╌>

A case of prosecutorial misconduct.

  

Category:  Op/Ed

By:  vic-eldred  •  one month ago  •  39 comments

A case of prosecutorial misconduct.
“This new information released recently only reinforces the Committee’s concerns about politically motivated prosecutions by state and local officials,” Jordan wrote in the letter.

Case # 1 against Trump is the sham NYC case which is such an obvious case of malicious prosecution that even democrats are holding their noses. That case has been the biggest boost to the Trump candidacy that one can imagine. I think that even people who don't want to vote for Trump are reconsidering based on such a corrupt system of justice, which is now on full display.

Case # 2 is also in question. The GA case against Trump is at best incoherent and at worst another biased sham trial. From the beginning it was challenging to Put 19 people on trial at the same time, as well as supposedly trying to find jurors in Fulton County GA who have no bias towards the key defendant Donald Trump. Now added to that is numerous charges of misconduct against Fulton County DA Fani Wilis. The romance scandal being the lessor of concern but getting the most coverage in the media. The more important case of misconduct is the two meetings the special prosecutor Nathan Wade (Fani's lover) had with a supposedly noninterfering president Joe Biden.

A defendant, Michael Roman , has recently asked a Georgia judge to disqualify Willis, Wade and the district attorney’s office from prosecuting the case, and for the charges against him to be dropped. Either Willis and Wade can be taken off the case or just maybe this face can end. 

The House Judiciary Committee has now taken note of the scandal. A Georgia state Senator has already filed legislation for special panel to investigate Willis. 

I'm sure most Americans consider the GA case to be more lawfare against Trump. This just adds another stain on it.

On the other hand, I'm sure the left will continue to ignore it as they push on.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  author  Vic Eldred    one month ago

Another "conspiracy theory" I'm sure / S

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
1.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one month ago

But have you noticed how many things the Democrats and left have called "conspiracy theories" have turned out to be fact?  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1    one month ago

Just about ALL. The Wuhan virus coming from the Wuhan Lab will make it 100%

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.2  Ozzwald  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1    one month ago
But have you noticed how many things the Democrats and left have called "conspiracy theories" have turned out to be fact?

Please feel free to list them.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
1.1.3  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.2    one month ago

You don't know how to use google or bing?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.2    one month ago

Here are a few:

Mainstream Media Spun These News Stories as Conspiracy Theories — But They Turned Out to Be True

Political commentator Kim Iversen reviewed the top news stories in 2022 that she said the mainstream media spun as conspiracy theories “simply for saying something that went against the establishment liberal orthodoxy”.

By   Suzanne Burdick, Ph.D. *

In a recent episode of “ The Kim Iversen Show ,” political commentator Kim Iversen reviewed the top 10 stories in 2022 that she said the mainstream media spun as “conspiracy theories” — but turned out to be true after all.

Iversen said the conspiracy theorist label was usually given “simply for saying something that went against the establishment liberal orthodoxy — not because it was quackery rooted in falsehoods.”

“The reality is, so many that they [the mainstream media] claim to be ‘conspiracy theories’ are actually true,” Iversen said, adding:

“Anytime someone’s labelled as a conspiracy theorist, it might just mean it’s time to actually investigate and look a little deeper into whatever it is they’re claiming because so often nowadays conspiracy theorists are not conspiracy theorists at all. They’re truth-tellers — fact-tellers, researchers — and they’re connecting the dots and getting a lot of things right.”

“Maybe we can make a New Year’s resolution to make 2023 the year of truth,” she suggested.

Here are some of the news stories Iversen highlighted as examples of mainstream media mixing up fiction with truth:

“In reality,” she said, “the project was about stopping   vaccine mandates .”

Iversen also pointed out that the movement began in Canada — “where people can’t even vote for Trump” — and was primarily organised by a woman, and garnered widespread support from people of all political persuasions.

  • The “ Twitter files ” revealed that “shadow banning” and other censorship tactics were conspiracy facts, not conspiracy theories.

Iversen showed a video clip of Twitter CEO Elon Musk commenting that so far, all the “conspiracy theories” people had about Twitter have turned out to be true — “if not more true than people thought.”

  • People who in 2020 said the   COVID-19   lockdowns and mandates   would “change the fabric of American Freedom by ushering in an unprecedented surveillance state” were labelled by the media as conspiracy theorists, Iversen said.

Yet now, Iversen pointed out, the mainstream media — such as   The Associated Press   — are reporting:

  • At the beginning of the pandemic, when   Dr Geert Vanden Bossche warned   that imperfect and overused   vaccines could lead to dangerous viral mutations , the idea was heavily censored on social media and Vanden Bossche was called a quack, Iversen said.

However, now the idea is being taken up by mainstream news, Iversen said, pointing to a Jan. 1 opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal that asks if   vaccines are fueling new COVID-19 variants .

“You couldn’t ask this question two years ago,” Iversen added.

Iversen pointed out that the idea that COVID-19 could have originated in a laboratory was   heavily maligned and censored , yet now there’s a “legitimate discussion” about a possible lab leak causing the pandemic.

“Not that we’re likely to find out the truth anytime soon,” she added,” but nonetheless the so-called ‘conspiracy theorists’ were vindicated once again.”

  • The mainstream media pushed the narrative that the   COVID-19 vaccines were   safe and effective   with only minor side effects and anyone who believed otherwise was ridiculed and considered a pariah to society, Iversen said.

However, now it is undeniable that there are   serious side effects , she said.

Big Pharma   has now admitted, she emphasised, that their COVID-19 vaccines can cause serious blood clots, that they don’t stop transmission and that they “wear off in a matter of months.”

Iversen ended with “the big kahuna” of supposed “conspiracy theories” by asserting that the   assassination of President John F. Kennedy   was likely not committed by a “lone crazy gunman,” as has been circulated for the last 60 years.

“A trove of released documents indicate a much more complicated reality that includes the probable involvement of the CIA,” Iversen said.



Iversen suggested that people should consider it a “badge of honour” to have been once called a “conspiracy theorist,” adding that on Twitter people are now saying if “they’re calling you a ‘conspiracy theorist,’ they’re really saying ‘spoiler alert.’”

“That’s really a more accurate term for it,” she said.

Top 2022 conspiracy theories that turned out to be true (biznews.com)

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.5  Ozzwald  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.4    one month ago
Here are a few:

That's not a list.

Kim Iversen, a co-host of The Hill’s popular web program Rising and whom some colleagues have branded a “conspiracy theorist

That Kim Iverson?  I thought you were supposed to be arguing against the conspiracy theories...  You can't claim non-conspiracy theories when you are quoting a acknowledged conspiracy theorist.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
1.1.6  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.5    one month ago

Shooting the messenger again? You cannot disprove what is written.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
1.1.7  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.5    one month ago
You can't claim non-conspiracy theories when you are quoting a acknowledged conspiracy theorist.

So you can't disprove a single thing listed.  Just attack the source when your claims fail.  Wish I could say that's surprising...

 
 
 
Jasper2529
Professor Quiet
1.1.8  Jasper2529  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.3    one month ago

DuckDuckGo is my preferred search engine, because it offers more security and less left wing bias than the others, but that's just my preference. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.9  Ozzwald  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @1.1.6    one month ago
You cannot disprove what is written.

So because it is written in a book, you are claiming that Hogwarts actually exists?  That's what your statement says.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.10  Ozzwald  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.7    one month ago
Just attack the source when your claims fail.

I'm not attacking the source, I am saying you cannot accept as fact from a proven biased witness.  I am also still waiting on a list, not an opinion piece.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
1.1.11  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.9    one month ago

That's obtuse as hell................One can prove that it doesn't and didn't exist simply by asking the author FFS

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Professor Principal
1.1.12  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.10    one month ago

And I am waiting for you to dispute point by point what was written.............

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.13  Tessylo  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.5    one month ago

You are correct Ozz.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
1.1.14  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Jasper2529 @1.1.8    one month ago

When dealing with left wing moon bats, direct them to their search engines.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
1.1.15  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.9    one month ago

Still can't disprove anything provided.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
1.1.16  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.10    one month ago

That's attacking the source.  Come back when you can dispute anything in 1.1.4.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.17  Ozzwald  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.15    one month ago
Still can't disprove anything provided.

Still can't provide that list, can you?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
1.1.18  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.17    one month ago

Still can't use google or dispute anything can you?  Why are you hiding from what was provided?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.19  Ozzwald  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.18    one month ago
Still can't use google or dispute anything can you? 

So you have no list.  That's all you had to say, no reason to spin so much.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Expert
1.1.20  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.19    one month ago
That's all you had to say, no reason to spin so much.

NO spin involved.  Just watching you run from 1.1.4.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.21  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.10    one month ago
I am saying you cannot accept as fact from a proven biased witness.

I thought it was all about the facts?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.22  TᵢG  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.21    one month ago

Facts do not come from people.   Facts come from evidence.   The interpretation of that evidence can vary per source (person) and, indeed, the evidence may not even exist but an 'interpretation' is offered nonetheless.

That is why we need to NOT rely on a single source but use multiple adversarial sources.   In those (rare) cases where we can observe the evidence ourselves (e.g. a politician giving a speech or testimony under oath or ...) we are in the best situation for approximating truth.

Getting as close to truth as possible is the real goal ... regardless of whether we prefer the truth that is revealed.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.23  Ozzwald  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.21    one month ago
I thought it was all about the facts?

No, you thought it was all about ALTERNATIVE facts.

alternative-facts-300x300.jpg

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one month ago

what's the tally on the number of trump lawyers that have already plead guilty in georgia so far?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.2.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  devangelical @1.2    one month ago

You mean plea deals?  The right move when facing a Fulton County jury.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
1.2.2  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.2.1    one month ago

same end result, guilty...

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
1.2.3  MrFrost  replied to  devangelical @1.2.2    one month ago

same end result, guilty...

Exactly. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
2  JBB    one month ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
3  MrFrost    one month ago
is the sham NYC case

Whew, and I thought this might be another partisan hit job. 

/s

 
 
 
MrFrost
Professor Expert
4  MrFrost    one month ago
Either Willis and Wade can be taken off the case or just maybe this face can end. 

Nothing they did changes the fact that trump is still guilty. PERIOD. 

 
 
 
JumpDrive
Freshman Silent
5  JumpDrive    one month ago
Case # 1 against Trump is the sham NYC case which is such an obvious case of malicious prosecution...

From the doc link below, I synopsize the first fraud: A Trump property was valued by a bank and appraiser at $25 to $30 million between 2000 and 2014. In 2014 Trump's valuation was $261 million -- because it was to be a charitable tax write-off. Appraisal methods do vary Vic, but not by an order of magnitude.

From the doc linked below:

The instant motions do not task this Court with determining which appraisals are the most accurate, which would present issues of fact. Rather, time and time again, the Court is not comparing one appraisal to another; it is comparing an independent professional appraisal to a pie-in-the-sky dream of concocted potential.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1  TᵢG  replied to  JumpDrive @5    one month ago

original

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @5.1    one month ago

Wow - everything is super hyper inflated in trump world

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.1    one month ago

Inflated when that yields opportunity and deflated when that yields opportunity.

It is a game that is oft played, but Trump plays it at the extreme.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.1.3  devangelical  replied to  TᵢG @5.1    one month ago

a simple formula. fair market value x10 = trump's appraised value to be conveyed to lenders. his dad would be proud.

 
 
 
fineline
Freshman Silent
5.1.4  fineline  replied to  devangelical @5.1.3    one month ago

Didn't realize greed and criminal behaviour could be inherited.

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
5.1.5  devangelical  replied to  fineline @5.1.4    one month ago

more like imprinted. take trump's 2 oldest sons, as an example...

 
 

Who is online






JBB
Right Down the Center


35 visitors