’d be happy to have a civil discussion about what specific parts you think are partisan fluff or had ‘a thumb on the scale’.

 

[QV]

The actual indictment documents might be ideologically-motivated fluff. Obviously Alvin Bragg's didn't rise to a very high standard. So we know that not all indictments are equal; not all indictments rise to the level of completely rational charges conforming to customary practices. Because some of the employees of the agencies involved in this stuff have been caught acting unethically or even just merely contrary to the usual standards and protocols, it is no longer prudent to assume anything about the integrity of the people and agencies. We can't know when they are just following the law and when they are putting their thumbs on the scale any more. However, the opinions of their peers can provide some clues.

Enough gross malfeasance by employees in these agencies has happened, and to one side, that calls into question everything being done that has political implications.

A large number of people continue to ignore that because it's unthinkable in our society, and they're incapable of distinguishing between what is actual news and what is propaganda.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The actual indictment documents are exactly that- an expert application of laws to facts by, y’know, the prosecutors who went to law school, work in this field, and have the best possible acquaintance with all of the fruits of the investigation. Actually reading the alleged events and facts as laid out in the indictment is a necessary start point for anyone who wants their opinion on the criminal allegations to be taken seriously- even if their opinions are entirely second hand.

For every two lawyers in Court. One is wrong.

 

[brihard]

For every two lawyers in Court. One is wrong.

More often I’d substitute ‘wrong’ for ‘more persuasive’. It often depends on whether litigation is contesting facts, intent, or specific points of how law is applied.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Based on your understanding of what we both read in the indictments, I’d be happy to have a civil discussion about what specific parts you think are partisan fluff or had ‘a thumb on the scale’.

A lot hinges on "knowingly" and the notion of conspiracy to commit some kind of fraud or deprive people of rights. Any of the claims which could be fitted to any dispute or claims in the prior 5 presidential elections basically looks like it's being shaped to fit Trump. Proving Trump didn't have a reasonable apprehension of ill-doing is going to be very hard in view of what was known about the "Russian Collusion" investigations by then. Elevating novel or even crackpot legal ideas about the electoral processes to the realm of "unlawful" will also be difficult. Smith is choosing to tread novel ground himself, which is not ordinarily an indication of law-as-usual.

Whether they win or lose in court is irrelevant to me, because I don't see the case concluding before the inauguration. What has my attention is how the political battle is shaped. What I see is that Trump's popularity is holding. A conviction might change that. A non-conviction (Bragg's case, particularly), or a case unfolding weakly, I expect to push Trump's support a little higher. Trump's numbers are probably not good enough to win the general yet. If none of the cases concludes before the election, voters will basically be comparing what they know about Trump with what they know about Biden and weighing documents/insurrection against shopping US policy execution to countries not necessarily friendly to the US. The fact that one is in court and one probably will not be will not weigh much at best and weigh against Biden at worst, since it's his administration.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

More often I’d substitute ‘wrong’ for ‘more persuasive’. It often depends on whether litigation is contesting facts, intent, or specific points of how law is applied.

Then there are Judges who are senile or raving assholes. I have seen some truly WTF moments. One judge granted the right for someone to modify the foreshore next to theirs who was not even part of the case. I suspect that bit got appealed.