Jump to content

mspart

Members
  • Posts

    3,848
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    18

Posts posted by mspart

  1. The FBI paid Twitter to censor people that posted on Twitter.   Especially with regards to the laptop.  You are assuming the laptop was a plant from what you are saying.   The laptop was left at a laptop repair center apparently forgotten.   This was not planned by Trump or his administration.  But it was effectively shut down by FBI and Twitter before the election because it was possibly some Russian election interference. 

    Is that what we want our government officials doing?  Stopping news that they don't want to hear?  FBI is complicit in this and needs massive reform.    

    mspart

  2. https://freebeacon.com/courts/batsh-t-crazy-washington-state-supreme-court-says-any-accusation-of-racial-bias-should-lead-to-a-retrial/

    ‘Batsh—t Crazy’: Washington State Supreme Court Says Any Accusation of Racial Bias Should Lead to a Retrial

    Aaron Sibarium • December 22, 2022 4:59 am

    If a party to a civil lawsuit accuses his opponent’s lawyers of any sort of racial stereotyping, judges must order a retrial. That appears to be the implication of an October ruling from the Washington State Supreme Court.

    When litigants claim that racial bias affected a trial verdict, state justice Raquel Montoya-Lewis wrote in a unanimous opinion, the opposing party "must prove how it did not," demonstrating that nothing said at trial played on the jury’s "unconscious biases." Absent such proof—which lawyers say will be impossible to furnish—courts must grant a new trial, the opinion indicates.

    Lawyers and legal scholars are aghast, arguing that the decision undermines bedrock principles of the American justice system.

    "This decision is batshit crazy," said David Bernstein, a professor of constitutional law at George Mason University.

    The ruling came after a black woman, Janelle Henderson, demanded $3.5 million in damages from a white defendant, Alicia Thompson, who had rear-ended her. At the trial, which took place in 2019, Thompson’s lawyers described Henderson as "combative," suggested she had coached her witnesses, and accused her of exaggerating her injuries for financial gain.

    When the jury only awarded Henderson $9,200—not the millions she’d sued for—she filed a motion for a new trial, claiming that the defense’s "biased statements" had "influenced the jury’s unconscious bias."

    The Washington Supreme Court agreed. By calling Henderson "combative," Montoya-Lewis wrote, the defense evoked "the harmful stereotype of an ‘angry Black woman.'" And by suggesting that she had coached her witnesses, it "alluded to racist stereotypes about Black women as untrustworthy and motivated by the desire to acquire an unearned financial windfall."

    The case has since been sent back to a trial court, which will consider Henderson’s motion for a retrial in light of the new standard.

    While Montoya-Lewis called the verdict a step toward "greater justice," lawyers see it as a Kafkaesque assault on the most basic norms of due process. "I don’t know how anyone could prove this negative," said Scott Greenfield, a defense attorney in New York City, referring to the burden the verdict places on the accused to show that bias played no role in the proceedings. "It completely negates the entirety of American jurisprudence."

    In almost every legal dispute, from criminal lawsuits to civil rights cases, it is the accusers who bear the ultimate burden of proof. To meet it, they must demonstrate that their claims are at least more likely than not to be true, a standard known as "preponderance of the evidence."

    Montoya-Lewis’s opinion turns these norms on their head, allowing the loser of a trial to get a do-over without any hard evidence of bias. If an attorney "uses language that could evoke racist stereotypes," the opinion reads, "the court must conclude that substantial justice has not been done and order a new trial."

    Even lawyers concerned about the effects of racism say the verdict sets a chilling precedent.

    "Obviously it’s important that jury verdicts not be tainted by racial bias," said Samantha Harris, a First Amendment attorney in Philadelphia. "But if you throw every objective measure and conventional burden of proof out the window, you’re essentially left with the Salem racial witch trials."

    The reasoning at work in the decision, Greenfield and Harris said, could make it next to impossible to defend against civil suits from minority plaintiffs, let alone conduct a normal trial. By definition, trial lawyers must question the opposing party’s credibility, often by implying negative things about them; if any such implication can be recast as a racial trope, litigants will have unlimited ammunition to challenge outcomes they don’t like.

    "There’s now a racial trope for everything short of breathing air," Greenfield said. "That means there will be an opportunity to make this grievance in every single case."

    Though the court’s opinion focused on implicit bias against blacks, it could theoretically allow people of any race—including whites—to demand a retrial on racial grounds. For example, Bernstein argued, the ruling could prevent attorneys from implying that an Italian defendant is part of the mafia, or that a white defendant discriminated against minority employees.

    "Doesn’t that play on the stereotype of all white people being prejudiced?" Bernstein said.

    The Washington State Supreme Court did not respond to a request for comment.

    For attorneys with trial experience, the ruling’s ramifications are scary to contemplate.

    "I’m sure you could find stuff in my transcripts, take it out of context, and accuse me of bias," said Joshua Kendrick, a criminal and civil litigator in Greenville, S.C., who identifies as a liberal. "Would I need to try every case with that worry in the back of my head?"

    Beyond forcing lawyers to walk on egg shells, the new standard could encourage defendants to settle based on the race of the plaintiff. Attorneys' fees are expensive, even for frivolous lawsuits, said Mark Lamb, a civil litigator in Seattle. "If you have to bear the expense of another trial," Lamb said, "it effectively works as a financial penalty on the party that initially prevailed."

    The verdict could also turbocharge the budding industry of jury consultants—people who are paid by trial lawyers to help root out biased jurors. Most of that consulting currently happens during jury selection, before cross-examination gets underway. But with implicit bias now grounds for a do-over, jury consultants could soon begin sitting through the whole trial, hunting for real or imagined tropes that lawyers might use to challenge an unfavorable verdict.

    "One of the most odious implications of this is that people like Robin DiAngelo will be paid to sit in a trial and look for racial bias," Lamb said.

    The legal movement associated with those people, critical race theory, was on full display in the court’s decision. Montoya-Lewis cited several well-known critical race theorists, including Derrick Bell, Ian Haney López, and Charles Lawrence, as authorities on racial bias, as well as a law review article by Trina Jones and Kimberly Norwood: "Aggressive Encounters & White Fragility: Deconstructing the Trope of the Angry Black Woman."

    The footnotes also include Racial Microaggressions: Using Critical Race Theory to Respond to Everyday Racism, by Daniel Solórzano and Lindsay Pérez Huber, and Eloquent Rage: A Black Feminist Discovers Her Superpower, by Brittney Cooper.

    Once confined to the margins of academia, these ideas are now spreading throughout the legal profession. In 2020, a plethora of judges and court systems put out statements affirming their complicity in systemic racism. And in October, the federal court of Rhode Island touted critical race theory as a "resource" to "transform" the judiciary.

    As Washington litigators adjust to their new burden of proof, the state may offer a preview of how that transformation will play out.

    "This is taking a sledgehammer to a nail," Harris said. "Dispensing with fundamental norms of evidence can have a lot of unforeseen consequences."

    The WA State Supreme Court is made up of leftists who's political ideology more closely resembles Seattle City Council than a  rule of law kind of place.  This is what happens when you have ideologues in places of power.   Granted, we get what we voted for.   I just hope people wake up around here for the next few election cycles to clear these morons out.  This is going to be a real problem for WA and I hope other states do not adopt this idiotic legal notion of if there was racism in your trial, you get a new trial.  Period.   How do you prove a negative?  Quote:  the opposing party "must prove how it did not" raise racism as an issue.

    I accuse you of taking my property.   During the trial, if I lose, I can say you used racism against me and you would have to prove you didn't.   That is not how our system works.   But apparently that is now the rule in WA. 

    mspart

     

  3. https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2022/1229/Jan.-6-committee-withdraws-Trump-subpoena-prepares-to-dissolve

    Here are some excerpts.  You can read the whole thing if you care to. 

    The House Jan. 6 committee has dropped its subpoena against former President Donald Trump as it wraps up work and prepares to dissolve next week.

    Mississippi Rep. Bennie Thompson, the committee's Democratic chairman, wrote in a letter to Mr. Trump's lawyer David Warrington on Wednesday that he is formally withdrawing the subpoena.

    “As you may know, the Select Committee has concluded its hearings, released its final report and will very soon reach its end,” Rep. Thompson wrote. “In light of the imminent end of our investigation, the Select Committee can no longer pursue the specific information covered by the subpoena.”

    ...  Mr. Trump then sued the panel in November to avoid cooperating. The lawsuit contended that while former presidents have voluntarily agreed to provide testimony or documents in response to congressional subpoenas in the past, “no president or former president has ever been compelled to do so.”

    The committee’s request for documents was sweeping, including personal communications between Mr. Trump and members of Congress as well as extremist groups. Mr. Trump’s attorneys said it was overly broad and framed it as an infringement of his First Amendment rights.

    ... On social media Wednesday evening, Mr. Trump and his lawyers construed the move as a victory. “They probably did so because they knew I did nothing wrong, or they were about to lose in Court,” Mr. Trump wrote on his social media site.

    On Twitter, Mr. Trump's lawyer Harmeet Dhillon said the panel had “waved the white flag."

    So here we can go with the committee's statement that they essentially ran out of time and there won't be a committee to testify to in the next month.   So subpoena goes away.

    Or we could use a little reasoning here.   D's were fairly confident they would lose the House.   The fact this came true was not a surprise.  So why did they allow the clock to run on this?  Is it a fact that the lawsuit brought up the committee's illegitimate and biased stance and showed the subpoena was without merit?   From another statement from Harmeet Dhillon -

    “After my firm filed suit on separation of powers grounds to block January 6 House Select Committee’s illegitimate subpoena to President Trump over his activities while president—the committee waved the white flag & withdrew subpoena,” Dhillon said in a message on social media early Thursday.  “We were confident of victory,” she added, “in court, given precedent & refusal of prior presidents to testify in Congress. J6 committee wasted millions for a purely political witch-hunt, total abuse of process & power serving no legitimate legislative purpose.

    This seems to be something of note really.   Was the committee close to losing and gave up, or did they somehow, allow the clock to run out when they knew the clock would run out?  I think the former.   They are using the time now to save face.  In my opinion. 

    mspart

  4. Getting home from Leavenworth WA alive through a snow storm and the mountain pass closing just after we went through, and I mean just after.   On the other side they were already closing it down.   It was a gift to get home in one piece without any car damage or people damage. 

    mspart

    • Fire 4
  5. On 12/26/2022 at 12:31 PM, BerniePragle said:

    "You are all misleading one another, and are yourselves deceived. The sun does not go round the earth, but the earth goes round the sun, revolving as it goes, and turning towards the sun in the course of each twenty-four hours, not only Japan, and the Philippines, and Sumatra where we now are, but Africa, and Europe, and America, and many lands besides. The sun does not shine for some one mountain, or for some one island, or for some one sea, nor even for one earth alone, but for other planets as well as our earth. If you would only look up at the heavens, instead of at the ground beneath your own feet, you might all understand this, and would then no longer suppose that the sun shines for you, or for your country alone."

    — Leo Tolstoy

    Eleven Stories

    Leo Tolstoy was never in Seattle in winter.   The sun never shines here. 😄

    mspart

    • Haha 1
  6. So you both would just comply with no reasoning whatsoever.   FBI can't come into your house and demand you do or don't do something without a warrant.   You both should know this watching all those cop and FBI shows. 

    But again, you did not answer the point.   There were no state secrets, just Biden family secrets.   Why were folks in FBI concerned about Biden family secrets?   Rather than asking hypotheticals, it's better to ask salient questions about what happened.    So why were they so concerned about Biden family secrets?   They knew this was not Russian disinformation.  What was their motive?

    Rather than turn this back on me, answer the questions if you can.   You don't care to because that would tank your argument.   Typical sophomoric debating tactics you guys are using. 

    mspart

     

    • Haha 1
  7. Mike posted - Elmo might want to try to salvage Tesla before it hits zero...

     

    Yes, I believe he said he will be moving on as CEO of Twitter.   The Twits voted him out.   Maybe he'll help you out and go back and turn Tesla around.  It's nice that you are so concerned. 

    mspart

  8. 1 hour ago, BobDole said:

    Don't care, if the FBI comes to your house and says remove a Facebook post do you do it? Asking for a friend.

    No, not unless they have a warrant or some reasoning that can be corroborated.  They don't dictate what goes on any medium.   Not their place.    But that is not what happened here.   There were no state secrets, just Biden family secrets.   Why were folks in FBI concerned about Biden family secrets?   Rather than asking hypotheticals, it's better to ask salient questions about what happened.    So why were they so concerned about Biden family secrets?   They knew this was not Russian disinformation.  What was their motive?

    mspart

    • Fire 1
  9. 2 hours ago, Mike Parrish said:

    You're *OUTRAGED* but you guys can't point to any illegal behavior and you don't have an answer for what you want done.
     

    The fact that the FBI asked for the censoring and then it happened should not be a cause of concern for anyone, is that what you think?  I disagree.  It should be a cause of concern for everyone.   It was true information that the FBI asked to be squelched and Twitter obliged with no good reason as they admit in the Twitter files.   They did it based on no real criteria.   They did it because FBI said to and then they tried to justify it.  If this does not concern you, I'm wondering what would? 

    mspart

  10. 2 hours ago, Mike Parrish said:

    I didn't say "it's not real".

     

     

    Oh, then I must have misunderstood you below.   He asks why you don't believe the Twitter files are real.  You said, "Goes to the credibility of the author(s)."  So I'm thinking I understood and you are deflecting by saying you weren't saying "it's not real", when in fact, that is what you were saying.   See below screenshot. 

    mspart

    image.png.e269c29d649ce6b137b84033335478dd.png

  11. Hi Mike,

    First - No response.   I could have guessed based on the tone going on here. 

    Second - Have you not been following the news?    I thought I was speaking of something that everyone was aware of.  You feign ignorance by  requested evidence.   Well, here is some.   Simple google search. 

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-63996061

    https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/15/media/twitter-musk-journalists-hnk-intl/index.html

    https://www.theverge.com/2022/12/15/23512004/elon-musk-starts-banning-critical-journalists-from-twitter

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2022/12/15/twitter-journalists-suspended-musk/

    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/15/technology/twitter-suspends-journalist-accounts-elon-musk.html

    https://www.foxnews.com/media/olbermann-mocked-by-twitter-users-after-being-reduced-posting-from-his-dogs-account-he-has-snapped

    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/16/business/dealbook/twitter-musk-suspends-journalists-sanctions.html

    So there are a few points of evidence.   Apparently you were unaware this happened.   It was all the rage in the past week. 

    The items jross has complained about have been revealed, not just in words, but in the posts and emails as they were being actively discussed.   Yet you discount this.   You say it is not real.  But from what I have read, you still believe the Steele dossier is actual evidence that Trump should have been impeached and voted out by the Senate, even though all parties have shown it to be nothing but lies.  Hillary and the DNC had their hands all over it.   https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/clinton-campaign-dnc-paid-for-research-that-led-to-russia-dossier/2017/10/24/226fabf0-b8e4-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html

    That is why it is called the disgraced or debunked Steele Dossier.   The FBI knew it was fake but used it anyway to obtain FISA warrants.  https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/18/politics/steele-dossier-reckoning/index.html

    Why accept one but not the other?  If I have this wrong, I apologize. 

    mspart

  12. If it is not a big deal to censor, why was there such a hue and a cry when Musk put reporters and journalists on temporary ban?   If the feds colluding with Twitter to ban or censor certain speech, why was this a big deal?   Perhaps no one here cared but there were plenty who did. 

    mspart

    • Fire 1
  13. On 12/14/2022 at 3:24 PM, Ban Basketball said:

    I remember you talking about playing even years ago when I could still post on The Open (Closed) Mat, but how long have you played guitar?

    I've played for about 40+ years.   Off and on.   Playing more now than when the kids were at home.   I did some home recordings that came out ok. 

    But I am not that good, just like in wrestling.  I love wrestling, but never made it to state.   Almost did as a sophomore in HS, got Russian Flu as a Junior that took me out, and hyper-extended my elbow as a senior.  As a result of the last, I was able to complete my Eagle Scout project and finished that all up.   So some good came out of it.  Both mishaps occurred in Dec or Jan Jan and States were Feb.   Now I think I would have gone as a Senior for sure, and might have placed but even so, my wrestling career was not stellar.  But I was a volunteer wrestling coach to HS's wherever I've lived for about 40 years.   So there is something that really gets to me about wrestling. 

    Same with guitar.   I wish I was good, but I am not.   But I now have the equipment I have wanted.   Les Paul guitar, speaker cabinet and amplifier head.   I have fun with it still.   Learning new stuff keeps it all fresh.   I am improving all the time but progress is not quick.   I am a great fan of David Gilmour, who does not play fast (I cannot) but says so much with what he puts out there.  Thanks for asking. 

    mspart

    • Fire 3
  14. 1 hour ago, Mike Parrish said:

    OK, let's talk this out.

    The GOP presidential primary is a likely going to be a crowded affair because Trump looks weak.


    a) Trump is able to replicate 2016 by getting a plurality, but not a majority, of the delegates and wins like 2016 with weaker candidates dropping out along the way. Trump then gets badly beaten by Biden. ~20 points. And drags down the whole GOP ticket as the Democrats run across the country against the Fat Orange Bloviator, who is likely in serious legal trouble by this point.

    b) Trump loses and tells all of his followers that the primary was rigged and 'the most corrupt evAR' and that they should stay home. This likely results in a GOP turnout drop of between %20-30 across the board in most elections.

     

     

    Regarding a), that is a distinct possibility losing that bad.   Hence I am not for him running.  And I agree he will drag them Rs down considerably. 

    Regarding b), I think only the strongest Trump supporters  (Trump or nothing. ) may sit out.   That may be enough to skew the election.  But I don't think so.  I think they will get over it.  I hope I am right. 

    mspart

  15. Well it is apparent the author does not want anyone to take the Twitter Files seriously. 

    My question is how can you not?   Blatant politiking going on there with a veneer of self righteousness that nothing was happening here. 

    MistyRequiredBarnowl-size_restricted.gif

     

    • Fire 1
×
×
  • Create New...