De Blasio’s Dance and The Delusional Politics Of 2021

YouTube screenshot

Below is my column in the Hill on the rise of delusional politics in America — a problem captured vividly on New Year’s Eve as Mayor Bill de Blasio dancing with his wife to a virtually empty Times Square. This is not Chicago where Sinatra sang about seeing a “guy dancing with his wife.” It is New York and the only one dancing seemed to be de Blasio.

We are watching as both parties seem blissfully and utterly detached from reality.

Here is the column:

At midnight at the start of the new year, if you listened hard, you could almost hear the teeth of an entire nation grinding, or at least of those watching coverage from New York as Mayor Bill de Blasio danced in a nearly empty Times Square. Millions watched as he dipped his wife in a romantic flourish to Frank Sinatra singing “New York, New York.” At least Nero made his own music.

The scene drew angry rebukes. Andy Cohen said it made him feel sick. “I did not need to see that at the start of 2021. Do something with this city! Honestly, get it together!”

In fairness to de Blasio, it probably seemed harmless. Who would object to a guy dancing with his wife? But sometimes a predictable photo turns into a cursed image. Just ask 1988 presidential candidate Michael Dukakis after he took a spin in an army tank. The image captured what many considered as his faux commitment to a strong defense. He and his campaign failed to think of how driving around looking like Mickey Mouse on a battle tank would only drive home the criticism of his defense policies.

For de Blasio, dancing in a nearly empty Times Square came across not as amorous but as delirious in a city in lockdown with a collapsing economy and soaring crime rates. For many, it reinforced the crisis both parties now face. We have become a nation that seems untethered from all reality. In one of the most liberal cities on earth, de Blasio cannot break 40 percent in popularity. But he, like many others, plays to the extreme wings of his party. As crime raged, he pushed to reduce the police budget by $1 billion and eliminated the plain clothes division. New York has had a 50 increase in homicides and almost a 100 percent increase in shootings.

He also closed public schools despite overwhelming scientific evidence of little risk for coronavirus exposure, notably for elementary students. He finally caved to the pressure from parents and experts, admitting there was little risk in having the schools reopen. He supported the closing of restaurants, sending many to insolvency, despite the fact that they contribute to less than 2 percent of confirmed infections.

With New York losing money, de Blasio said the federal government could bail out City Hall and local businesses by simply printing more money, a statement both fiscally and politically delusional. As many highly taxed residents continue to move out of New York, de Blasio voices his “tax the hell out of the wealthy” policy. He recently declared that the purpose of public schools is the redistribution of income.

The eerie image of de Blasio dancing in a dead Times Square captures what could await us in 2021. Even if the pandemic is curtailed with the vaccines, cities like New York have been devastated by the lockdowns. There is no way that the federal government can bail out every business and landlord in one city, let alone the entire country.

At the same time, last year ended much as it had gone on for months. In Portland and Philadelphia, federal buildings were attacked by rioters and looters. In Washington, both parties deadlocked and, regardless of what happens in the Georgia Senate runoffs, that division will likely continue. Joe Biden and others have called for massive new spending in a country with $27 trillion in debt. Yet our lawmakers in Washington continue a kind of ghostly dance, oblivious to the costs and hazards ahead.

Meanwhile, reporters are unlikely to return to the standards of objectivity and independence after years of open bias against Donald Trump. Some journalism professors now reject the very concept of objectivity in favor of open advocacy. Columbia University journalism dean Steve Coll has denounced what he says is freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment now being “weaponized” to protect disinformation. Many reporters are invested in the next administration, including downplaying or ignoring those scandalous allegations against Hunter Biden and Eric Swalwell. Networks actively tailor their coverage to offer their viewers “safe spaces” without opposing facts or stories.

It is not just politicians and the press who have not changed. The reason 2021 will not be much different than 2020 is because we as a nation have not changed. We are still divided right down the middle, and the space between is filled with blind rage. Democrats have called for blacklists, disbarments, and other actions against those “complicit” in the Trump years, while over 70 percent of Republicans believe the presidential election was rigged and that Biden did not lawfully win.

Many among us sadly do not want any of this to change. Rage seems to be addictive. It becomes a license to hate. While few will admit it, the Trump years were a release from decency and civility. We have become a nation of conflict junkies. Even worse, we all live in artificial spaces which are a dangerous delusion because we face this economic crisis, international conflicts, and rising violence in our cities. That is why de Blasio dancing in New York could prove the ultimate embodiment not of 2020 but of 2021. Unless the middle can come out stronger, we all will be dancing with de Blasio in a dead space where the country once thrived.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates online @JonathanTurley.

 

 

367 thoughts on “De Blasio’s Dance and The Delusional Politics Of 2021”

  1. Anonymous, while posting my last response I noted this one by CK07.

    “Pointing out that attackers are too cowardly to use a singular alias?”

    CK07 pointed out something I have mentioned many times, cowardliness. That means your friend is calling you a coward as well.

    Based on the illogical logic of CK07 does that mean he is me and I am him?

      1. CK07, you had a debate of interest covering both sides of the argument. You failed to prove your side unable to combine Chauvin’s actions with intent and unable to prove that his hold did not meet the standards.

        That you do not completely understand innocent until proven guilty is why you made a mess out of things.

        You gave up any semblance of an intelligent debater by concerning yourself with things other than trying to prove the elements that would lead to a Chauvin homicide guilty verdict.

        I looked at the link where Allan had a discussion with you, Allan/CK07. He asked a simple question. “Tell us the lie by Flynn and why it is material to an investigation.“ You couldn’t provide that fact just like you can’t provide proof of intent by Chauvin to kill Floyd, just like you couldn’t provide proof that Chauvin violated the training manual.

        I agree, you indeed have a flight of ideas though it improved either with self control or a medication adjustment. It doesn’t matter to me. Everything said on the Chauvin innocent of homicide was true to anyone looking at what has been produced to date.You did not meet your burden of truth or honest discussion.

        1. Another Mark classic.
          “Flight of ideas”

          For the last time, grow up, study the law and get help. It’s bad enough there’s one person here hellbent on arguing it’s okay for an officer to kneel on a dying man’s neck for 5 minutes after he loses consciousness. You don’t need to try so hard to pretend there are two or more here.

          1. CK07 without question the statements made by you in the Chauvin debate demonstrated that you had what is known as a ‘flight of ideas’. You may not like hearing it but it is true. Merely a mention of it changed the way you wrote. Those ideas became more controlled.

            As far as the law, most on this blog know a lot more than you and that is why they do not need to constantly demonstrate a facility of the law by using the two latin terms you so frequently used to hide the empty words that come after.

            You have a thought in your head. Your problem is you don’t have words to describe that thought or how to link the thought to intent. The latin words don’t provide you the answer.

  2. “you can’t answer direct questions “

    CK, I can answer direct questions that aren’t non-sensical. The problem is you want to prove that Chauvin committed homicide and you expect me to make your case for you. You pretend to be knowledgeable in legalese but you make too many mistakes for one to trust you. In fact you don’t even understand that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

    You are starting not to make sense again using a word salad instead of argument. You said “If you quoted it properly…”, but if I interpret the word salad correctly you are referring to a sentence I originally copied directly from the press report containing the summary of the medical examiner’s report where it said a “coroner’s report is statutory and doesn’t legally determine culpability or intent.” You are taking other statements out of context or revising them, but nothing you have said demonstrates that I avoided answering questions.

    I know you like analogies to substitute for the case at hand. That way you don’t have to provide the evidence in context.

    “The case was presented logically, repeatedly over 50 some posts.”

    Not by you, but you are comparing some of the better posts of yours with your more typical word salads. Even the better ones are barely logical

    “insignificant words like “dug””

    It is not insignificant when you use the word “dug” his knee into the man’s neck. That demonstrates how little you know.

    All you are doing so far is justifying your lousy interpretation of the case and your lousy use of big words some of which you can’t spell.

    “It sounds like you’re either quoting a far-right site or the defense’s arguments for one of the accused.”

    I may have gotten my statement from you or from one of your links. For the most part I used what you provided me plus what I remember.

    The problem is that you keep adding to your store of knowledge as you recognize that each of your arguments fail.

    What I quoted was from the preliminary report immediately released by the medical examiner. Based on that report they were not going to prosecute. Politics entered the picture so various things changed, however nothing said there would conflict with the official report you copied that was rewritten and signed 5 days later, June 1.

    I don’t alter things. I provide what I think is accurate and to the best of my knowledge. I wish I could say the same for you.

    You keep referring to generalities that are not a substitute for a legal judgement. There is a reason for that but it escapes your understanding of the law. That is why you need to prove your case and you can’t.

    “You’re attempting to reverse engineer their conclusions”

    No. You are unable to prove your case so you make all sorts of accusations and then you return to analogies. Skip the analogies and use simple English to prove what you want to prove. You can’t and that is the reason for so many posts. Ultimately you have failed.

    “because the autopsy doesn’t mention strangulation doesn’t mean that the hold didn’t cause a loss of blood flow or oxygen “

    Prove your case. The man died of a Fentanyl overdose. If he had nicely gone in the car to the police station he would have died. That leaves you having to prove the police officer acted contrary to the way he was trained (and even that may not lead to guilt for homicide). You refuse to do that and constantly return to ideas that are not legal determiners.

    “Chauvin continued using this hold for 3-5 minutes. Therefore, Chauvin did not follow the manual. “

    (your quotes are not from the manual but be that as it may)

    Show me the words of the manual or what you think to be the manual that say how long a neck hold can be used. It doesn’t.

    “Is that what the reasonableness standard is in your mind?”

    Here, you are trying to prove intent. What is in your mind doesn’t provide the answer to intent. The answer comes from Chauvin’s mind, not yours. You fail to understand the elements and the law.

    “Semantics from the same guy who confused David Dorn (the slain police captain) with Michael Dorn “

    If forgetting the first name of a person that has nothing to do with Chauvin’s case is your big complaint against me then you have proven yourself to be an idiot. But it demonstrates that you have no proof of any significant allegations.

    ” I was just using it to explain that you, pretending to be a defense attorney,”

    You are a liar and lying again. I never said I was a defense attorney. In fact I said I wasn’t an attorney. This is what you have been doing through this mess of proof you have failed to adequately provide.

    “The irony from someone who confirmed he’s a layman and refuses to pick up a crim law book is shocking.”

    Two things here are truly shocking.

    1) In this sentence you say ” from someone who confirmed he’s a layman “
    Yet just a few sentences above you accused me of pretending to be a defense attorney.

    This demonstrates you to be a proven liar again and that you will say anything, true or otherwise, when trying to win a point. Being dishonest prevents you from having to search for good arguments and that is why your arguments are so bad.

    2) You think as a layman I am supposed to pick up a criminal law book. The shocking thing is you presume yourself to be an expert in this field and you don’t even qualify as a novice, honest or otherwise.

    1. ===
      Mark N- “CK, I can answer direct questions that aren’t non-sensical.”
      ===

      Mark, you demanded that I prove a case and have acted as both defense attorney for Chauvin and jury throughout. What is nonsensical is you trying to play both roles and then being scared to answer a question that would be legally permissible and likely for a prosecutor to ask the jury to reflect on, because you realize the question corners you into making a determination that either Chauvin was unreasonable or you are.

      ===
      Mark N.- “The problem is you want to prove that Chauvin committed homicide and you expect me to make your case for you. You pretend to be knowledgeable in legalese but you make too many mistakes for one to trust you. In fact you don’t even understand that a person is innocent until proven guilty.”
      ===

      Mark, I’ve only asked that you to:

      1. Defend against the evidence I presented (you put up a weak defense to the mens rea argument, and tried to also pretend at being a medical professional to defend against the actus reus argument.)

      2. Pick up a crim law book to get a basic understanding of criminal law only after you acted flabbergasted at my use of such terms, insisting I was using them to impress you, as opposed to trying to get you to realize that one must be separated from the other in order to properly assess a defendant’s innocence or guilt (you continually asked questions that combined the two issues that needed to be assessed)

      3. Answer basic questions once the evidence was presented to show that you understood what was presented and could make a determination since you wanted to pretend to be the jury.

      None of that asked you to prove the case. If law is like a game of chess, 1 was simply asking you to move when it was your turn, 2 was asking you to study when it was clear you didn’t know the rules after challenging a professional to a match, 3 was telling you that you were in check, and it is there you refused to move. Thus, it’s your loss via forfeiture.

      I understand full well a man is innocent until proven guilty, but if you ask someone to prove a case you have to weigh in on when reasonable doubt is appropriate. Your defenses would likely fail to place a reasonable doubt in a jury’s mind based on the overwhelming evidence present (including the video footage, the conclusions of 3 autopsies, the dying man’s words and my arguments). Once the other elements have been ruled out, the jury has to decide whether it is unreasonable for an officer to continue to kneel on an unconscious man’s neck for several minutes after those words after also being informed by onlookers that it appeared he was killing him. Your statements made it clear you believed shadow of a doubt was the appropriate standard. If you were familiar with the law you’d know this was wrong.

      ===
      Mark N.-“I know you like analogies to substitute for the case at hand. That way you don’t have to provide the evidence in context.”
      ===

      I provided the evidence in context. You had trouble digesting it. The analogies seemed appropriate to break it down to your level but your difficulties persisted.

      ====
      Mark N. “It is not insignificant when you use the word “dug” his knee into the man’s neck. That demonstrates how little you know.”
      ====

      You insisted I study who determines guilt or innocence implying you wanted to discuss this as if we were at trial before a jury. If you’d been to a trial before a jury, you’d know persuasive descriptive language is typically used as opposed to a monotone reading of facts before the judge.

      If you want to challenge said language, you’d need to raise an objection which would give the prosecution ample opportunity to replay the clip of Chauvin turning his neck on the unconscious Floyd’s neck repeatedly at worst, or result in them restating the description with an immaterial substitute word such as “pressed”, the former of which would be further damaging to your defendant, the latter of which would be insignificant at best since my argument need not rely on the word “dug” to succeed.

      The fact that you wished to have a belabored discussion over this word shows your lack of familiarity with jury trials.

      ===
      Mark N. “I may have gotten my statement from you or from one of your links. For the most part I used what you provided me plus what I remember.”
      ===

      I gave you the defenses reply at one point and it seems you took their statements to be statements from the autopsy directly. They resorted to discussing omissions either because they lack sufficient evidence to refute the Actus Reus or were trying to point out the lack of overt damage that a 4-day rookie such as Lane would be expected to spot to know something is horribly wrong. For Chauvin this is even more insufficient to combat the Actus Reus evidenced by the video in combination with the conclusions of the 3 autopsies.

      ===
      Mark N.- “The problem is that you keep adding to your store of knowledge as you recognize that each of your arguments fail.”
      ====

      Each of my arguments was successful. You were forced to present additional defenses which failed based on the additional facts or arguments I presented.

      ===
      Mark N.- “Prove your case. The man died of a Fentanyl overdose. If he had nicely gone in the car to the police station he would have died. That leaves you having to prove the police officer acted contrary to the way he was trained (and even that may not lead to guilt for homicide). You refuse to do that and constantly return to ideas that are not legal determiners.”
      ===

      You barely understand the law at play here. For the fentanyl overdose to overturn the Actus Reus of Chauvin’s actions it would have to be the sole cause of death, and it’s not cited as the sole cause of death in any of the 3 autopsies. They refer to his Fentanyl level being high in the description of the county autopsy but still note the neck compression was one of the causes of death complicating cardiopulmonary arrest. The fact that Floyd stated “I can’t breathe. Please, your knee in my neck” is further evidence that Chauvin’s knee hampered Floyd’s breathing and was a substantial cause of him passing out and subsequently dying.

      ===
      Mark N.-“ “Chauvin continued using this hold for 3-5 minutes. Therefore, Chauvin did not follow the manual.”
      (your quotes are not from the manual but be that as it may)
      Show me the words of the manual or what you think to be the manual that say how long a neck hold can be used. It doesn’t.”
      ===

      It clearly states “5303.01 Duty to Intervene B.
      It shall be the duty of every sworn employee present at any scene where physical force is being applied to either stop or attempt to stop another sworn employee when force is being inappropriately applied or is no longer required.”

      For the neck hold to be appropriately used it would have to be required.
      “5311
      Conscious Neck Restraint: The subject is placed in neck restraint with intent to control, and not to render the subject unconscious. by only applying light to moderate pressure. (04/16/12)”

      Floyd was rendered unconscious, therefore the conscious neck restraint should not have been used.

      “Unconscious Neck Restraint: The subject is placed in neck restraint with the intention of rendering the person unconscious by applying adequate pressure. (04/16/12)”
      “with the intention of rendering the person unconscious” would mean to any reasonable observer that the hold is “no longer required” if it ever was, after this point.
      “B. The Unconscious Neck Restraint shall only be applied in the following circumstances: (04/16/12) 1. On subject who is exhibiting active aggression, or; 2. For life saving purposes, or; 3. On subject who is exhibiting active resistance in order to gain control of t the subject; and if lesser attempts at control have been or would likely be ineffective.”
      Floyd was not exhibiting active aggression and was already unconscious. It clearly was not for life saving purposes considering Floyd and all observers noted it was killing Floyd, and even the paramedics scolded the officers for not taking life saving measures. Finally, an unconscious handcuffed man cannot exhibit active resistance.

      These statements do not have to be explicitly stated in the manual as such for it to be implicit to any reasonable officer what the standard is. This isn’t “Officer training for Dummies”, it’s training material that a reasonable officer would be expected to reasonably understand those common-sense inferences.

      ===
      Mark N.-““Is that what the reasonableness standard is in your mind?”
      Here, you are trying to prove intent. What is in your mind doesn’t provide the answer to intent. The answer comes from Chauvin’s mind, not yours. You fail to understand the elements and the law.”
      ===

      You seem to fail to grasp that it is impossible to know beyond a shadow of a doubt what was in the mind of any defendant ever, thus the jury must be able to make reasonable inferences based on the facts at hand.

      As I’ve said before, based on your reasoning, no one could ever be convicted of a crime involving Mens Rea unless they made an admission of guilt. I’m not sure if you’re getting this from Perry Mason or the law in another country such as Japan, but in America the standard is reasonable doubt.

      The jury has to be able to make inferences about what it would be reasonable for an officer in Chauvin’s position to do in order to weigh on his intent. And if that intent was either to cause excessive harm to Floyd or a total disregard for whether he killed him, Floyd will possess the necessary Mens Rea for unintentional murder or depraved heart murder.

      ===
      Mark N.- “If forgetting the first name of a person that has nothing to do with Chauvin’s case is your big complaint against me then you have proven yourself to be an idiot. But it demonstrates that you have no proof of any significant allegations.”
      ===

      This is more of you just taking a minor statement and running with it. The statement was made to point out your own hypocrisy in alleging that a misspelling was significant. It in no way was “my big complaint” against you. My big complaint against you is that you don’t understand the law and refuse to acknowledge the arguments presented but instead wish to discuss insignificant grievances.

      ===
      Mark N.-” I was just using it to explain that you, pretending to be a defense attorney,”
      You are a liar and lying again. I never said I was a defense attorney. In fact I said I wasn’t an attorney. This is what you have been doing through this mess of proof you have failed to adequately provide.
      “The irony from someone who confirmed he’s a layman and refuses to pick up a crim law book is shocking.”
      Two things here are truly shocking.
      1) In this sentence you say ” from someone who confirmed he’s a layman “
      Yet just a few sentences above you accused me of pretending to be a defense attorney.
      This demonstrates you to be a proven liar again and that you will say anything, true or otherwise, when trying to win a point. Being dishonest prevents you from having to search for good arguments and that is why your arguments are so bad.”
      ===

      Once again, you taking minor statements and running off the rails with them. In saying you were pretending to be a defense attorney it was clear I was referring to the role you were playing in this mock trial you demanded. I know you’re not barred and likely haven’t been to law school or studied law or else you’d know the meaning of basic crim law terms. I suppose you can’t win the actual debate we’re having so you prefer to make your misunderstanding of these statements the debate at hand.

      ===
      Mark N. “2) You think as a layman I am supposed to pick up a criminal law book. The shocking thing is you presume yourself to be an expert in this field and you don’t even qualify as a novice, honest or otherwise.”
      ===

      Mark, I never considered myself to be an expert in Crim Law. You came in with statements like: “Before you call something homicide one has to know the circumstances.” “You have to deal only with this act based on these circumstances. Let’s start to unwrap the onion by you proving Chauvin committed homicide.” “I don’t think you understand that a coroner’s report is statutory and doesn’t legally determine culpability or intent.” “Manner of death is not a legal determination of culpability or intent, and should not be used to usurp the judicial process.” And “That is a question you should be asking yourself when you start thinking about why trials take place and who determines innocence or guilt.”

      Besides misusing basic words like “statutory” (that would be something concerning a statute, I believe you meant to imply it was factual evidence), you spoke arrogantly as if you were a crim law expert. You demanded a debate with someone in good standing with half a dozen bars and didn’t know the basics yourself.
      I do have knowledge of the basics you’re lacking and think you could greatly benefit from understanding how the law works, particularly if you wish to demand someone prove a criminal law case (which as I said at the beginning, I think it is totally inappropriate to do on a blog, unless you’re offering to pay. I gave you the opportunity to prove a different case based on your implied inferences concerning Biden to prove this point to you and you cowered). I started by pointing out the overwhelming evidence is unfavorable to you and you insisted I prove it.

      I’ve proven the case beyond a reasonable doubt to a reasonable juror long before I rested by case. If your demand was to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt or beyond the doubts of an unreasonable lunatic, then your demand was not by the legal standard and therefore ridiculous. Your defense was also woefully insufficient. You wish to play the jury but refuse to answer basic questions a jury would have to assess in order to determine guilt or innocence so again, it’s your loss via forfeiture.

      I’m not going to continue to waste time as you deny what’s been shown and issue your litany of personal complaints you wish to debate. Instead, I suggest you stop following me, which seems to have become your new life here on the blog, reread my posts to understand the law better, and if you’re curious to see how these arguments play out at trial, follow the case to see your defenses fail.

      Many of these same defenses were raised in motions to dismiss by the defendants and the judge shot them down in the link I’ll provide below (particularly the ones that didn’t address the conclusions of the autopsies-see page 44).

      One interesting caveat is an argument you didn’t make concerning an element of depraved heart was accepted by the judge {whether the danger applied to a plurality of persons or just one}, so now the case is being fought on the grounds of unintentional second-degree murder (murder in commission of a felony- which in practice turns on most of the same issues we discussed) and second-degree manslaughter.

      Probable cause exists for both, but feel free to wait and see what the jury decides at trial when confronted with virtually the same evidence I’ve presented here and similar arguments. This is the judge’s denial of virtually all the defendants’ motions to dismiss (I first viewed it yesterday): https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12951-TKL/Order10212020.pdf
      Have fun.

      1. You are being non-sensical again. I stated that I didn’t believe there was sufficient evidence to charge homicide. Since then you have been blustering your way through the discussion trying to prove the opposite and failing.

        I defended my position but you could not manage a logical and accurate defense of yours. Instead you appeal to authority in many different ways despite the fact that those appeals prove ignorance. I don’t need a criminal law book. You need to be educated in logic before you will ever grasp the law. Then you have to learn a man is innocent until proven guilty.

        That is why you had to prove guilt rather than me proving innocence. You had to prove the logical steps to guilt. All I had to do was demonstrate a break in that logic. You failed miserably as almost all the links in your logic chain were broken.

        “If you’d been to a trial before a jury, you’d know persuasive descriptive language is typically used as opposed to a monotone reading of facts before the judge.“

        The defense would prove your descriptive language false and you would look like a fool in front of a jury who would find the rest of your non factual prosecution to be tainted. Where did you get your ideas about the law? If you had any training that you paid for, get your money back. I will testify on your behalf because you have proven whoever they were duped you.

        “their statements to be statements from the autopsy directly. “

        There was more than one report. There was a report and a revised report 5 days later. Those words I believe are from the first report. Nothing in the second report disputes the first though it made things less clear.

        Your conclusions about Fentanyl and the cause of death are totally inaccurate.

        You keep quoting things but you never quote anything that disputes what I keep telling you. Moreover, you still haven’t quoted from the manual.

        You make leaps of faith. Those leaps are breaks in your chain. You cannot convict with a broken chain.

        “Floyd was not exhibiting active aggression”

        That is your conclusion not factually introduced. You use that to prove guilt, but nowhere have you shown that the extra minutes were against policy or caused damage. You did not prove that Chauvin didn’t have a logical reason.

        You keep repeating things but do not answer my basic arguments despite the fact that you extensively quote them Moreover you were proven to lie in your response. How can we trust you?

        “You demanded a debate with someone in good standing with half a dozen bars “

        I didn’t demand anything. You started off sounding as if you were in a mental crisis which I mentioned to you at the time. I was even reluctant to continue discussion with you but your flight of ideas returned to a word salad and then improved a trifle more so I continued.

        If you want to claim expertise then claim it and say exactly what that expertise is. “good standing” means you haven’t done anything wrong. It doesn’t mean you know what you are talking about. Obviously you don’t.

        1. “ There was more than one report. There was a report and a revised report 5 days later. Those words I believe are from the first report. Nothing in the second report disputes the first though it made things less clear.“

          You took what you claimed were direct quotes from the autopsy which turns out not to be so. I have a hard time believing you read any autopsy. Like the time you pretended to have read the manual and later admitted you’d never seen it but were relying on reports of it.

          “ That is your conclusion not factually introduced. You use that to prove guilt, but nowhere have you shown that the extra minutes were against policy or caused damage. You did not prove that Chauvin didn’t have a logical reason.”

          Some of this, like not kneeling on someone’s neck for 5 minutes after they’ve passed out is common sense which you are clearly lacking. I’ve quoted the “manual” to which you earlier referred and virtually all the other training material.

          It would be clear to any reasonable person reading that, that if the manual says to stop said holds when it is no longer necessary and it also says to use the holds only to render the subject unconscious, you would logically be unreasonable to continue to use the hold after the subject is rendered unconscious. This is as simple as 2+X=4 and therefore X=2. No one should have to tell you explicitly X is 2 for it to be apparent.

          It seems like you lack a clear understanding of the case at hand as well as the law. For the record being in good standing requires you to be admitted among other things. In my case I’ve taken and passed multiple bars but my point wasn’t to toot my own horn. My point was you’ve spoken arrogantly here from the beginning and now you say i need to grasp logic to understand the law when it’s painfully obvious you are poorly versed in both.

          Not to insult English majors but your forte would seem to be twisting the words of others, so that’s my first guess as to your background. You seem to have a hard time comprehending basic concepts such as terms like “implied” or “inferred” but obsess over simple descriptive terms, so I’m not positive but your inability to process analytical thought would suggest you’re not good at anything STEM related and would need a lot of luck to do well on the logic games or logical reasoning potion of the LSAT.

          More importantly you continue to insist I don’t understand a man is innocent until proven guilty. You told me to prove he’s guilty. Your last argument was that I don’t know what’s in his mind so I can’t prove him guilty. If that’s your retreat then why tell me to prove him guilty in the first place? It’s impossible to know what’s in his mind but we can make reasonable inferences. You may want to read that last link I provided to help you understand this better (beware though, it mentions the term Mens Rea on page 76 so you may have to finally learn something).

          1. “You took what you claimed were direct quotes from the autopsy which turns out not to be so. “

            What do you meant “to be so”? The first is probably more valid than the second and the second didn’t say anything meaningfully different from the first.

            “you pretended to have read the manual”

            You are lying again. I asked you to produce something I didn’t have.

            You actually pretended to have the manual. You didn’t. You produced citations from it, but they were not from the manual. You then copied things as if they were from the manual when they were not. You lied again and again and again.

            “common sense”

            Jurors utilize common sense. The prosecutor makes a claim that the defense responds to. The juror then may use common sense. The prosecutor needs to demonstrate injury over the 5 minutes or intent. The defense needs a rationale to offset the prosecutors argument. You are babbling again about things that have not been ascertained. You leave out the prosecutors claim.Therefore, you lose and have to go back to your other argument which is to blame me when you should be blaming yourself.

            “I’ve taken and passed multiple bars”

            Yet you don’t claim to be a practicing attorney. Go check with Natacha. She also claims those types of expertise. I am not impressed with your knowledge of the law. I don’t care how many bars you have passed.

            “your forte would seem to be twisting the words of others”

            That is the job of an attorney, to twist the words of others. To make black white and white black and if you can’t do that to make both gray. Now that we have established that you have no facility with the law…

            “inability to process analytical thought would suggest you’re not good at anything STEM related”

            You also aren’t very good at figuring out where others are strong. I am pretty analytical and you are not. That is why you can’t manage the defense of your own dignity. You probably have trouble tying your shoes.

            “More importantly you continue to insist I don’t understand a man is innocent until proven guilty.”

            That is obviously the case since you keep asking me to prove Chavin innocent before you provide proof of his guilt.

            1. “You are lying again. I asked you to produce something I didn’t have”
              Mark I’ve already shown the direct quotes where you lied about this from the beginning. Reread my earlier posts if you’ve forgotten already.

              “ You lied again and again and again.”

              I’m the only one he who has provided direct links to the autopsy, the manual, training docs or any of the court documents. You on the other hand have been referring to them to bolster your defense from the beginning without having actually looked at any of it.

              “ Yet you don’t claim to be a practicing attorney”

              I also don’t claim to be smarter than you, but facts are facts.

              “ That is the job of an attorney, to twist the words of others. To make black white and white black and if you can’t do that to make both gray. Now that we have established that you have no facility with the law…”

              Not sure what tv show you got that from. The job of an attorney is to be the best advocate for their client possible, and defend or advocate on their behalf as you would for yourself. It’s actually unethical for an attorney to lie and misrepresent things before a court room. Even if your client is lying you have a duty to withdraw and inform the court of said misconduct.

              You’ve accused me of lying several times here but almost every time it seems to come from your alarmist nature and basic misunderstanding of statements like me saying “you’re pretending to be a defense attorney” meaning you’re acting as one not you’re claiming to be one. You on the other hand made statements tantamount to perjury if made in a court room, and I quoted most of them before.

              “ That is obviously the case since you keep asking me to prove Chavin innocent before you provide proof of his guilt.”

              I only asked you to defend against the evidence and arguments I provided of his guilt, that if uncontested would render him guilty. I also asked a simple question that you still refuse to answer because I think you realize it should put Chauvin in checkmate (or you in the looney bin depending on your answer).

              1. “I’m the only one “

                CK, Let us assume that is true. You are the one that has to provide the evidence to convict Chauvin of homicide. Without evidence Chauvin goes free. I don’t have to prove anything except that your evidence is insufficient to convict..

                Again, learn that a man is innocent until ***proven*** guilty. Proving is your job.

                “I also don’t claim to be smarter than you, but facts are facts.”

                I don’t need to be in competition with you, but this discussion has proven you do not have the ability to deal with this type of matter. Take note how your discussion has nothing to do with Chauvin.

                “Not sure what tv show you got that from.”

                That is turning black into white or gray etc. No TV required.

                I didn’t lie, but I do note that you have lied many times in this discussion and have quoted things that didn’t exist. I’m not sure if you recognize what a lie is.

                “I only asked you to defend against the evidence and arguments”

                That is exactly what I Have been doing. You assume I am twisting words. What is happening is I am requiring you to show and prove your evidence in a logical order. You are unable to do that claiming your words are being twisted when it isn’t your words but your logic.

                I don’t know what question you want me to answer, but as one who says he passed a bar many times you should realize the defense doesn’t have to answer the nature of questions you are asking. A man is innocent until proven guilty.

                1. “I don’t have to prove anything except that your evidence is insufficient to convict.”

                  You raised the manual as your defense. Therefore you should have been the one to provide it. I did not need the manual to prove Chauvin’s guilt. I only had to raise it to shoot down your defense which relied on it. Had you not raised the defense of (paraphrasing here)- “it’s standard police procedure in the manual” Chauvin would have had no Mens Rea defense in this discussion.

                  “ I’m not sure if you recognize what a lie is.”

                  Suggesting you found things in the manual and autopsy only later to reveal you never read them is a material misrepresentation (lie) on your part.

                  “ I don’t know what question you want me to answer, but as one who says he passed a bar many times you should realize the defense doesn’t have to answer the nature of questions you are asking.”

                  Pretty sure you know exactly the question that has been asked half a dozen times so far but you like to play dumb when you’re stumped. Since you claim I haven’t proven my case that would mean you’re acting as the trier of fact or jury as well. If you wish to only be the defense then I don’t need to prove the case to you.

                  There’s no court in the world that requires the prosecution to convince the defense of their client’s guilt or almost no one would be convicted.

                  I’ve passed the reasonable doubt standard by narrowing the question to one which no reasonable juror would say yes to, even having seen your defense of the manual (which explicitly says such holds should be used to render a suspect unconscious and to stop others from doing such holds when no longer necessary):

                  Is it reasonable to kneel on someone’s neck 5 minutes after they’ve gone unconscious, having previously told you they can’t breathe and are dying as a result of your knee being on their neck?

                  Yes or no?

                  Does that mean no jury in the US would set him free? No, even the most slam dunk case has a slight chance of losing due to an unreasonable juror or other issues, but my estimate is he’s got a 5-10% chance of walking given the facts at hand. No jury case is ever a 100% certainty absent an admission of guilt.

                  1. “You raised the manual as your defense. Therefore you should have been the one to provide it. “

                    CK, You clearly do not understand the law. If you are prosecuting Chauvin and the defense says Chauvin followed protocol, as the prosecutor, if you feel that point by the defense is damaging to your case, it is up to you to prove otherwise even if you have to find the manual yourself.

                    A man is innocent until PROVEN guilty. That means he doesn’t have to prove himself innocent.

                    “Suggesting you found things in the manual and autopsy only later to reveal you never read them is a material misrepresentation (lie) on your part.“

                    Repeating things over and over again doesn’t improve your case. It demonstrates that you have no case. You pretended to have the manual and even sent links that were not to the manual and quotes that were also not from the manual. If as a prosecutor you use the manual as evidence you have an obligation to provide that to the defense.

                    “I don’t need to prove the case to you.”

                    You don’t have to prove the case to me but you have been trying as hard as you can and failing. I don’t care what you think. A man is innocent until proven guilty.You are looking for blind acceptance, but I am not blind. That might be why you don’t practice law. You couldn’t find enough blind people to litigate against.

                    “I’ve passed the reasonable doubt standard”

                    You keep praising yourself while you fail at your task.

                    “Is it reasonable to kneel on someone’s neck 5 minutes after they’ve gone unconscious, having previously told you they can’t breathe and are dying as a result of your knee being on their neck?
                    Yes or no?”

                    If Chauvin takes the stand you can ask him that question. I take exception to the question because what is reasonable differs from person to person. It is what was in Chauvin’s mind that counts. Further that sentence if accepted as is is based on conclusions that you first have to prove before the question is even asked.

                    ”dying as a result of your knee being on their neck?”

                    That statement hasn’t been proven and is wrong according to the defense. According to the defense Floyd died of a drug overdose. The defense would tear you apart based on that statement and the jury would consider you foolish.

                    1. If they have an honest judge and jury, the level of fentanyl in Floyd’s femoral blood (and the fact that the police had called the ambulance) should be sufficient for an acquittal on all counts, as should the video which shows he was placed on the ground because he had a panic attack when placed in the vehicle.

                    2. Art, I wholeheartedly agree with you. I have no question that Fentanyl killed Floyd. Keeping the knee in position without damage is quite explainable. When a person stops resisting arrest should the police remove the handcuffs? I am merely toying with CK watching him him tying himself into knots.

                      I almost didn’t respond to you because I thought this might precipitate another response from CK and I have already exceeded my self set quota.

                    3. “ You pretended to have the manual and even sent links that were not to the manual and quotes that were also not from the manual.”

                      I provided links to the manual and pages therein multiple times. It sounds like you have no idea what you’re talking about. If the defense introduces the manual as their defense they would be the ones who need to provide it. The first mention of the manual in our discussion was from you. You claimed the hold he used was in the procedure manual and failed to show it.

                      Even the defense in this case provided exhibits of manual excerpts to bolster their arguments. You claim I’m not practicing but seem to have no idea what the basics are. At any rate if you mention the hold is in the manual and think you don’t have to show it, in an actual trial the follow up question would be “can you show us where in the manual it suggests an officer should use this hold on a suspect who has been unconscious for some time?” It sounds like your response would be “no, I expect the prosecution to prove it doesn’t.” The fact that I provided additional evidence from the manual that shows it instructs officers to stop others form using these holds when no longer necessary would destroy your only Mens Rea defense.

                      “ That statement hasn’t been proven and is wrong according to the defense.”

                      A man’s dying words are strong evidence however. The fact that he passed out shortly after uttering them would also be powerful as opposed to the defenses argument that the drug overdose was the sole cause (and it would have to be the sole cause to overturn the actus Reus)

                      “According to the defense Floyd died of a drug overdose. The defense would tear you apart based on that statement and the jury would consider you foolish.“

                      According to the 3 autopsy conclusions of 4 medical professionals Floyd died of cardiopulmonary arrest complicating subdual restraint/neck compression, mechanical asphyxiation caused by the neck hold or loss of blood flow to vital organs all as a result of a hold that went on approximately 5 minutes after his last words.

                      Unless you can convince the jury otherwise, that the drug overdose was his SOLE cause of death, or that his continued neck hold was reasonable, you’ve lost this case. No reasonable person would be convinced by the defenses you presented here but they would be easily able to rule out any reasonable doubt of his guilt based on the evidence and arguments I presented. Thus, you have lost. Concede or don’t, facts are facts.

                    4. “I provided links to the manual”

                      CK, Send the link to the manual now and we can both do a word search of this thread.

                      “Even the defense in this case provided exhibits of manual excerpts to bolster their arguments. “

                      I am not interested in excerpts. You like half arguments. I don’t.

                      If the prosecution presented excerpts of the manual they can produce the manual themselves.

                      “when no longer necessary “

                      Accepting your words as accurate and complete, who determines when no longer necessary?

                      “A man’s dying words are strong evidence” How about his words earlier which were the same as when he initially resisted arrest? The drug overdose was the cause of death. The neck hold was incidental and a legal acceptable way of managing a person who is resisting arrest.

                      You are so sure of yourself, just as sure as the dog that is running in circles on a leash knowing that he will catch his tail.

                    5. “ When a person stops resisting arrest should the police remove the handcuffs? I am merely toying with CK watching him him tying himself into knots.”

                      Removing handcuffs that are meant to restrain a suspect when they come to would clearly be unreasonable. Not removing your neck hold which is meant to render them unconscious and explicitly listed among holds you should stop other officers from using when no longer required clearly be unreasonable. This is the defense you want to present to the jury? You’ve lost horribly.

                      I don’t think you have a single post on the blog outside of responding to me since this discussion began Mark. You’re obsessed and I think the realization of your lost and getting caught in your earlier lie of accidentally posting under the anonymous username destroyed your pride. Now you wish to reframe it as toying with me. You’re in denial about what’s happened here and your own loss.

                    6. “Not removing your neck hold which is meant to render them unconscious “

                      CK, Do you want to prove that the neck hold ” IS MEANT to render them unconscious”

                      The neck hold at the time was a legitimate hold. Yes, I would state that to the jury.

                      Your next crazy argument to the jury is “I don’t think you have a single post on the blog outside of responding to me since this discussion began Mark.” I think I had one. You are entertaining enough and I limit my posting but this is fun. Maybe I should post more. I like putting you on a leash and letting you run in circles biting at your tail.

                      I think the jury is going to award you ‘Best In Show’.

                    7. “ The neck hold at the time was a legitimate hold. Yes, I would state that to the jury.”

                      Perhaps in a reading most favorable to the defense where Floyd was described as actively resisting before passing out, thus justifying the initial hold, but how about over 4 and a half minutes after his last words? I’m sure your defense will play out really well before a jury in light of the facts restated by the judge on pages 22-32: https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12951-TKL/Order10212020.pdf

                      Best in show indeed. What an amazingly entertaining train wreck of a defense strategy.

                    8. CK, Increasing the speed as you chase you tail also increases the speed of the tail so you continue to bite into air.

                    9. You can post and post but I need to know what your claim is regarding Chauvin. Are you going to change the subject and chase another dog’s tail.

                    10. Mark, I can’t help it that you can’t remember which screen name you’re supposed to be logged in under. Me pointing out the obvious is just an aside. The clear point since the beginning has been Chauvin pressing his knee into Floyd’s neck for 9 minutes was one of Floyd’s causes of death, meeting the Actus Reus prong for murder, and Chauvin did so In reckless disregard for Floyd’s life or while illegally assaulting Floyd meeting the Mens Rea for murder. Considering Floyd passed out 5 minutes before Chauvin stopped, that last prong is clearly met. I don’t think you’re so dense as to missed all of that after this time so your goal must be, as you hinted to Art, to waste my time.

                    11. “Mark, I can’t help it that you can’t remember which screen name”

                      CK, don’t fall apart just because you can’t hold your own. Did I use any name but Mark in these discussions? No, unless it was by accident and ended up under anonymous which is common for many. However, if that happened both you and I accepted that post as mine so you were always in discussion with Mark. Don’t be a weasel in order to explain your failures.

                      “The clear point since the beginning has been Chauvin pressing his knee into Floyd’s neck for 9 minutes was one of Floyd’s causes of death, “

                      Are you saying that without the drugs Floyd would have died? This is more of a medical rather than a legal question.

                      ” In reckless disregard for Floyd’s life or while illegally assaulting Floyd “

                      Prove reckless disregard? We always get back to that point, proof. We know how you feel and we know the latin words. We need to know your proof. Chauvin’s attorney will say he had no intention of killing Floyd, that he used the proper procedure and the extra 4 minutes was meant to make sure Floyd stayed in place. Till then that was not uncommon practice in such a situation. He will also say there was no significant pressure on the neck. He will then add there was no damage to the neck or trachea proving that Chauvin’s contentions are accurate.

                      ” as you hinted to Art, to waste my time.”

                      It wastes my time as well, but I am used to training dogs as an avocation which passes time as well. A lot of owners put choke collars on their dogs because the dogs pull so hard. Do you know what happens when they jerk the leash back? It can damage the trachea or neck, the result of which can be seen, heard and possibly measured. An autopsy demonstrates the damage. This is why when you were chasing your tail the leash I used was inserted into a harness and not to a collar.

                    12. “ I apparently hit the button before putting in my identifying features. The post was obviously responding to you so don’t get paranoid. I sometimes forget to add my name but it is pretty obvious that the poster was me. I post only under one alias though I had another in the past and generally I don’t post that often.”

                      One alias? Mark, Allan, S. Meyer, whatever your name is, I’m glad someone filled me in as to your trolling behavior because now that I know you and Allan are one in the same I’m pretty familiar with the hypocritical playing stupid games you play from our last discussion: https://jonathanturley.org/2020/05/05/did-the-mueller-team-violate-brady/comment-page-3/#comments

                      “ Chauvin’s attorney will say he had no intention of killing Floyd, that he used the proper procedure and the extra 4 minutes was meant to make sure Floyd stayed in place”

                      That’s about the dumbest argument I’ve heard from you yet. You need to kneel on an unconscious and handcuffed man’s neck for 4 and a half minutes, pushing his face into the concrete to make sure he stays in place as people are screaming bloody murder? I don’t know what you do, but god forbid you’re actually a cop. Seek mental help.

                      As I pointed out before you’re an unreasonable lunatic and no amount of rational thought could get through to you. You’re in denial over your loss and need to reread the facts of the case as restated by the judge in a link I’ve posted multiple times and reread the arguments I’ve already posted shooting down your litany of stupid defenses, after you’ve gotten the help you desperately need. Everything you say in the future has already been destroyed by the posts I’ve already made, there’s no sense in responding further to you, a known and outed troll. Learn the law, get a life, and most importantly, seek help.

                    13. CK, you have been played a fool, not by Seth Warner or Allan but by Mark N. who is not Mark N or Allan or Seth Warner. Mark N. is an alias for my real name. That you don’t understand that simple fact is amazing. Yes, I have to enter my name and email all the time because of the privacy settings on the computers used.

                      Surely even you can recognize that you were in discussion with only one persona. Your win or loss was based on how you were able to respond to that persona. You want to blame a clear loss on the fact that another was debating you. Who cares who was in the debate? You were led around on a leash because of your arrogance and inability to think clearly.

                      That is OK. One immediately recognizes that you are not a thinker.

                      For free I will provide where you went wrong. What were the elements that led to Floyd’s death? We can narrow that down to two points. The drugs and the take down along with those extra minutes. I think the jury is going to accept that Floyd died or would have died from the drugs alone. You can dispute that conclusion simply because you feel differently, but I think you would be in the vast minority except for those that have political motivations which you indeed have.

                      The second point would be that he died from the hold (with or without the drugs) It’s clear that he didn’t die from the hold alone. The pathology doesn’t support it so you had to say he died in combination (drugs and hold) and add intent.

                      The optics were terrible and I recognized that from the start because when I first saw what happened like almost everyone else I was shocked. However, we don’t deal with the optics or the politics. We have to deal with the facts.

                      Did Chauvin have a motive to kill? Not that I have heard. If he had a motive that would have placed Chauvin in a more dicey position.

                      You cannot provide a reason for intent that isn’t more than a generalization. The prosecutor has to now prove that the last 5 minutes was meaningful and with intent. That is something you have been unable to do during this entire discussing jumping all around the facts with a multiplicity of claims because you were unable to focus on only one.

                      We know the knee hold reportedly was an approved procedure. That ends the argument about the knee hold. We are left with the five minutes. Was Floyd dead during those 5 minutes? You didn’t discuss that so we can leave it alone remembering that if he were dead before the 5 minutes those extra minutes didn’t kill Floyd though they were terrible optics.

                      Your answers from your responses seem to be that the last 5 minutes prove intent. I don’t think they do but that appears to be your only argument. That is where you got frustrated and wished to blame Seth Warner, Allan and everyone else when it doesn’t have to do with the messenger. It has to do with the facts of the event.

                      You added nothing to bolster your intent case because you had nothing else so you turned towards all sorts of tangential things. I wanted to argue the intent side but you stayed clear leaving us with the conclusion a man is innocent until proven guilty. That innocence should prevail in our system of justice no matter the politics or the optics.

                      What is Chauvin’s story about the last 5 minutes. What were his thoughts. That is something the prosecutor might not find out until he is finished with his case and provided all his reasons of intent which in your case amounted to zero.

                      Chauvin, among other things can say his knee exerted no pressure on Floyd and was kept there just in case Floyd got up before the ambulance arrived. He can say it was a matter of protocol and safety. You can say that was wrong or not necessary but that doesn’t mean homicide.

                      You say the man is dead so the 5 minutes was unnecessary. But if the man is already dead Chauvin didn’t kill him with the five extra minutes. Do you know what playing possum is? Many times people play possum and then do a lot of damage. We have even had people declared dead by licensed physicians who were later embarrassed when they were informed the person was still alive.

                      [For an historical viewpoint read Michael Creighton’s book “The Great Train Robbery”. (a small interesting section required for the plot) That is history inserted into fiction, but the same has happened in modern day.]

                      The problem with you guys (Like anonymous who thinks everyone is a certain person. There is more than one anonymous so one can’t be sure who says what but anonymous at various times accused the following of being Allan. Here is a short list of some of those names: anonymous, Sam, William, countless numbers of those who write infrequently…). is that you believe certain things without using critical thinking skills (hat tip John Say). To substitute for those critical thinking skills you add or subtract details to suit your desires or just forget about the details entirely.

                      Suggestion, take off the leash and collar placed around your neck by the leftists who wish to control you. Think for yourself. That is how one develops those critical thinking skills that are lacking.

                    14. In response to your argument with Allan:

                      I went to quickly review your lengthy statement and then read part of Allan. Yes there is a distinct similarity between The two arguments.

                      Allan wrote: ”

                      CK, we are all waiting for you to “Tell us what Flynn did that was criminal or was against the interests of the United States. Then provide the proof.” You can’t and you don’t. You just repeat the same things over and over again. You never bothered to look at the FBI reports to see what Flynn actually said or what actually happened. You prefer to hide behind a bunch of words repeated over and over again.”

                      That is exactly what happened in the present discussion with me.

                      I was waiting for you to prove your case, in particular intent along with your proof. Based on your inability to produce the procedure manual at the time (Similar to the FBI reports) you couldn’t do it.

                      Yes, both times you were asked for the criminal act and the proof something you didn’t provide. With lack of proof and lack of understanding you could be anyone of a number of anonymous personas or anyone of the bloggers that posts opinion without proof. Are you one of those?

                    15. Just one more thought.

                      You say: “That’s about the dumbest argument I’ve heard from you yet. You need to kneel on an unconscious and handcuffed man’s neck for 4 and a half minutes…”

                      What is your proof that Floyd was alive for part or all of those 4 and a half minutes?

                    16. LMAO, “Mark N.,” you give yourself away as Allan when you talk about “S. Meyer” (another of your sock puppets) as “Seth Warner.” Seth Warner isn’t participating in this exchange, but you bring him into it because you — posting as Allan, not as Mark N. — have had debates with Seth Warner previously, such as here –
                      https://jonathanturley.org/2020/08/08/living-hell-clemson-professor-under-fire-after-prompting-others-to-find-the-home-address-of-critic/

                      You also give yourself away as Allan with your fixation on Flynn and demands to “see what Flynn actually said,” when you know that they didn’t tape the interview.

                      “A man is innocent until proven guilty.”

                      Or until he pleads guilty. Given your stance, why are you even debating this now instead of waiting for the jury to render a verdict?

                    17. Anonymous the Stupid, since my name came up with several others I will respond to your claim where I am concerned.

                      “You also give yourself away as Allan with your fixation on Flynn and demands to “see what Flynn actually said,” when you know that they didn’t tape the interview.”

                      There were arguments that Flynn could be proven guilty based on his own words that were in the FBI file (look up that discussion which was of great interest. I have done so more than once and think it was Commit who stated those words that CK07 repeated. Commit referred people to the FBI file including Allan to see those own words themselves, but that was a lie.). That argument has been repeated by many and maybe yourself as well. The problem is those words in context did not exist in the FBI files in written and, of course, not in a recorded version.

                      I can’t keep track of all the anonymous posters so I keep track of the ones that act really stupid assuming they are the same person. I am pretty sure the vast majority of times , if not always, I am correct for when an anonymous poster is more than superficial, stupid or playing his usual childish games I stay away from your special label.

                      “Given your stance, why are you even debating this now instead of waiting for the jury to render a verdict?”

                      CK07 apparently remains under a single persona. I am not in that argument so I can’t answer but the question appears not to be a question of innocence or guilt for any crime rather only the homicide charge. At first seeing the tape I thought Chauvin guilty and could be convicted of homicide. Since then and with further reading including looking at various arguments I changed my opinion. How Mark came to his opinion is unknown to me but he is right on the money. CK07 can refer to me as Mark for undoubtedly Mark is intelligent and much smarter than CK07. Even you might recognize that fact, but I don’t count on it because you think of who is on your side rather than right and wrong.

                    18. The most ironic part is he actually had the nerve in the Flynn discussion to say this in response to another poster he quoted:
                      “Allan says: May 13, 2020 at 10:40 AM “This is part of your game, too.”

                      Pointing out that attackers are too cowardly to use a singular alias? Once again you are unable to put into English what your complaint is or even reply to the comment.”

                      https://jonathanturley.org/2020/05/05/did-the-mueller-team-violate-brady/comment-page-3/#comments

                      I’m not going to reengage him in this discussion much less one from a year ago (he really thinks we’d believe some random poster who mirrors his phrases like “word salad” etc. is going to be desperate to pick up a year old debate on his behalf), but I still don’t get how he’s so unfamiliar with the facts of this case (when I even reposted the judges retelling of them) after debating him for over 2 weeks on it or how he thinks it would help his defense that “Chauvin needed to kneel on Floyd’s neck” if Floyd were actually dead at the time instead of just unconscious.

                      Don’t waste too much time on him but good luck in helping him get a grip on reality.

  3. Trump Has Won By Default—When wholesale fraud and corruption and criminality are employed to steal the quadrennial POTUS election by one of the two major party candidates, the victor automatically becomes the other presidential nominee with the greatest number of electoral votes.
    In the case of the 2020 POTUS election, the Democrat ticket of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris has been cited for carrying out the greatest election cycle crime wave via fraud and theft in U.S. history. Hence, the prematurely and illegitimately declared Biden victory is now null and void under the law.

  4. Joe Biden is prohibited from holding public office in the US government—By his own admission, then Vice President Joe Biden used upwards of $1 billion of US government loan guarantees in a bribery coercion scheme to threaten the Ukraine president to immediately terminate the Prosecutor General who was investigating the corrupt practices of Burisma Holdings, as well as the involvement of board director Hunter Biden.
    This criminal act constitutes a federal felony crime and disqualifies Biden from holding public office.

    1. Guest, quit sniffing Qanon glue. Shake off this addition to hopium and recognize the bad situation

      See the thing that allows foolishness like Qanon to capture so many good hearted, naive people, is the false belief that the US constitution is sacred writ, or the US is a special nation in history

      it is not. The Constitution is a clever set of rules for government which lifts up private property most of all, and protects the rich who are best able to use that institution.

      the US is not a special state in history, it is an important one, but not unique. the US order suffers from all the same problems of existence as every other in history.

      We need to grow up and shuck off these false beliefs and reconsider what is a just society and how to achieve it. quit hoping the constitution is a Bible. it is not. and God is not sending Jesus down to save us from apocalypse either. It is upon us and you will not be “raptured”

      There is no escaping pain in life nor injustice in society,. Both are part of life. Life is heroic struggle in which you must surely die. .

      If our only purpose is in avoiding pain or utopia, then we will be very disappointed

      There are sources of meaning and joy, and they were all known by our ancestors, but we would need to go way back to rediscover them

      If you let the billionaires lead you by the nose with their digital enslavement devices, then you will never find them

      Almost every great joy happens off the internet in 3d life, in the analog world not the digital one

      Sal Sar

  5. The image of the mayor and his wife dancing in Times Square on New Year’s is was macabre and disturbing on many levels.

  6. Illegal at 20 seconds in.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tArtYkILiHc&feature=youtu.be

    Kimberly Miller, Central Outreach and Advocacy Center executive director: “So, the majority of the people we serve don’t have an address, so we allow them to use our address if they register to vote and to get Georgia State ID.”
    Miller: “Because you have to have proof of residence, and so although we are not a shelter, we do allow them to use 201 Washington Street [Atlanta, Georgia].”
    Miller: “So, I can’t even begin to tell you how many people have that address on their ID. We’ve never run into any problem with that until this election. One of our board members got wind that they thought we’re doing things not on the up and up because so many have the address, but we’ve not heard any repercussion from it since.”
    Miller: “So, but it’s just a way to – I mean people have to have an address – the only way they can get ID, which you’ve gotta have to do anything else, is to have an address. So, we allow that. We’ve done that for years.”
    Adam Seeley, Central Night Shelter board member: “A couple thousand people had our address registered as their mailing address for their voter registration.”

    1. Depends on whether they put that address for their residence or only for their mailing address, Allan.

      Q: What if an applicant is homeless and does not have a residence address?
      A: The applicant should use the physical address which he or she considers his or her home (for example, 1-20 West under bridge at exit 142). The mailing address should be wherever the applicant could pick up mail (for example, a homeless shelter or friend’s home). The applicant should also include a drawing of where he or she resides with the application.
      https://sos.ga.gov/admin/files/Implementing_NVRA_DHS_v.1_2011_.pdf

      1. It depends on a lot of things even with the financing of the organization that encouraged this. One has to see if the votes were individual or were harvested. I wonder if the word aboveboard is in your dictionary.

      2. From the video: “”we allow them to use our address if they register to vote”

        Was that used as “the physical address which he or she considers his or her home ”

        Or as a mailing address.

        Georgia State law requires a person to vote where they live. 21-2- 216(a)4. It doesn’t sound like that is what happened based on what was said by those at the shelter. Permitting someone to use a false statement on voter registration is illegal in Georgia and punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment. GA code 21-2-562(a)1

        Listen to the video again.

  7. We saw typical incorrect news reports from the WP about Trump. This is what Dershowitz has to say.

    Liberal lawyer Dershowitz says no Trump crime in Georgia call, just bad media reporting
    “I’ve been teaching criminal law for over 50 years. I went through every word of that transcript, there is no crime there, period,” famed law professor says.

    Alan Dershowitz, the lifelong liberal and Harvard law professor, says the news media took President Trump’s comments out of context during a call with Georgia elections officials and there is no crime apparent on the tape recording that created a political firestorm over the weekend.

    Continued: https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/all-things-trump/liberal-lawyer-dershowitz-says-no-trump-crime-georgia-call-just?utm_source=daily-newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter

      1. “ you fling a lot of those insults” “A lot of silliness”

        Apparently you had difficulty recognizing the video was meant for everyone to take a second and laugh. Maybe such a thing is beyond your genetic capabilities or the video touched too closely on who and what you are. It is true that some people can’t escape their empty lives without an adrenaline fix that such unpleasantness can provide.

  8. China’s CCP is an adversary. But it has some things one can admire. Like for example, they don’t allow billionaires to run the country

    Here’s how they send a message to them

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-05/china-sentences-former-huarong-chairman-to-death-over-bribery

    Sentenced to death and assets confiscated

    That’s how it’s done. Roll that over. Would America do that to George Soros? LOL. America would never dare.

    And this week Jack Ma, who is about equivalent to China’s Jeff Bezos, has shut his mouth and stayed home quiet, as the antitrust regulators reorganized his plans to thwart banking regulations with Ant. Can you imagine a loudmouth like Twitter’s Jack Dorsey, who dares to censor the POTUS himself, shutting his big hairy mouth and staying home, while American antitrust authorities (supposedly we have some, somewhere) dismantle and correct his monopolistic grasp on public commentary?

    It’s a mistake to think of the CCP as communists. Yes they call themselves that. But, essentially, they are nationalists. This is what nationalists do: they put the nation over money. The common good of the nation informs the laws, and the laws at times, have to put billionaires in their place.

    They’re fearsome adversaries, and most of all, because they are a real people, with thousands of years of history behind them, the confidence of their own identity, and willful resolve to survive and prosper. Their highest leadership are fierce and implacable and ardent champions of the people. There is no mistaking it..

    How is the “American” political leadership, compared to them? Wait, I’ll answer that. Always got their hand out to American billionaires who are want to lock us down, make us sick,. make us poor, eventually cull us like a herd of diseased sheep, and who take bribes from the CCP– the fearsome nationalists of a foreign adversary.

    We got problems America, and look to your enemies for a roadmap to sort them out. Oh, I know, what an awful, terrible suggestion. How dare I suggest America take action against its masters, the billionaires, arrest, try, imprison, and confiscate their assets. But yes, that’s precisely what must be done.

    Saloth Sar

    1. Kuttz, it is true that we might have been better off if we didn’t allow billionaires like Trump from becoming President, but you were and are among his staunchest defenders..

      What is wrong with you? Did you fall on your head right after the election?

  9. What, Turley still has nothing to say about Trump, the Mob Boss, call to Ga Sec of State….”Find me the votes I need….”

Leave a Reply