-->
@Best.Korea
You have brought peace and security to your new empire?Yes.
Did you change your avatar for that?
How about you retract your slanderous lies against GP and myself.I retract all my lies about GP and you.
Thank you.
A man convicted of defaming an ordinary citizen about raping that same person…
Posts
Read-only
Total:
418
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Did you change your avatar for that?
Yes, I got the idea from this conversation.
-->
@Best.Korea
That you will build self esteem of a child by convincing it that it shouldnt be what it wants to be.
That's incorrect. I was saying to build self esteem by telling them they are good enough as they are. Most trannies are not driven as much by a desire to be the opposite sex as much as they are by not being the one they currently are.
And yet his followers in his name talked against homosexuals?
Most just speak against homosexuality, if they speak about it at all, and it's not the main message. I wouldn't personally bringing up with a homosexuality. If they ask me if gay sex is a sin, I will say yes, but if they don't bring it up, I won't because it's something between them and God.
Find 20 Christian people and come out to them as gay. You probably know 20 in your life. My assumption is that 19 will give you a hug and support you coming out, even if they think you shouldn't engage in homosexual behavior.
-->
@ponikshiy
I was saying to build self esteem by telling them they are good enough as they are.
Which again means "convincing it that it shouldnt be what it wants to be.".
There is no self esteem being built when you tell a person it shouldnt be what it really wants to be.
Thats an attack on their goals, not a defense of.
Find 20 Christian people and come out to them as gay.
Lol
There are quite enough Christian people here talking against homosexuality.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
A statement that is not defamation is the zero value. We have an array of statements that are not individually defamatory. You claim that they somehow combine into a defamation.You have to explain how a series of not-defamation becomes defamation.
It only takes one word: Context.
"Context: the words that are used with a certain word or phrase and that help to explain its meaning"
Defamation laws do not tell juries what the rules are when it comes to determining the meaning of a person's words because juries are supposed to be able to use their common sense to figure it out. That is specifically why these decisions are turned over to "a jury of your peers".
If you look at the basic requirements and what the juries are asked here, questions like "was the defendant reckless with the truth", or "did the defendant act with actual malice", these are questions based on the person's intent which requires the jury to consider the surrounding context and put it all together in order to determine whether the statements were defamatory.
Your notion of a zero multiplier is not supported anywhere in the law and is completely at odds with basic human communication and common sense. We do not derive meaning or intent from a person's comments merely by looking at a single quote on paper. Everyone knows that.
Dismissed. A book is still published even if it's not popular. A broadcast is still public if no one tunes in.
"Controversy: argument that involves many people who strongly disagree about something : strong disagreement about something among a large group of people"
Again, it is by definition not a public controversy if no one cares about it.
A judge that doesn't brazenly violate their oath.
And who determines whether they have violated their oath? Do you even believe there should be a process for that, or do you think you get to decide based on however you feel and that it's your right to impose the penalty?
Now I have no idea why you think a state defamation case is going to the US supreme court any time soon
I know it's not, that's why I worded my response the way I did. The question is, why don't you think it's headed to the supreme court? You just sat here and argued that this case is flagrantly unconstitutional along with defamation laws themselves. Don't you think that is something the SCOTUS would be interested in?
And if any of the previous 44 president's had ever taken home documents they were not supposed to and were told by the government to give them back, none of them would have been stupid enough to tell them to fuck off.They weren't because no government bureaucrat would have dared fuck with a president. Brave new world where the elected guy is the bad guy and the unelected spy-masters are the real heroes.
People didn't want to indict a former president because we all had respect for the office. Trump trampled over the office for 4 years culminating in January 6th and pulling this stunt afterwards so this is the unfortunate but rightful response. Trump is not a victim here, he did this to himself and by extension all of us.
Biden didn't argue the documents were his because nobody ever asked for them. It rings quite hollow to say "they're not equivalent because we didn't care if Biden has unauthorized documents".
The way that we tell whether two things are equivalent is by looking at whether there are differences between them that are significant and relevant.
The similarities between Biden and Trump are that they both had possession of classified documents.
That is where the similarities end.
Trump had far more documents than Biden, Trump had documents containing nuclear secrets - the most sensitive information one could have, and Trump lied repeatedly about having them while obstructing (or attempting to obstruct) the investigation into them.
Trump is not being prosecuted on the similarities, so the similarities are entirely irrelevant. What matters to this conversation are the differences.
You continue to claim it's people like me who have TDS. No, this is what TDS looks like. Your brain has been so broken on this that not only do I need to define basic English in order to explain to you why you're wrong, but now I have to explain to you how we tell different things apart from each other.
In no other situation would I need to explain to you that when two people commit a wrong but one goes much further, the one who went further is more likely to be held accountable and when being held accountable will face more serious repricussions. This is such basic common sense. Why do you need me to explain this to you?
Did Biden lie to the FBI? No.
Did Biden order documents moved from one location to another to keep them from being found and taken by the government? No
Did Biden order his security tapes to be deleted? No.
This is why Trump is being charged, and Biden did none of these things or anything remotely similar.
We do not prosecute people based on the crimes we think they would have committed if they were in the same boat as the other guy, nor do we not prosecute someone because we think the other guy would have done the same thing. Trump is clearly guilty of the above. Biden is not. That's why Trump is charged and Biden is not. That's exactly how or system of justice is supposed to work.
-->
@Double_R
A statement that is not defamation is the zero value. We have an array of statements that are not individually defamatory. You claim that they somehow combine into a defamation.You have to explain how a series of not-defamation becomes defamation.It only takes one word: Context.
Context = Orange Man Bad
Defamation laws do not tell juries what the rules are when it comes to determining the meaning of a person's words because juries are supposed to be able to use their common sense to figure it out. That is specifically why these decisions are turned over to "a jury of your peers".
TDS persons are (while in the midst of a conniption) the peers of enraged chimpanzees, not functioning citizens of the united states.
If you are claiming that the jury can think any statement means anything they want, there is no debate here on defamation to be had. You are claiming the objective truth is whatever they say it is. You can go fuck off with that belief it's the opposite of objectivity.
If you look at the basic requirements and what the juries are asked here, questions like "was the defendant reckless with the truth", or "did the defendant act with actual malice"
Those questions are irrelevant to defamation without a potentially defamatory statement. No amount of malice or disregard for the truth makes "I think Trump colluded with Russia" a statement of fact as opposed to opinion.
Dismissed. A book is still published even if it's not popular. A broadcast is still public if no one tunes in."Controversy: argument that involves many people who strongly disagree about something : strong disagreement about something among a large group of people"Again, it is by definition not a public controversy if no one cares about it.
Collins Dictionary:
Controversy is a lot of discussion and argument about something, often involving strong feelings of anger or disapproval.
Oxford Dictionary:
noun: controversy; plural noun: controversies
- disagreement, typically when prolonged, public, and heated."the announcement ended a protracted controversy"
Dictionary.com:
a prolonged public dispute, debate, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion.
So say for the sake of argument she was not a public figure despite publishing rape allegations against the president of the united states. She became one at some point. Was that point before or after the supposed defamatory statements that did not meet the burden of actual malice but were made with a reckless disregard for the truth?
(Hint: Defamatory statement count needs to be > 0 to answer this question)
Again, it is by definition not a public controversy if no one cares about it.
There is a difference between someone and everyone. Someone cared about it or Trump would not have learned about it.
A judge that doesn't brazenly violate their oath.And who determines whether they have violated their oath? Do you even believe there should be a process for that, or do you think you get to decide based on however you feel and that it's your right to impose the penalty?
If there was a process for that I would prefer the process. However when the bad guys wreck the process it's up to each person, just as it was at the birth of this country or when the south seceded or at any one of thousands of moments of political revolution. Government is a game we play with each other because it's better than the alternative. When the game is (perceived to be) worse than the alternative...
Now I have no idea why you think a state defamation case is going to the US supreme court any time soonI know it's not, that's why I worded my response the way I did. The question is, why don't you think it's headed to the supreme court? You just sat here and argued that this case is flagrantly unconstitutional along with defamation laws themselves. Don't you think that is something the SCOTUS would be interested in?
If SCOTUS was infallible ever vigilant they would be interested. A lot of things would be different if that was true.
And if any of the previous 44 president's had ever taken home documents they were not supposed to and were told by the government to give them back, none of them would have been stupid enough to tell them to fuck off.They weren't because no government bureaucrat would have dared fuck with a president. Brave new world where the elected guy is the bad guy and the unelected spy-masters are the real heroes.People didn't want to indict a former president because we all had respect for the office. Trump trampled over the office for 4 years culminating in January 6th and pulling this stunt afterwards so this is the unfortunate but rightful response.
Nah, I think it's because it was obvious to everybody that POTUS was the owner of all executive information and the source of authority for classification. Rather than Trump trashing the office, the fact that Trump was in the office made this inversion of authority seem reasonable to 'you' unreasonable people.
Biden didn't argue the documents were his because nobody ever asked for them. It rings quite hollow to say "they're not equivalent because we didn't care if Biden has unauthorized documents".The way that we tell whether two things are equivalent is by looking at whether there are differences between them that are significant and relevant.
The only relevant difference is that nobody ever demanded executive branch documents from a president before.
The similarities between Biden and Trump are that they both had possession of classified documents.
Unauthorized possession (according to left-tribe legal theory)
Trump is not being prosecuted on the similarities, so the similarities are entirely irrelevant. What matters to this conversation are the differences.
Two men drive down a highway traveling the same speed. One is black. One is white.
The black man is pulled over. The officer says that driving with cash in the vehicle is illegal. The man says "that's ridiculous".
He is then dragged out of the vehicle and pinned to the ground for resisting a lawful authority.
The white man sees what happened, he turns back and gives the officer all his money and says "woops won't happen again".
At court the defense lawyer for the black man says "Why isn't the white guy being charged? This is racism!"
The prosecutor says "While it's true that no one has ever been required to surrender their cash before and the theory that driving with cash is illegal is not at all established, our officer didn't care about the white man and the white man didn't try to keep his cash. We're not prosecuting on the similarities, but the differences. The fact is that the black man didn't surrender his cash instantly and that's all the state cares about in this case."
Now that may be all you care about, and all the feds are pretending to care about, but it's not all a reasonable person (like myself) cares about.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
TDS persons are (while in the midst of a conniption) the peers of enraged chimpanzees, not functioning citizens of the united states.
The rule of law in this country is not subject to your opinion of your fellow citizens.
If you are claiming that the jury can think any statement means anything they want, there is no debate here on defamation to be had. You are claiming the objective truth is whatever they say it is.
No, I'm claiming that determining whether any given statement meets the criteria for defamation is ultimately, an inherently subjective determination. The only person who (in theory) knows the objective truth in this situation is the defendant himself, but there is a reason why we don't just take the defendant's word for it in a court of law when it comes to what their intentions were. I trust I don't have to explain to you why.
No the jury does not have the right to determine "whatever they want", but when adjudicating matters of law there is no other way for a system of law to operate other than to have a final arbiter. That means an arbiter who cannot, by definition, be legally challenged. In this country we often defer that decision to a jury, which is exactly what happened here.
So if you're pretending to care about the rule of law you would accept as the final legal outcome the verdict. But we both know you don't actually care about that, because in your mind it's whatever you decide.
Those questions are irrelevant to defamation without a potentially defamatory statement.
He lied when he claimed he didn't sexually assault her, according to the findings of a separate jury. Again, if you actually cared about the rule of law (you don't) you would accept that the process played out and this was the result.
From there the jury must determine whether there was:
- A reckless disregard for the truth (there was)
- Actual malice (there was)
- And significant reputational harm (there was)
This isn't complicated.
Collins Dictionary:Controversy is a lot of discussion and argument about something, often involving strong feelings of anger or disapproval.Oxford Dictionary:noun: controversy; plural noun: controversies
Your definitions made my exact point. You continue to pretend that as long as it merely exists in the public sphere it qualifies as a controversy. It doesn't, as your own definitions note.
This is basic English.
If you still disagree, I can't wait to post an accusation of Trump on my Twitter feed tomorrow with all 5 of my followers and then spend the next month bragging about how I created and am therefore embroiled in a public controversy.
So say for the sake of argument she was not a public figure despite publishing rape allegations against the president of the united states. She became one at some point. Was that point before or after the supposed defamatory statements
When the President of the United States repeatedly attacks you on his social media platforms, that tends to turn an individual to a pubic figure.
Don't you think that is something the SCOTUS would be interested in?If SCOTUS was infallible ever vigilant they would be interested. A lot of things would be different if that was true.
That has nothing to do with the question. Do you not think it odd that the supreme court, especially considering that 2/3rds of them are right wing, wouldn't even be interested in taking up a case that you claim is a flagrant violation of the first amendment? Not even a little?
I think it's because it was obvious to everybody that POTUS was the owner of all executive information and the source of authority for classification.
Are you seriously about to make the "Trump can declassify top secret documents with his mind" argument?
The only relevant difference is that nobody ever demanded executive branch documents from a president before.
Only relevant difference? So the fact that he refused to give the government back it's own property (including top secret SCI nuclear documents), lied to NARA, lied to the FBI, had the documents moved to evade detection, and tried to delete the security footage... All of which are objectively, very serious federal crimes... Is all irrelevant to you?
Because rule of law right?
This is what Trump Derangement Syndrome looks like. In no other circumstance would you make an argument so stupid.
But for the sake of argument let's pretend for one second that was actually true... You still have no evidence that NARA has never asked for documents back of any president. You know why? Because if they ever had you wouldn't even know about it because... No other president would have been stupid enough to do what Trump did. That's why he's the one who is being charged.
Two men drive down a highway traveling the same speed. One is black. One is white.The black man is pulled over. The officer says that driving with cash in the vehicle is illegal. The man says "that's ridiculous".He is then dragged out of the vehicle and pinned to the ground for resisting a lawful authority.
If you want this story to be analogous you need to add quite a bit after "ridiculous"...
"The officers note the amount of cash that's in the car and notify the driver that he has to turn it into the courthouse.
The driver then lies to the courthouse claiming he never had the money.
When the police get a warrant to search the car, there is nothing there because the driver moved the cash to his other car.
The driver then orders his personal assistant to delete the driveway camera footage showing the move.
Then the police execute a search warrant on the other car and find the cash.
He is then dragged out of the vehicle and pinned to the ground for resisting a lawful authority"
Fixed.
The white man sees what happened, he turns back and gives the officer all his money and says "woops won't happen again".At court the defense lawyer for the black man says "Why isn't the white guy being charged? This is racism!"
And then the prosecutors explain to the judge that while it's possible the white man might have done what the black guy did after being notified that he had to give that money back, the white man never actually committed such a crime and therefore cannot be prosecuted for it.
The prosecutor says "While it's true that no one has ever been required to surrender their cash before and the theory that driving with cash is illegal is not at all established
The government owns government documents, therefore when they find out you have them and ask for them back, you are required by law to give them back. That has been established, it's called common sense.
our officer didn't care about the white man and the white man didn't try to keep his cash. We're not prosecuting on the similarities, but the differences. The fact is that the black man didn't surrender his cash instantly and that's all the state cares about in this case."
None of this is remotely analogous.
-->
@Double_R
TDS persons are (while in the midst of a conniption) the peers of enraged chimpanzees, not functioning citizens of the united states.The rule of law in this country is not subject to your opinion of your fellow citizens.
Reality is not subject to your opinion of what constitutes the rule of law.
In this country we often defer that decision to a jury
Until you disagree with the jury, like IWRA just did.
which is exactly what happened here.
It happened many times in the past when the social contract was still perceived to be valid. Now it is not the case. You want us to defer to this jury, but we do not.
So if you're pretending to care about the rule of law you would accept as the final legal outcome the verdict. But we both know you don't actually care about that, because in your mind it's whatever you decide.
It's what the law says, and even that I do not bind myself to and never have. This is a cow you are pretending is sacred, not I. I'm just pointing out your shitting on your cow so you can't expect anyone else to take you seriously.
Those questions are irrelevant to defamation without a potentially defamatory statement.He lied when he claimed he didn't sexually assault her
Are you claiming that was a defamatory statement?
This isn't complicated.
Until you are asked to provide a theory of the liability that allows non-defamatory statements to become defamatory. Then it becomes so complicated that you sputter about context wander around for a while and then pretend like the question was never asked.
Your definitions made my exact point. You continue to pretend that as long as it merely exists in the public sphere it qualifies as a controversy.
No, it also has to be controversial, as in revealing a widespread disagreement in whatever population of people are considering it be it an single family or the entire population of the nation.
Accusing the president of rape is always going to be a matter of public interest and in this case is also a public controversy.
If you still disagree, I can't wait to post an accusation of Trump on my Twitter feed tomorrow with all 5 of my followers and then spend the next month bragging about how I created and am therefore embroiled in a public controversy.
If someone said "you lie" that is a comment on a matter of public interest. If you then put your own credibility on the line as evidence your credibility just became a matter of public interest making anyone what so ever immune from defaming you by questioning your credibility.
So say for the sake of argument she was not a public figure despite publishing rape allegations against the president of the united states. She became one at some point. Was that point before or after the supposed defamatory statementsWhen the President of the United States repeatedly attacks you on his social media platforms, that tends to turn an individual to a pubic figure.
Failed to answer the question I see.
Don't you think that is something the SCOTUS would be interested in?If SCOTUS was infallible ever vigilant they would be interested. A lot of things would be different if that was true.That has nothing to do with the question.
That has a lot to do with the question.
Do you not think it odd that the supreme court, especially considering that 2/3rds of them are right wing, wouldn't even be interested in taking up a case that you claim is a flagrant violation of the first amendment? Not even a little?
I don't think they would. They've shown cowardice on many occasions by refusing to take up cases.
I think it's because it was obvious to everybody that POTUS was the owner of all executive information and the source of authority for classification.Are you seriously about to make the "Trump can declassify top secret documents with his mind" argument?
With his actions he can. Any POTUS can and did. It was so obvious that when POTUS shared classified docs with vice presidents (like Biden) it was implied that he was authorized to possesses them in perpetuity.
So the fact that he refused to give the government back it's own property
It's personal property of POTUS and whoever he decides to give copies to. The US government is not short of letter paper or toner. They don't need any of it, they just didn't want Trump to have copies.
[bla bla bla pretending POTUS isn't POTUS] Is all irrelevant to you?
Yep. To me it's no different than charging Trump with impersonating an official of the united states for hanging around in the oval office or hijacking airforce one (by flying in it).
Redefining clear and obvious authority to pretend Trump committed a crime.
Because rule of law right?
Precisely. Unequally applied law is tyrannical law. Enforcing laws unequally is by definition the absence of the rule of law.
This is what Trump Derangement Syndrome looks like. In no other circumstance would you make an argument so stupid.
Right back at ya
You still have no evidence that NARA has never asked for documents back of any president.
If there was precedent it would have been used in court already and I have been distantly following the developments.
If you want this story to be analogous you need to add quite a bit after "ridiculous"...
Don't care. The inequity exists already by that point.
The prosecutor says "While it's true that no one has ever been required to surrender their cash before and the theory that driving with cash is illegal is not at all establishedThe government owns government documents, therefore when they find out you have them and ask for them back, you are required by law to give them back. That has been established, it's called common sense.
Common sense? Well hows this for common sense: If the government owned the documents (the physical pieces of paper), and taking something you don't own is theft, then even taking them in the first place is theft. Therefore Joe Biden stole documents.
None of this is remotely analogous.
Someone once told me only unserious people deny analogies.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The rule of law in this country is not subject to your opinion of your fellow citizens.Reality is not subject to your opinion of what constitutes the rule of law.
It's not my opinion. Juries get the final say, that's the law. You can look it up. It's there. Every attorney in the country knows this. Why you don't is beyond me.
You want us to defer to this jury, but we do not.
Then you do not care about the rule of law. Period.
As is normally the case once we get to the part of the conversation where the point of disagreement is clear and the matter of which one of us is wrong couldn't be more obvious, you know who knows they're wrong when they are forced to distort what the conversation is actually about.
You keep trying to insinuate that I am arguing the jury as the arbiter of reality, when you know damn well I'm speaking about this in a purely legal context. There will always be disagreement within our society, the only question is whether the people of that society are willing to accept the outcome when they don't agree with it. You are clearly not. You claim it's because the jury disregarded the law, but you're the one arguing that the jury doesn't get the final say. That's absurd and couldn't illustrate more clearly that you are wrong on that point.
Do not ask me for legal theories or talk about jurisprudence or precedent or any of these legal terms when you aren't even willing to accept the most basic fact of any trial where applicable - that the jury decides the outcome. If you can't do that then stop pretending this has anything to do with the rule of law.
Until you are asked to provide a theory of the liability that allows non-defamatory statements to become defamatory. Then it becomes so complicated that you sputter about context wander around for a while and then pretend like the question was never asked.
The reason I haven't directly answered this is because the framing of the question itself is stupid and I have explained why. You're putting the cart before the horse by claiming the statements begin as non-defamatory. Whether they are defamatory depends on the context in which they are spoken in.
Here let's try an example: "eh, nice family you got there, would be a real shame if something happened to them".
So what was this statement? A threat? A statement of concern for your family? It depends on the context.
If I was a detective investigating the sudden disappearance of your wife and daughter... Statement of concern.
If I was a mob boss whom you owed $100k to and you were explaining to me that you're not sure if you are going to have it... Threat.
This is basic human communication. The fact that I have to sit here and explain to you how to figure out what words mean should make you think about the position you continue to defend.
No, it also has to be controversial, as in revealing a widespread disagreement in whatever population of people are considering it be it an single family or the entire population of the nation.
If you're calling it a public controversy it would have to be widespread amongst the public. Even your own words establish my point.
Accusing the president of rape is always going to be a matter of public interest and in this case is also a public controversy.
Yep, just like Trump's other 25 accusers whom no one knows their names.
When the President of the United States repeatedly attacks you on his social media platforms, that tends to turn an individual to a pubic figure.Failed to answer the question I see.
Read harder.
I don't think they would. They've shown cowardice on many occasions by refusing to take up cases.
lol of course.
It's only the most sacred right of all Americans that you claim is under flagrant legal assault, why take up that case?
It really is amazing to watch. You know they won't even take it let alone rule in Trump's favor because you know there is no actual legal basis for them to overturn this, but rather than admitting that you make up excuses on why a 6-3 conservative court, a third of which appointed by Trump himself wouldn't even bother hearing it. You know you're argument here is wrong.
It's personal property of POTUS and whoever he decides to give copies to.
Complete bullshit. The president works for the American people, he doesn't magically own the federal government or any part of it he decides to grant onto himself.
This is such basic common sense. You couldn't be any more obviously wrong. Why do you keep defending such obvious nonsense?
The US government is not short of letter paper or toner. They don't need any of it, they just didn't want Trump to have copies.
It's not about the paper genius, it's about the information on that paper. You know, like top secret SCI nuclear documents that belong in a SCIF...
And you're damn right they don't want Trump to have copies of this stuff being stored next to a bunch of toilets or on a stage at Mar-A-Lago or in his golf club in Jersey where he decided to share it with people who have absolutely no business viewing classified information. That is again, common sense.
Well hows this for common sense: If the government owned the documents (the physical pieces of paper), and taking something you don't own is theft, then even taking them in the first place is theft. Therefore Joe Biden stole documents.
Taking something you don't own intentionally along with knowing you had no right to it is theft. No one gets charged for taking something by accident, like when someone walks out of a store with paper towels at the bottom of their cart the cashier didn't scan... No one gets prosecuted for that. That is common sense.
Again, Trump wasn't charged for stealing government documents merely by taking them out of the White House so this entire point is yet another distraction you continue to resort to because you are so obviously wrong on everything else you need something to latch onto so you can look like you're making sense.
[bla bla bla pretending POTUS isn't POTUS] Is all irrelevant to you?Yep. To me it's no different than charging Trump with impersonating an official of the united states for hanging around in the oval office or hijacking airforce one (by flying in it).
Yeah, this is where we are.
Me: A private citizen lying to the federal government about possessing classified documents and obstructing the investigation into their whereabouts in order to avoid handing them back is not the same thing as flying around air force one as the president.
You: No, they're totally the same.
Well we can agree to disagree on that one. Enjoy that delusion, and if you secede from the union please take every moron who thinks that with you. I can't wait to see how your rule of law works out.
Unequally applied law is tyrannical law. Enforcing laws unequally is by definition the absence of the rule of law.
This right here is the heart of all of our disagreement. Behind all of your flagrant violations of basic common sense this is the foundation you sit on; the idea that Trump is being persecuted simply because he's Donald Trump. The problem is that when you are losing every legal argument (as you clearly are) this becomes nothing but an unfalsifiable fantasy.
The Biden/Trump distinction on the classified documents couldn't be a better example. Despite the obvious differences, you contend they are the same. You contend that the fact that they ever went after Trump and not Biden in the first place nullifies everything after it. And in so doing, you ignore all of the obvious reasons they would have gone after Trump's documents; the severity of the documents he took and the volume of the documents he took. You act as if merely asking him for those documents back was some kind of trap. It takes a truly warped mind to think that.
Trump is in this position because he is the only politician we've ever seen stupid enough to tell the government he did not possess classified documents as he was storing them by the box load in a golf club bathroom. He's the only person stupid enough to order his IT team to delete video footage he learned the FBI was working on subpoenaing. He's the only defendant stupid enough to continue publicly attacking the person he's literally sitting in a courtroom with as he is on trial for defaming that very person.
Trump is a special kind of stupid and flouts the law to a very special degree. If you cannot figure out how that man ends up being prosecuted where others weren't, and the only explanation you can come up with instead is that he is being persecuted for political reasons... Your brain just doesn't work.
-->
@Double_R
when you are losing every legal argument...
The real problem is that he is NOT losing every legal argument, as evidenced by the fact that it's increasingly likely he won't have a trial before he becomes president again. It also shows the arbitrariness of the legal system.
Alan Dershowitz's book "Get Trump" has dozens of cited examples where the "shoe on the other foot" legal test fails repeatedly.
“Remember the special prosecutor wasn’t asked to look into everybody who may have mishandled classified material. He was tasked only with getting Trump.”
-Dershowitz
The real problem is that he is NOT losing every legal argument, as evidenced by the fact that it's increasingly likely he won't have a trial before he becomes president again. It also shows the arbitrariness of the legal system.
Bullshit. Trump is losing every legal argument. But because he has money and political influence, he gets an opportunity to explore every legal argument, including hair brained legal arguments. This allows him to delay justice. The legal system isn’t arbitrary, it just works better for people with money.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Our legal system is based on precedent, and there are only two alternatives: precedent will be followed and will end up preserving the rights of future public figures and the integrity of our elections; or precedent will not be followed and will turn the law into an ad hoc weapon that can selectively target political opponents.
Partisan zealots don’t care about precedent because their goals are short term—immediate gratification of their political needs.
Using unconstitutional efforts to stop Trump adversely affects the very foundations of our liberty: due process, right to counsel, and free speech. Those partisan hacks who justify these dangerous departures from the rule of law argue that the threat posed by a second Trump presidency is “different” and “immediate,” while the departures from constitutional norms are only unique to Trump, and would never be used in any other instance.
Dershowitz explains in "Get Trump" that defenders of Trump’s constitutional rights—even those like Dershowitz who oppose Trump politically—are sought to be silenced; their free speech rights attacked, their integrity questioned, and their careers and family threatened. In their determination to get Trump, the media now avoids objective reporting and many in academia petition and propagandize against the very rights they previously valued before 2016. While the chapters where Dershowitz defends himself from these personal attacks are kind of uninteresting to me, his other points are very compelling.
The essence of justice is that it must be equally applicable to all. No one is above the law, but searching for crimes to pin on one's political opponent does not constitute the equal application of the law. (give me the man, I will find a crime.) In his book, to assure equal application in comparable situations, there must be two criteria for indicting a likely candidate of the opposing party: the Richard Nixon standard (a bipartisan effort because of obvious crimes) and the Hillary Clinton standard (absolved for mishandling and destroying classified info)—and most recently, the Joe Biden standard (mostly just a double standard). Dershowitz calls this "the shoe on the other foot test"
Dershowitz warns that regardless of whether this anti-democratic effort to stop Trump from running succeeds or fails, it is likely to create dangerous precedents that will be used in the future against other controversial candidates, officials, or citizens. The argument again will be that these new precedents pose a dangerous threat that is "different” from the usual political threats experienced before. In the grand balance, those very real threats backed with historical precedence are far greater than any dystopian fanfiction about what Trump could do with another 4 years.
When the situation is so "different" and the threat so serious, the "get Trumpers" believe it calls for extraordinary measures--even setting aside the Constitution and Bill of Rights. In history there have been times when rights and civil liberties were trashed because people believed a situation was so "different" from ever before.
Here is the context of historical examples:
President Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus because he believed the Confederate threat was "different" and those thought to be a threat could then be arrested and held indefinitely. Teddy Roosevelt also walked that line during the heavy-handed regulatory period where he thought too much private property posed a "different" kind of threat. In World War II, Japan was a "different" kind of threat and so President Roosevelt had 110,000 Japanese Americans sent to US concentration camps. The 9/11 Twin Towers attack was "different" and used to justify waterboarding and permanent detention and the Patriot Act.
Today, the Democrats claim Donald J Trump's 2024 re-election would pose a grave threat that's so "different" it justifies doing anything to "Get Trump."
Dershowitz's final conclusion in his book states: "... we can survive Trump ... (we all survived 2016-2020) .... it is less certain that we can survive the current attacks on our basic rights ... by those who would try to get Trump at any cost."
I for one agree with Dershowitz.
Alan Dershowitz may be a lifelong liberal Democrat and he never voted for Trump, and he probably never WILL vote for Trump. But his call to avoid the folly of political prosecutions and a double standard of justice, etc, isn't being headed by his party. Dershowitz is now predictably being labeled a MAGA Trump lover, rather than being recognized as the persistent defender of civil liberties that he has always been. That is the failure of America.
Our legal system is based on precedent, and there are only two alternatives: precedent will be followed and will end up preserving the rights of future public figures and the integrity of our elections; or precedent will not be followed and will turn the law into an ad hoc weapon that can selectively target political opponents.
Gee, you mean like with Roe v Wade? What happened to that precedent?
President Roosevelt had 110,000 Japanese Americans sent to US concentration camps.
Concentration camps? Really? Did they use the ovens to burn the bodies too? Idiot
Gee, you mean like with Roe v Wade? What happened to that precedent?
The Supreme Court decided finally that it no longer had the authority to create rights from the bench. Only the Congress has the authority to do that. That was a rare instance of reversing bad precedent. We are nowhere near showing any signs of reversing any of the damage TDS has done to our institutions.
-->
@Double_R
The rule of law in this country is not subject to your opinion of your fellow citizens.Reality is not subject to your opinion of what constitutes the rule of law.It's not my opinion. Juries get the final say, that's the law. You can look it up. It's there. Every attorney in the country knows this. Why you don't is beyond me.
When a West Virginia jury finds EJC liable for a trillion dollars of defamation you'll find a new theory. That certainty is the proof that reality and the assertions of a jury are two different things.
You want us to defer to this jury, but we do not.Then you do not care about the rule of law. Period.
Wrong. The rule of law is not defined as blind obedience to any assertion by any persons. If you define it that way I reject your definition as morally useless as evidenced by the fact that it would be unable to condemn the nazi courts as lawless.
You keep trying to insinuate that I am arguing the jury as the arbiter of reality
You answered the challenge: Provide defamatory statements
With: "The jury decides"
This is no strawman
Do not ask me for legal theories or talk about jurisprudence or precedent
Too late.
You're putting the cart before the horse by claiming the statements begin as non-defamatory.
I didn't realize statements were defamatory until proved otherwise. Must have missed the 200 years of jurisprudence on that one.
Whether they are defamatory depends on the context in which they are spoken in.
If orange-man opens his mouth, it's defamation. If non-orange-man opens her mouth to accuse orange-man of rape without a shred of evidence, it's not defamation.
Here let's try an example: "eh, nice family you got there, would be a real shame if something happened to them".So what was this statement? A threat? A statement of concern for your family? It depends on the context.
Uh huh, so the secret meaning of "It never happened, she's lying" is ____?
If you're calling it a public controversy it would have to be widespread amongst the public. Even your own words establish my point.
You're just repeating yourself. I'm dropping this point until you find something new to say.
Accusing the president of rape is always going to be a matter of public interest and in this case is also a public controversy.Yep, just like Trump's other 25 accusers whom no one knows their names.
Yes, anyone of them could be called liar by anyone in the world and that could never be defamation by the precedent of English common law, especially in the 1st amendment context.
You know you're argument here is wrong.
I know you have not and will not produce a single precedent that anything DJT said about EJC was defamation. The facts don't lie, unlike people robed or not.
personal property of POTUS and whoever he decides to give copies to.Complete bullshit. The president works for the American people
So you're saying the classified documents are ours? Great I say declassify it all. Whatever advantage over foreign adversaries federal secrets may allow is insignificant compared to the threat against our freedoms that this empire of spies poses.
Taking something you don't own intentionally along with knowing you had no right to it is theft. No one gets charged for taking something by accident
and every other ex-official with government documents did it by accident, they were all just that clueless and the federal library squad (NARA) was just that lax.
Biden accidentally stacked up hundreds of documents in and around his garage and closets. Or.... he didn't think he was unauthorized because he was authorized because they rewrote their interpretation book to GET TRUMP.
I can't wait to see how your rule of law works out.
Same to you.
Unequally applied law is tyrannical law. Enforcing laws unequally is by definition the absence of the rule of law.This right here is the heart of all of our disagreement. Behind all of your flagrant violations of basic common sense this is the foundation you sit on; the idea that Trump is being persecuted simply because he's Donald Trump.
I think I've made my theories rather clear and their motivations are quite comprehensible if not honorable.
The problem is that when you are losing every legal argument (as you clearly are) this becomes nothing but an unfalsifiable fantasy.
You have typed many words, but that does not win a legal argument. Everything Trump has said is protected speech for one reason or another. Protected by precedent, some of which is 400 years old. You admit to these protections in several cases. You dance, you hide, but I am not so easily distracted. You have placed the word "context" upon the alter of legal magic and it has not turned into a phoenix.
If you did not so desperately cling to the assertion of defamation while at the same time utterly failing to provide a single statement that was defamatory there might be an ounce of credibility to your claims of being an advocate for the rule of law.
You contend that the fact that they ever went after Trump and not Biden in the first place nullifies everything after it.
The fact that they're pretending Biden or Trump weren't authorized nullifies it. Trump was of course more authorized being POTUS, but it's also ridiculous to claim a vice president isn't authorized to know classified information if POTUS shares it with him.
The law was obviously designed so that unauthorized people (who were never authorized) would have to return documents they found by accident, the contents of which they were never meant to know.
Even if I were to accept that the law meant something else, it would have to be adjudicated and equally applied which it was not.
You act as if merely asking him for those documents back was some kind of trap.
A fair assessment. The deep state loves to entrap people. See Whitmer plot.
He's the only defendant stupid enough to continue publicly attacking the person he's literally sitting in a courtroom with as he is on trial for defaming that very person.
You are definitely right about it being unprecedented.
He's the only person so hated that denying a crime was declared defamatory by a former court of law. Never happened before.
Your brain just doesn't work.
Hey, you got any of those defamatory statements yet? No? Are you spelling out "context" again?
Gee, you mean like with Roe v Wade? What happened to that precedent?
There is a difference between changing precedent, and changing it to get someone.
Changing Roe v Wade to get someone would look like this:
Roe v Wade was wrong, therefore all those laws that were struck down as unconstitutional were still the law all this time. Therefore millions of women are guilty of murder have a nice day.
Changing the definition of defamation or what presidents can take home from the white house is one thing. Changing the definition and using it to ex post facto attack one guy... (or anyone who thinks like him)...
Leaves very little doubt as to who believes in the rule of law and who doesn't.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Striking down Roe was simply a request for Congress to clean up their own mess instead of asking the SCOTUS to draft citizen rights from the bench. It's extremely rare for even bad precedence to EVER be reversed, but reversing good legal precedence for the sake of getting one man is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Destroying good legal precedents so flippantly and inexorably incrementally shows how incredibly weak our democratic institutions are right now.
-->
@Greyparrot
The real problem is that he is NOT losing every legal argument, as evidenced by the fact that it's increasingly likely he won't have a trial before he becomes president again.
I don't think you read the latest opinion by the DC circuit. He didn't just lose that case, the DC court unanimously ruled that Trump's arguments were a fundamental and blatant disregard for the basic principals of our government and constitution.
The reason he will possibly not see trial before the election is because Trump is doing what Trump always does; exploits every loophole in our legal system no matter how absurd to get the results he wants. This entire effort is nothing more than a delay tactic which our system is vulnerable to. That has no bearing on the merits of his defense, which are BTW completely non existent. If he had an actual defense he would want this trial before the election so he could exonerate himself, he knows he can't.
“Remember the special prosecutor wasn’t asked to look into everybody who may have mishandled classified material. He was tasked only with getting Trump.”-Dershowitz
The deceitfulness and dishonesty of this quote is yet another example of why Dershowitz along with the rest of Trump's MAGA cult are not taken seriously.
Smith didn't come in board to "get Trump". The DOJ was already handling the classified documents case. Smith came on board because as soon as Trump announced he was running, Garland decided that he as someone who technically reports to Biden (even though there is no evidence whatsoever of coordination been the two) should not be in charge of the investigation into Biden's political opponent. In other words, Smith was brought on to take the investigations out of Garland's hands to avoid the appearance of impropriety.
What's funny is that before Garland outsourced these investigations, all indications is that Trump was going to get a free pass despite his brazen disregard for basic laws. Had Smith taken over a year or so earlier, there would have been no chance of Trump not being tried before the election, so Biden's DOJ is the literal reason Trump may yet get off on these charges. But does that matter at all in MAGA cult world? No, of course not.
-->
@Double_R
The real problem is that he is NOT losing every legal argument, as evidenced by the fact that it's increasingly likely he won't have a trial before he becomes president again.I don't think you read the latest opinion by the DC circuit. He didn't just lose that case, the DC court unanimously ruled that Trump's arguments were a fundamental and blatant disregard for the basic principals of our government and constitution.
Yes, but they lied. They didn't even need to lie, they just wanted quotable snippets to circulate in AP so people would talk about them.
When a pseudo-judge feels empowered and entitled to lie about the arguments being made, is that winning a legal argument? I say it isn't.
This entire effort is nothing more than a delay tactic which our system is vulnerable to.
Which works because they tried to time it to interfere with the election. They could have made these allegations in 2021, but that would have played out before the election which means it might have been a big win for Trump and there would be less pressure on the left-tribe judges to "make the right call for democracy".
The deceitfulness and dishonesty of this quote is yet another example of why Dershowitz along with the rest of Trump's MAGA cult are not taken seriously.
"rest of" now Dershowitz is a MAGA cultist. Only a cultist would think Dershowitz isn't a MAGA cultist after all.
Rule of law, that's what you call this right? Hey is Dershowitz a lawyer? cause you said no lawyer agrees with me so I assume you're calling him a pseudo-lawyer on top of a cultist.
Smith was brought on to take the investigations out of Garland's hands to avoid the appearance of impropriety.
If there is a guinness book of world records for PR failures, this should be seriously considered for the #1 position. He's not even a properly appointed special prosecutor. He is a pseudo-prosecutor in more than once sense of the word.
Biden's DOJ is the literal reason Trump may yet get off on these charges. But does that matter at all in MAGA cult world? No, of course not.
Ah, so the timing designed to interfere with the election was a favor from Garland. heheheeeee tell me another one.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
When a West Virginia jury finds EJC liable for a trillion dollars of defamation you'll find a new theory.
No, I'll support the process which includes appeals that would in such a ridiculous case surely make it's way up to the supreme court if not overturned sooner. That requires arguments, not declarations of who gets to be considered by myself as real American citizens.
That certainty is the proof that reality and the assertions of a jury are two different things.
No one is arguing that they are the same thing, in fact I went into depth on this point in my last post which you clearly didn't bother to read. Too many words for you I guess.
The rule of law is not defined as blind obedience to any assertion by any persons. If you define it that way...
I don't. Read my actual arguments.
I didn't realize statements were defamatory until proved otherwise.
Not what I wrote. Read my actual arguments.
If you're calling it a public controversy it would have to be widespread amongst the public. Even your own words establish my point.You're just repeating yourself. I'm dropping this point until you find something new to say.
I'm repeating myself because you have yet to our together anything resembling a rebuttal to this point.
A Twitter post read by one person is by no reasonable definition, a public controversy.
I can't believe we are really at the point where I have to say this.
I know you have not and will not produce a single precedent that anything DJT said about EJC was defamation.
If I have to explain to you what context means and the role it plays in communicating with other human beings, there's no way I'm about to waste my time citing legal precedent with you.
and every other ex-official with government documents did it by accident, they were all just that clueless and the federal library squad (NARA) was just that lax.
The default position by law is that any documents taken were not done so on purpose (it's called innocent until proven guilty). So until you have valid evidence of intent, there's little in most cases to prosecute.
An example of valid evidence might include ordering your lawyers to sign affidavit's saying everything was returned when it was not, having your staff move boxes to evade detection, ordering your IT department to delete subpoenad video footage... You know, stuff like that.
Biden accidentally stacked up hundreds of documents in and around his garage and closets.
Bullshit. Biden had about 25 classified documents. Trump had 325. Not the same thing.
If you did not so desperately cling to the assertion of defamation while at the same time utterly failing to provide a single statement that was defamatory there might be an ounce of credibility to your claims of being an advocate for the rule of law.
I provided them when I pasted the link to the judges ruling which contained them and went into fine detail on why they were defamatory. You then posted them yourself, so for you to sit here and pretend you've been demanding that I explain what his statements were and insinuate that I'm somehow hiding them is patently absurd and dishonest.
I would have been very happy to go through them in detail and explain how they are defamatory but you took the conversation elsewhere by instead challenging the very basic notions of how we figure that out in the first place. So instead of explaining how the context of one sentence affects the next I've had to sit here and explain to you how's context itself works.
If you had chosen a more serious and frankly intelligent line of defense this would have been a much more worth while conversation.
The law was obviously designed so that unauthorized people (who were never authorized) would have to return documents they found by accident, the contents of which they were never meant to know.Even if I were to accept that the law meant something else, it would have to be adjudicated and equally applied which it was not.
Classified government documents belong to the government.
When the owner of something learns that you have it and asks for it back, you haber to give it back.
Thisv is all basic common sense, there's nothing there to adjudicate.
He's the only person so hated that denying a crime was declared defamatory by a former court of law. Never happened before.
Didn't happen here. Let me know when you'd like to join the conversation.
-->
@Double_R
When a West Virginia jury finds EJC liable for a trillion dollars of defamation you'll find a new theory.No, I'll support the process which includes appeals that would in such a ridiculous case surely make it's way up to the supreme court if not overturned sooner.
What if the supreme court refuses to take up the case (as they would)?
That requires arguments
Arguments do not prevail against those who are not committed to being rational.
I know you have not and will not produce a single precedent that anything DJT said about EJC was defamation.If I have to explain to you what context means and the role it plays in communicating with other human beings, there's no way I'm about to waste my time citing legal precedent with you.
You don't have to do anything of the sort. You're pretending context magically makes non-defamatory statements defamatory.
and every other ex-official with government documents did it by accident, they were all just that clueless and the federal library squad (NARA) was just that lax.The default position by law is that any documents taken were not done so on purpose (it's called innocent until proven guilty).
Red herring. The fact that they all took home the documents is evidence that this law was never interpreted this way before.
If you did not so desperately cling to the assertion of defamation while at the same time utterly failing to provide a single statement that was defamatory there might be an ounce of credibility to your claims of being an advocate for the rule of law.I provided them when I pasted the link to the judges ruling which contained them and went into fine detail on why they were defamatory.
From post #338: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10369/posts/423734
[ADOL] Well after filtering out these non-defamatory statements:1) Assertions of innnocence2) Arguments to innocence3) Comments on matters of public interest4) Statement of opinion5) Insults and belittlmentThere was nothing left. So you're going to have to be more specific.
You never responded.
I would have been very happy to go through them in detail and explain how they are defamatory
I doubt it.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The fact that they all took home the documents is evidence that this law was never interpreted this way before.
With the recent Special Counsel ruling on Biden, it's now more likely than ever for Trump to receive the same outcome, as they will use that decision as a precedent in court. It's far easier to prove the similarities than the differences.
-->
@Greyparrot
The determination of a special counsel is not precedent, it's just a prosecutor acting like a prosecutor. The bizarre scenario is when the prosecutors don't presume guilt like with Hunter Biden and you know all those insurrectionists from the summer of love. That's how you get unequal application of the law and the system no longer becomes "rule of law"
Of course there is no precedent against Trump either, they just are in the midst of self-delusions and don't want to admit it much like Double_RR here will write a 1500 page book before he'll explain why a single statement of Trump's is defamatory (he knows the moment he brings one up I'll provide a mountain of jurisprudence proving it isn't defamation, possibly using Double R's own statements as well)
P.S. oh he decided not to charge Joe, never mind. Pseudo-prosecutor. A lot like the Clinton emails "Uh yea he violated the law (as they pretend to understand it) we just don't care"
Why do they do that? Wouldn't it be better to lie about the behavior rather than blatantly just ignoring it? Oh yea "prosecutorial discretion". I repeat: A violation of the 14th amendment.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
It's not "precedent" but it's another legal term...I saw it on a far left news clip, but I forgot what it was called.
Edit: It was on CNN, they said Trump now has a basis to file a motion for selective prosecution.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Double_RR here will write a 1500 page book before he'll explain why a single statement of Trump's is defamatory
It's really an extension of decades of social conditioning where if something is perceived by the victim as defamatory, then the suspect is necessarily guilty. This ties into the whole failed social experiment of "unconscious bias" that claims any word you say can unconsciously be defamatory(racist), and therefore subject to various remedies for the aggrieved party at the cost of the person talking. It's as if simply feeling aggrieved is the necessary condition for defamation. In the real world, the person talking is never responsible for the delusions of the listener. Every SCOTUS case on the 1st Amendment affirms this principle, but people just don't care.
-->
@Greyparrot
Edit: It was on CNN, they said Trump now has a basis to file a motion for selective prosecution.
Who doesn't really. Everyone arrested for Jan 6 also has that basis.
17 days later
***
Locking this thread for moderation review (without the pile to review growing exponentially)
***