MSM Bias On Display

When have I EVER told you or anyone else what to post or when to post or even attack you?

Truly, if an opinionated post of mine came across that way to you, or anyone for that matter,I apologize.

 

His schtick is always the same. "Left and right are the same and (usually the left) shouldn't do blah, blah, blah. I came here to tell you you all suck and now I'm gone." Except he repeats this every few months.

 

let me be clear on something. It’s not just the writing on the pages which demonstrate unequivocally that there’s partisanship in the report. I understand you believe that reading the documentary evidence somehow removes the partisanship, but nothing could be further than the truth.

On a daily basis, lawyers file briefs or go to trial on facts which they believe unequivocally prove their client’s position. With very few exceptions, there is always at least one lawyer in the room who learns his/her position is false. This is because his/her evidence that he/she presented to the court is in fact skewed towards his/her client. The other side gets to present their evidence as well. One only need to review a fully briefed motion for summary judgment on just about any subject to understand what I’m talking about.

The January 6 report is not only biased against Trump in the way that it’s written, but also in the way that it was investigated. You’re only hearing one side of the story. The other lawyer never presented their case. Witnesses were to cross, examined by trumps lawyers. It doesn’t make any difference why the Trump position wasn’t presented, because he’s not required to prove anything. The bias is not only in the evidence Congress allows you read, but also in the evidence that Congress doesn’t even present.

 

If you think his schtick is bad, you really don’t wanna know what we think of yours.
LOL

 

MSM = liberal news

 

Okay, fair enough if "mainstream" is simply being used as synonymous with "liberal." But in that event, I think that terminology is confusing and misleading. I feel like the phrase arose out of an era when conservatives had a stronger argument that the news was monopolized by left-leaning big city newspapers and the few broadcast tv channels. Today, there are more options for consumers of news than ever. I think that's generally a good thing, though we're also rightly concerned about AI, algorithms, or even people choosing to only consume perspectives with which they agree. I personally consume a lot of conservative analysis. It's not always pleasant, but I feel like it's almost an ethical obligation of citizenship.

 

I agree. That's really a weak thing to do. Especially if you keep doing it.

 

As a practicing trial lawyer for over 30 years, I have to disagree entirely with your premise. Lawyers collect evidence. From that evidence, we distill what we think os relevant, and from there we distill what is essential, and from there we distill what evidence can be useful, and what evidence is harmful. For the useful evidence, we highlight it. For the harmful, we look for ways to exclude it, mitigate it, or disparage it.

And so while the January 6 Report may be argued by you to be partisan because of the manor that the evidence is extrapolated and advocated, THE UNDERLYING EVIDENCE ITSELF IS NIT PARTISAN. It is evidence, to be used or not used by the Parties.

At the expense of repetition, I refer yiy only to the “discovery” - the actual underlying EVIDENCE. Use it as you wish, but the underlying EVIDENCE is what it is without alignment to Red or Blue.

 

Stop pointing out when other posters are wrong or they'll just have to stop posting here

 

30 years trial experience? So tell me this: you’re representing a defendant in an automobile accident. The plaintiff takes a witness deposition and doesn’t provide you notice of that deposition. Thus, the plaintiff takes the deposition without giving you the opportunity to cross examine the witness. Can that deposition be used as evidence in plaintiff’s MSJ?

or, you’re at trial, and the plaintive put his client on the stand to testify about the accident and the injuries. He’s the first and only witness. Legally, everything the plaintiff testified to is evidentiary and admissible. However, after the plaintiff’s testimony, the plaintiff’s attorney moves for a directed verdict much to the surprise of you …. who has not even cross examined the witness yet, let alone presented your own evidence. The judge, an FSU graduate, grants the motion. Is that legit?

I don’t disagree with your synopsis of how you analyze evidence. But you stopped way too soon in your analysis. Everything that you stated in your post shows appropriate bias. The judge or jury cannot merely rely upon your presentation of evidence to come to a determination. Likewise, the American public can’t come to a conclusion based upon the “evidence” presented by a biased group. You are an advocate, so I hope you are skewing the evidence. With that said, you can disagree entirely with my opinion, but only if you think both scenarios above are ok, in which case …..ugh.

The scales of justice is what weighs the evidence. If only one side presents evidence, then there can be no justice.

 

You’re using a totally false equivalency. My practice is business litigation, not automobile accident cases. My practice heavily relies on documents - reams of documents (now electronic documents).

Automobile accident cases rely heavily on witness testimony, based on memory and spatial perception.

Two totally different evidentiary components.

I have pointed you to hard, raw data — documents written by and between Trump and his Team. Documents explained a by Trump’s Team.

You’ve previously, proudly, posted that there’s no evidence to show Trump committed a crime. My response is that there are volumes of hard' documentary evidence - raw data -that evidences the crimes.

That’s not partisan fun; that is hard facts.

Now, is it enough hard evidence to convince a jury to convict? You know as well as I do that nobody can predict what a jury will do.

My opinion is that there is enough for conviction in DC and Florida, but that Atlanta is more problematic.

 

I seriously don’t think you have ever stepped in front of a jury. You really have no conception on how an adversarial trial is conducted, and I think you are erroneously stuck on the term partisan … thinking it is limited to politics. Not a single piece of the “volumes” of “hard data” has been dissected, picked apart, spun and manipulated by a skilled attorney defending the accused. Not a single witnesses has been crushed by cross examination. Nothing has been challenged. Nothing! Everything you have been fed is sheep food. Wait until the wolves feed before you pass judgement.

 

We don’t know what all the evidence may be and are speculating. My opinion is that I doubt most of the factual allegations will really be in dispute in these cases.

I anticipate the defense will focus on lack of criminal intent, the application of the facts to the law, the crime/fraud exception to invading the attorney-client privilege, etc.

Even Dershowitz, who defends Trump at every turn, said he expects Trump to be convicted at the trial court level and have to appeal (where he says Trump will win). Trump lawyers will likely try to litter the trial court record with appellate questions to bog things down and also to preserve the record on appeal.

Just a few examples of alleged facts I doubt will be disputed: Trump paid Stormy off through Cohen. I don't think that will be disputed. He kept the classified documents after receiving notice, and there was no prior written declassification. He publicly posted about what he expected Pence to do to use the fake electors. Everyone anticipates an advice of counsel defense there. We all heard Trump tell Ratffensperger he would be breaking the law if he didn’t report fraud in Georgia and find him votes. Is there any reason to think the recording of that call isn’t coming into evidence?

 

Your post me laugh and I thank you for it.

Seriously, one of most analyzed and dissected events of our time, millions spent, and you claim nobody has dissected the documents - documents which you won’t even read.

Good stuff.

 

try harder with your reading comprehension. I said a little more than your Walmart synopsis. Try to focus a bit more on the adversarial analysis part…….you know, the crux of the point. #blessyourheart

 

I love it when this happens..

Let me explain lawyer-ing to you...

-Ive been a lawyer for 30 years.

Similar to people explaining military stuff to Uftaipan in the Ukraine thread

 

I read just fine. I just can’t seem to hurdle your silly concept that one of the most investigated events of our lifetime hasn’t had an adversarial analysis.

It’s like you have convinced yourself that there hasn’t been the public production of documents, and the public analysis of documents from every angle and every party from every interest. It’s like there hasn’t been scores of very public criminal trials. It’s like there hasn’t been hundreds of election lawsuits.

Nope, UFLawyer says there’s been no evidence, no documentary review, no adversarial encroachment on those documents, no nothing because … he doesn’t want to take the time listen, read or review any of it.

Because …. There’s been no “adversarial analysis.”

And yet, directly consistent with the trait of the willfully ignorant, he screams to us all of his informational superiority.

And this is why Gator Country is so damn entertaining.