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.

 

 

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

    1. Her father is a West Indian mulatto and her mother was East Indian. They were in the United States on student visas at the time she was born in 1964. She’s been ensconced in the professional-managerial bourgeoisie since she was of an age to be enrolled in school. North America offered those two an agreeable life, one more agreeable in most respects than 85% of the native population enjoys. What in God’s name would have been constraining their ‘fweedom’ in California in 1966 above and beyond the financial issues that all but a few face in their middle 20s? And how could have been so constraining that their toddler daughter would have noticed? This is so brazen you’re left asking if the interviewer is in on the scam or the interviewer is a moron. Her father has dinged her in public about some of her remarks. You want to wager he and her mother never attended a demonstration in their lives?

      One thread runs through the life of Harris and Barack Obama: both grew up fancy bourgeois and neither has any organic connection to the descendants-of-slaves population. Yet, both made this voluntary affiliation, Harris by enrolling at Howard University (a school that has no particular attraction to anyone non-black) and Obama by ditching Sheila Jager for the nebulous possibility that he’d find someone more suitable for a South Side pol. (Free associating here, cannot help but notice that Cory Booker is fairly forthright about his origins, but has long had a habit of peddling fictions about his present).

        1. Something like that. Henry Louis Gates took one of the DNA tests he gives the subjects on his show and it turned up 50% West African. IIRC, Cory Booker’s results were 47% West African. Using these two for scale, I’d guess Donald Harris is somewhere in that zone. Meghan Markle’s likely around 35-40% and is more cafe-au-lait. So, yes, Shamala is around 25% neg*oid. She’s handsome enough, but her youth was wasted on Willy Brown. She married too late to have any children.

    1. The courts, as I predicted, have slinked away from these issues. Legislative and, probably, executive authority may be required. In other words, just do it. We have become too dependent on courts for answers to questions and issues that are better handled elsewhere.

      1. Indeed Young, but we did “just do it” at the ballot box – you lost.

        Suck it up Buttercup,

        1. JF– “Suck it up Buttercup”
          ****
          The way it was done by:

          AL GORE
          HILLARY CLINTON
          STACY ABRAMS
          etc.

          It’s about time Republicans learned that game.

      2. In other words, just do it.

        That has been the motto of the Democratic party for years. Do it and watch it play out through the courts…if it even gets there. By the time it does, we’ve already been nudged in a direction the courts have proven reluctant to change. Wash. Rinse. Repeat. So what? Republicans might decide to use the Democrat’s strategy of Ready. Fire. Aim?

        1. Olly, your team is the one going to the courts (you’re 1-61) since we all did it. You lost.

          Suck it up Buttercup.

  1. A highway patrolman won’t accept a phony driver’s license.

    The lottery commission won’t accept a bogus lottery ticket.

    A casino won’t pay on a tampered slot machine.

    But Dems, big media, big tech, and China expect us to bow and accept a corrupt election that puts a senile and compromised duffer in the White House.

    Fight it.

    1. State and local election officials and judges of both parties are making you accept a legal and valid election, just like they always do.

      Suck it up Buttercup.

    1. Nailed it.

      ‘Antifa scumbags’ threatened his wife, newborn outside of his home – Washington Examiner

      A group named ShutdownDC, which says on its website that it “uses strategic direct action to advance justice and hold officials accountable,” took credit for the late-night house visit in the Northern Virginia suburbs of D.C., noting the police arrived on the scene.

      “We came to let Hawley know that his actions are undemocratic and unacceptable,” ShutDownDC activist Patrick Young said in a post online. “Voters decided who they wanted to be president and now Hawley is trying to silence their voices, even after Republican election officials certified the vote counts. And let’s not forget that the bulk of the votes they would throw out come from Black and brown voters. This is an attempted coup waged by silencing the voices of people of color.”

      The group said the visit was an hour-long “vigil” with about a dozen activists, a description with which the senator took umbrage.

      “Now ‘vigil’ means screaming threats through bullhorns, vandalizing property, pounding on the doors of homes and terrorizing innocent people and children,” he tweeted.

      1. Bray (Estovir), Trump’s attempt to overturn the election ‘is’ an attempt to disenfranchise voters of color. We know who Trump represents.

        Trump’s base will be protesting in Washington this week and we shall see who they are. It won’t be people of color!

        1. Trump’s base will be protesting in Washington this week and we shall see who they are. It won’t be people of color!

          Paint Chips, if you had a lead-free spot in that brain of yours, you’d admit that your statement is a lie. Of course Trump has supporters of all colors and persuasions. That’s not even in dispute. Are the percentages the same as for Democrats? Of course not. But it’s intellectually lazy to conclude conservatives want to disenfranchise anyone, let alone people of color.

          1. Olly, GOP radicals posing as “consservatives” are right now trying to disenfranchise millions of voters in states they lost. WTF are you talking about?

          2. Olly, Biden’s victories in all the key swing states were powered by minority voters. And those are the very states whose votes Trump has tried hardest to nullify. Philadelphia, Detroit, Atlanta, Milwaukee and even Phoenix were key to Biden victories. And those cities all have significant non-white populations.

          3. Paint Chips is upset that blacks, Hispanics and LGBT voted for Trump in record numbers, earning the rebuke of Charles BLOWhard.

            Also, the percentage of LGBT voting for Trump doubled from 2016. DOUBLED!!! This is why LGBT people of color don’t really trust the white gays. Yes, I said what I said. Period.

            — Charles M. Blow (@CharlesMBlow) November 4, 2020

            1. REGARDING ABOVE:

              That’s Estovir, the creepiest of nerds and troll of this blog. Estovir seeks to be the first and last responder to virtually every post. And he usually is! No one ever cares to comment after Estovir has soiled the thread.

      2. Had a buddy that worked for Uncle Same in El Salvador. Something about Squads. We need them now, here.

        1. Paint Chips will attend to stalk the men. When they ignore him..well, as they saying goes….hell hath no fury like a Queen scorned

          Bwahahaahahahaaha

          1. REGARDING ABOVE:

            This is all Estovir can come up with; this ‘one’ stupid video that he watches over and over. Such is the life a creepy closet queen.

    2. Gladiator! Now that’s a true man’s film! No wonder Paint Chips is stalking commenters more than usual.

  2. DeBlah should ask Biden’s left wing nominees who have made millions in speaking fees denouncing Trump

    …….

    Biden’s Revolving Door

    Companies that paid Biden’s Treasury and State nominees have business before the departments they are set to run, according to records reviewed by The Daily Poster.

    Yellen’s financial disclosure shows she made more than $7 million from speaking fees in just the three years after she left her government job. The bulk of the money, $4 million, came from companies and trade groups that have reported lobbying the Treasury Department in the past two years, according to a Daily Poster review of lobbying records.

    https://www.dailyposter.com/p/bidens-revolving-door

  3. For the purveyors here of voter fraud claims, here’s the Election Official for the State of Georgia doing a point by point refutation of your and the President’s BS with references to the online proof collected on the state’s election site. He calls out the President for his lies and states that in many instances they are intentional lies. His point by point refutation begins at about the 4 minute mark after he discusses the current election data and encourages all to show up and vote. He is thorough.

    https://youtu.be/zLYugNRVLiQ

    The evidence to the BS is at this site and includes videos of the State Farm building as well results from hand tallys by county, etc.

    https://securevotega.com/factcheck/

  4. Rep Will Hurd R-Tex

    “When I was undercover at the CIA, I saw firsthand how our enemies steal elections and try to interfere in ours. Elected officials continuing to sow doubt amongst the public for petty political gain is playing into our enemies hands.”

    Meanwhile another Texas Republican Representative, Chip Roy, yesterday asked for a vote on his challenging the seating of Represntatives from the same 6 swing states GOP House members are challenging. His impeccable reasoning was that if the process which elected Biden is in question, then so are these members and the House does have a real responsibility concerning the credentials of members.

    Big surprise! the challenge failed by 365-2. No Republicans voted in favor!

    PS Cindy Bragg If you really want my attention, put together a coherent argument. I’m very happily married, and in all ways.

    1. Joe Friday: “I’m very happily married, and in all ways.”
      ***

      That’s what I thought. It’s legal now. Does he have big muscles?

        1. Joe Friday: Says he is married “To a woman”

          ***

          Yes, of course, but ‘she’ is named Frank and has such big muscles and a hairy behind. But we don’t dislike you for that, only for being a rude leftist and bit of a DNC bully.

          1. Young…………I think “joe” got his moniker from the film title “His Girl Friday”…..lol

            1. Cindy maybe you can tell me, ‘Why do Trumpers seek to portray every liberal man as gay and every liberal woman as a so-called ‘feminist’. Are we supposed to believe the only straight people in America are stupid, small town rednecks?? Like you have to be a sack of lard with a hillbilly accent to qualify as ‘straight’???

              Take Young, for instance. To any objective observer, he’s just an ornery, anti-intellectual and about as uncool as they get. I mean like ‘no one’ under 60 would care to hang with Young for more than 2 minutes. Young’s favorite conversation is talking about minorities while assuring the listener he’s not an actual racist.

              But what I’m asking here, Cindy, is why would only ornery, anti-intellectuals qualify as ‘straight’? Like anyone halfway cool must be ‘gay’??? Where’s the logic here??? Are Leading Men in movies stupid sacks of lard spewing ornery, quasi-racist crap???

              It seems that in the Trump era, so many perceptions have been altered to fit Trump-friendly viewpoints.

              1. If you weren’t a self-loathing homersexual and looked as hawt as these men, you’d be happier, prolly getting laid and not trolling on these boards!!!

                🤣

        1. I know I should ignore the juvenile insults from Cindy and Young, but this is all so typical from the Trumpsters on this board. No wonder they follow a low rent leader when they are so obviously low rent themselves. I last called people queer when I was in junior high (middle school for younger readers). I’m guessing their mothers raised them better than this, so maybe it was drugs in the 60’s or no drugs in the 60’s. Something wrong in any case.

            1. Joe was a virus hatched in a Wuhan, China lab, that escaped and has come to plague anyone who reads his pus

              🙈

          1. “the juvenile insults” followed by “they are so obviously low rent themselves”.

            Apparently you have a propensity towards juvenile insults, and have somehow missed the fact that the vast majority of your black and Hispanic American voting base qualifies as “low rent”, in your bigoted opinion.

            But you being a racist is nothing new.

            1. They think nothing of lying because that is what Communists do just like CCP

              https://www.foxnews.com/media/new-york-times-shilling-communist-china-freedoms-coronavirus

              New York Times accused of ‘shilling for communist China’ with glowing piece about freedoms amid coronavirus

              The New York Times was roasted on Monday evening for publishing a glowing story about China that was quickly labeled “propaganda” by critics, as many readers pointed out that the liberal newspaper doesn’t seem to mind pro-communist features but an op-ed by a Republican lawmaker caused chaos inside the newsroom.

              Times reporter Li Yuan penned the story headlined, “In a Topsy-Turvy Pandemic World, China Offers Its Version of Freedom,” which praised the communist nation.

              “While many countries are still reeling from Covid-19, China — where the pandemic originated — has become one of the safest places in the world,” she wrote. “Restaurants are packed. Hotels are full. Long lines form outside luxury brands stores. Instead of Zoom calls, people are meeting face to face to talk business or celebrate the new year.”

              She declared China as the “only major economy to have grown” amid the coronavirus pandemic and took a series of shots at the United States throughout the story.

              “The pandemic has upended many perceptions, including ideas about freedom. Citizens of China don’t have freedom of speech, freedom of worship or freedom from fear — three of the four freedoms articulated by President Franklin D. Roosevelt — but they have the freedom to move around and lead a normal day-to-day life. In a pandemic year, many of the world’s people would envy this most basic form of freedom,” Yuan wrote, adding that “some Americans assert that it is their individual right to ignore health experts’ recommendations to wear masks, putting themselves and others at increasing risk of infection.”

              The Times reporter wrote citizens of China were “perplexed” at the United States’ reporting of high daily cases and its overall handling of the pandemic. “My latest on how the pandemic has upended many perceptions, including ideas about freedom. Chinese don’t have freedom of speech, freedom of worship or freedom from fear, but they have the freedom to move around and lead a normal day-to-day life,” Yuan tweeted to promote the story.

        2. The comments by Young, Cindy and others on the batshi!t crazy trolls like JF are refreshing.
          Glad to see it and with any persuasive scorched earth strategies, they will be sent to Dante’s Circle of Hades to Hillary’s orifices

          Euuuwwwww

          Bwahahahahahahaha

          1. Thanks all for your submittals. Here’s the scoring and winner:

            Anon1 – I think it’s “get back Jack.”’ But thanks for the try. You get a participation trophy to put next to your shirtless poster of Trump.
            Anon2 – the clear winner. You get a weekend in Philly
            Rhodes – highest achievement in the area “Greatest Stretch, You get 2nd place, a week in Philly.
            CTHD – Point taken away for self congratulations at the end, but of course the bodily fluid references and Hillary hating are all mandatory points. You lose.

            The competition is now closed, but hey, keep them coming. Nothing demeans Trumpsters more than these type of posts.

            1. “Nothing demeans Trumpsters more than these type of posts.”

              Yep. They’re ugly to the core. IMHO.

            2. “Here’s the scoring and winner”

              Dead voters, fraudulent ballots, political orders not granted by Legislative bodies….your scoring and elections are frauds just like you. Own it

              1. (points at the scorebaord) 1-61. You lose eileen. Trump loses again and has everyday since Nov 3. It’s what babies and cowards who can’t face the music do.

            3. Joe Joe…..it’s Anon1 here…

              It’s ‘get back Jo Jo’ (do you not know your Beatles tunes??)

              I cleverly added the “e” on the end. Get it? Now git back, Joe Joe, git back to where you once belonged. In the words of the great liar and race riot hoaxster, Jussie Smollet, “this MAGA country.” 🙂

              1. Sorry, and you are right Anon1 – it is the Beattles and “get back Jo JO. My bad. You get 2nd place and that week in Philly!

                PS Almost all Americans “know their Beattles tunes”, and I know a lot, but I was more of a Rolling Stones fan

                1. Woo hoo! 2nd place and a week in Philly! So much winning!

                  Will we see you at MAGAchella/MAGAstock/MAGApalooza tomorrow? It will be a Love Fest. 🙂

      1. His wife is female. (Her high school yearbook has been digitized, as has his).

        We have a shirt-tail who is insufferable. His wife is all but estranged from her father on account of him. He is gassy, opinionated, arrogant, unreflective – just a stew of personality problems. (He is, by trade, an English teacher. He also lives within commuting distance of Gainesville – must be something in the water). Her family are fond of her, but are puzzled she seems to think the world of her husband, because the best they can do is tolerate him. It gets more difficult every year. Some people’s lives are regulated by an exchange of ego satisfactions very strange to anyone outside the transaction.

  5. How long can the Deep State and Big Tech suppress photos from Hunter Biden’s laptop?

    Many of them are frankly disgusting.

    For many people their greatest accomplishment is raising a new generation whom all of us can admire.

    Obviously not true of ‘The Sundown Kid,’ Joe Biden. On the ‘glass half full’ side he may not remember he has a son in a few months at the rate he is sliding. That could spare some embarrassment if he is capable of any embarrassment at all.

    1. So now that the “voter fraud” scandal has blown up, it’s back to attacking Biden’s son, whose father will not have him in any official role, unlike the nepotist in chief? Whatever happened to that blind guy Giuliani found who ran the Mac store in Delaware he claimed Hunter dropped the laptop off in, but he wasn’t sure because he’s blind? Did he just close shop and disappear after the election?

      1. Biden’s son has compromised the likely next president of the United States. Additionally, he implicated his father, Joe Biden, in acts that could be criminal.

        Nothing I am saying above is untrue. Now CK, you can go into your fantasy mode and say the above is not true, but like everything else that would be wrong and something else you cannot prove.

        1. Child, what did I warn you about following me? I’ll let it slide for now with one of your favorites.
          “Let’s start to unwrap the onion by you proving” Biden committed a crime.

          1. CK says: ““Let’s start to unwrap the onion by you proving” Biden committed a crime.”

            Firstly you are quoting from thin air. I don’t see that quote in this discussion. But, I do know you like to make things up.

            You also like to change context, typical leftist. No one said “committed a crime” What was said, “acts that could be criminal.” draws no conclusions. It is a bad habit of yours to misquote, take statements out of context and lie.

            “Child”. You have used that concept earlier to demonstrate your superiority and bolster your own self worth. How does it feel to be beaten so badly by a child? You should be embarrassed but by this time you are used to such occurrences.

            1. Mark N. “You also like to change context, typical leftist. No one said “committed a crime” What was said, “acts that could be criminal.” draws no conclusions.”
              Also Mark N. “Additionally, he implicated his father, Joe Biden, in acts that could be criminal.”

              Okay, so we have a president who has had no less than 8 direct associates actually imprisoned for acts implicating him that not only could be, but were criminal, and he’s also, but you mean only to vaguely suggest Hunter did something that may or may not be criminal and implicates his father but you can’t say. They either were criminal or they weren’t. If you think they’re criminal then prove it. If not, we’ve got real issues to focus on.


              Mark N. “It is a bad habit of yours to misquote, take statements out of context and lie.”
              Also Mark N: (December 31, 2020 at 9:35 PM) “So was I until I got over the shock and reviewed police procedure and what had actually happened.”
              Mark N. (January 1, 2021 at 9:58 AM ) “That that type of restraint is in the police manual is lost.”
              Mark N. (January 4, 2021 at 6:16 PM) ““I never claimed to have read the manual nor did I copy anything it said to lead one to believe I had read it.” “My information came from the multiple news reports that were left unchallenged.”
              Mark N. (January 4, 2021 at 9:13 PM) “The procedure manual still hasn’t been produced. “ “I never said I read the manual”

              Speaking of statements that would likely cause a judge to sanction you if made in open court,
              I’m starting to wonder if you’ve seen the video as you claimed from which you’re determined to prove Chauvin acted as a reasonable officer would throughout. Since you’re awful at finding things I’ll help out: https://youtu.be/NcFoi1q9Cf4

              So again basic Mens Rea question so we can end this:

              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 your answer is yes, you’re a lunatic.
              If your answer is no, Chauvin cannot rely on training material which said it could be used to subdue a suspect. He acted with reckless disregard for Floyd’s life. He is guilty of murder and you have lost.

              BTW next time you need an education in crim law I’ll need my money upfront. I accept bitcoin. If not, stop following me and I’m sure the alt-right attorneys at AutoAdmit may help you for free, but they’ll use a lot more bad words than me when they see your typical incompetence and arrogance in spite of your ignorance, so toughen up child.

              1. I’m going to skip the long replies because you are being idiotic and demonstrate a level of idiocy.

                I said: “implicated his father, Joe Biden, in acts that could be criminal.”

                You changed what was said and added a bit of TDS ranting about Trump, discussion about Chauvin and forgot about the discussion in this mini thread.

                A flight of ideas? Just look at where you flew to and never explained why you changed the word “implicated” to “committed” If you are unaware that these things are not normal see a doctor.

                1. “Biden’s son has compromised the likely next president of the United States. Additionally, he implicated his father, Joe Biden, in acts that could be criminal.”

                  So you aren’t alleging or implying that Hunter Biden, much less Joe, has committed any crime? If you’re scared to do so, why bring it up when those around your leader have? This is called throwing stones from a glass house aka blatant hypocrisy. As I’ve told you in the past that’s a word you need to look up.


                  “You changed what was said and added a bit of TDS ranting about Trump, discussion about Chauvin and forgot about the discussion in this mini thread.”

                  I warned you not to follow and harass me previously (and told you to learn the law). Since you didn’t listen and had the nerve to call me a liar, the examples of you practically perjuring yourself repeatedly before became relevant (and I asked you a basic question to see if you’d learned the law yet…still no answer). Get a life.

                  1. You are a liar.
                    You are a blow hard
                    You give terrible head
                    You should be thankful anyone responds to you
                    Go get your nails done at Paint Chips nail salon in WeHo to see if that improves your marketability

                    1. The petulant children of the alt-right remain childish losers till the end. Let’s see if your brand has any standing after tonight. If not I suppose it’s back to the asylum for you?

                  2. It doesn’t matter if it is “legal” what the Biden crime family has been doing for decades. The point is that the CCP bought and paid for the Biden family’s influence. That is flatout wrong any way you slice it. Joe Biden is compromised, bought and paid for.

                    1. Tony Bobulinski: Biden Is ‘Compromised’ By China

                      “Biden family business partner-turned-whistleblower Tony Bobulinski told Fox News’ Tucker Carlson Tuesday night that Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden is “compromised” by communist China.

                      “If Joe Biden is elected president, which could very well happen,” Carlson said, “how does this constrain his ability to deal with China?”

                      “So I think Joe Biden and the Biden family is compromised,” Bobulinski said. “I just don’t see, given the history here and the facts, how Joe can’t be influenced in some manner based on the history that they have here with CEFC,” a Chinese energy company.”

                      https://thefederalist.com/2020/10/27/biden-family-whistleblower-joe-biden-is-compromised-by-communist-china/

                      “Hunter Biden called his dad ‘the Big Guy’ or ‘my Chairman,’ and frequently referenced asking him for his sign-off or advice on various potential deals that we were discussing,” wrote Bobulinski, substantiating that the identity of “the Big Guy” in a May 17, 2017, email published in the New York Post earlier this month is a reference to Joe Biden. The same email showed Hunter Biden was being offered a $3 million-a-year contract from a Ye who possessed deep ties to the Chinese Communist Party for “introductions alone,” where 10 percent was flagged to be set aside for “the Big Guy.”

                      On Friday, The Federalist published explosive text messages from a Biden business associate instructing Bobulinski to conceal Joe Biden’s involvement with deals related to the CCP-linked firm.

                      “Don’t mention Joe being involved, it’s only when you are face to face,” wrote James Gilliar.”

                      Throughout the entire presidential campaign, Joe Biden has denied ever discussing business with his son, “or with anyone else,” and the former vice president even fat-shamed an Iowa voter for bringing it up. Such claims had also been contradicted in the New York Post’s first tranche of reporting from the laptop evidently belonging to Hunter Biden.

                      The FBI has also reportedly seized Hunter Biden’s laptop over the course of a federal money-laundering investigation and reportedly interviewed Bobulinski Friday.

                      Catch up on the Biden family’s latest scandals here.”

                    2. Ahh so no detective skills, just alt-right sources and Fox News (Tucker Carlson no less) that they themselves have contradicted upon attempts to verify:

                      “ Bobulinski provided some of his records to outlets like Fox News and the Wall Street Journal. Both reported that they do not show Joe Biden had business dealings with SinoHawk Holdings or took money from the Chinese company”

                      https://www.politifact.com/article/2020/oct/29/tony-bobulinski-hunter-biden-and-china-explainer/

                      Meanwhile president Trump has been verified to have made $200 million in foreign business dealings since 2016. We’re not even talking Kushner or one of his appointed kids. If foreign money potentially buying and paying for influence is such a concern of the alt-right as you suggest, someone better warn president Trump and the GOP that they may be compromised! I’m sure they’ll investigate it before it’s too late.

                  3. “So you aren’t alleging or implying that Hunter Biden, much less Joe, has committed any crime?”

                    Unlike you CK, I look for more evidence. Right now it is worth investigating criminality and influence peddling. What was seen on the computer and stated by Bobulinsky along with other things places Joe Biden in the limelight. He has had many chances to answer the questions raised including those things he has said that appear to be contradicted by events.

                    “I warned you”

                    Is that a threat? We can add that to your ignorance, habit of quoting things that do not exist, taking things out of context, prevarication and overall ignorance.

                    1. “Right now it is worth investigating criminality and influence peddling.”

                      Based on uncorroborated claims by another Giuliani story, claims that even Fox News couldn’t verify) As the leader of your party personally makes $200million from foreign investors buying influence while president which is actually verified. Spoken like the hypocrite you and the alt rights have repeatedly proven yourselves. Are you proud of these antics taking the GOP down with you?

                      “ Is that a threat?”
                      Also you “expect blowback”

                      Seriously kid, grow up and stop following me.

                    2. “Right now it is worth investigating criminality and influence peddling.”

                      “Based on uncorroborated claims by another Giuliani story, claims that even Fox News couldn’t verify)”

                      I guess your ignorance is complete. Giuliani need not be in the picture to recognize the need to investigate Biden’s potential criminality and influence peddling. This not something new that was just discovered yesterday.

                      “Seriously kid, grow up and stop following me.”

                      Are you getting paranoid again?

                    3. “ Giuliani need not be in the picture to recognize the need to investigate Biden’s potential criminality and influence peddling”
                      —-
                      Id suggest you at least find a source to confirm he received payments, which even Fox News has been unable to.

                      Otherwise you may as well investigate the moon landing being faked. Also nothing to say about throwing stones from your very flimsy glass house I see. Now get a life.

                    4. Id suggest you at least find a source to confirm he received payments, which even Fox News has been unable to.

                      I’d suggest that you start looking at the hard data and stop being forced fed junk from the left. You are a better source of foie gras than of information.

                    5. “ I’d suggest that you start looking at the hard data and stop being forced fed junk from the left.”

                      I told you to prove your case earlier and you wined. Now you allege nonsense, provide said hard data. Prove your case.

                    6. “I told you to prove your case earlier and you wined. Now you allege nonsense, provide said hard data. Prove your case.”

                      Idiot, the prosecutor provides evidence of guilt. The defenses job is to disprove enough evidence so his client is found not guilty

                      A man is innocent until proven guilty. I am surprised you didn’t know that.

                    7. “Prove your case.”

                      A person is innocent until proven guilty. You are demonstrating a shocking amount of ignorance.

                    8. “ Idiot, the prosecutor provides evidence of guilt. The defenses job is to disprove enough evidence so his client is found not guilty

                      A man is innocent until proven guilty. I am surprised you didn’t know that.”

                      You were saying something about mischaracterizing another’s statements?

                      How do you even begin to claim it is my job to present the evidence when you are the one who brought the accusation? I think you just want attention. For the last time stop following me. You will be ignored at best.

                    9. “You were saying something about mischaracterizing another’s statements?”

                      Not at all a mischaracterization. I heard the facts from others. I heard your facts and didn’t think they were good enough. I had an open mind especially since I was taken aback by the video. Your mind is shut tight.

                      It is not my job to prove him innocent.

                      A man is innocent until proven guilty.

                      “How do you even begin to claim it is my job to present the evidence when you are the one who brought the accusation?”

                      What accusation? Was it that I didn’t think the evidence I saw for a conviction was good enough?

                      A man is innocent until proven guilty. Unfortunately you don’t recognize that.

                      “You will be ignored at best.”

                      Fantastic. I have been waiting for that. You said something similar two or three times before but weren’t good on your word. This time I believe you.

                    10. Mark N. says:
                      January 4, 2021 at 9:19 PM
                      Biden’s son has compromised the likely next president of the United States. Additionally, he implicated his father, Joe Biden, in acts that could be criminal.
                      —–
                      CK07 says:
                      January 5, 2021 at 6:50 PM
                      So you aren’t alleging or implying that Hunter Biden, much less Joe, has committed any crime? If you’re scared to do so, why bring it up when those around your leader have?
                      —–
                      Mark N. says:
                      January 6, 2021 at 5:44 PM
                      [quoting CK07] “I told you to prove your case earlier and you whined. Now you allege nonsense, provide said hard data. Prove your case.”
                      Idiot, the prosecutor provides evidence of guilt. The defenses job is to disprove enough evidence so his client is found not guilty
                      —-
                      Mark N. says:
                      January 6, 2021 at 5:47 PM
                      You are demonstrating a shocking amount of ignorance.
                      —-

                      Yes, I have repeatedly demonstrated the shocking and alarming amount of ignorance you possess. When you say someone did something wrong, you, Mark N., have to provide the evidence of said wrongdoing. That makes you the prosecution dum-dum (those detective skills you proudly displayed here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xG1wuVE3RSY being demonstrated yet again)

                    11. ” When you say someone did something wrong, you, Mark N., have to provide the evidence of said wrongdoing.”

                      You said you would ignore me, but unfortunately you didn’t. You don’t know when to keep your mouth shut.

                      You are such an idiot and a liar to boot.

                      What I said was ” acts that could be criminal.”. I didn’t say they were. Joe Biden is a public figure soon to take over the Presidency. That definitely compromises the future President.

                      The full quote below.

                      “Biden’s son has compromised the likely next president of the United States. Additionally, he implicated his father, Joe Biden, in acts that could be criminal.”

                    12. “Was it that I didn’t think the evidence I saw for a conviction was good enough?”

                      So that’s you posting allegations- hearsay not hard evidence, that has not been substantiated, as Anonymous? If you don’t think it’s good enough for a conviction you suck as a prosecutor. I don’t have to defend against anything if the prosecution can’t convince themselves of guilt, much less a jury. I told you to prove your case, and you haven’t even proven it to yourself.

                      “Fantastic. I have been waiting for that. You said something similar two or three times before but weren’t good on your word. This time I believe you.”

                      Harass me in another thread and at best I will ignore you. At worst I will embarrass you. I told you I would let it slide this time and encouraged you to get a life.

                    13. Let’s be very clear here Mark N., because you seem to love to create chaos based on your confusion over simple things:

                      “Mark N. says:January 6, 2021 at 1:52 PM
                      Id suggest you at least find a source to confirm he received payments, which even Fox News has been unable to.

                      I’d suggest that you start looking at the hard data and stop being forced fed junk from the left. You are a better source of foie gras than of information.
                      –next statement–

                      CK07 says:January 6, 2021 at 2:20 PM
                      “ I’d suggest that you start looking at the hard data and stop being forced fed junk from the left.”

                      I told you to prove your case earlier and you wined. Now you allege nonsense, provide said hard data. Prove your case.”

                      Clearly here we were talking about the case at hand involving Biden. You now try to conflate that with a case YOU told me to prove. I never told you to prove the case against Chauvin. You told me to and I quoted hard evidence direct from autopsies and video. You chose to defend him based on a manual you hadn’t read. I shot down your defense based on material in the manual and common sense. I told you to answer a basic question regarding the case so we could then reach a simple conclusion and you have ignored and refused to answer said question 4 or more times now. I didn’t tell you to prove that case, I told you to answer the question or present your defense to the evidence I provided and you failed.

                      Here you alleged Biden was guilty of wrongdoing. I told you to prove it. You whined that you hadn’t alleged guilt. I suggested you were a coward for throwing stones from a glass house and you responded that I should look at evidence you hadn’t provided. This is not how the law works. Learn the law. Stop bugging me. I gave you a pass in this article, and I don’t think we have anything left to talk about in the last unless you can answer the question asked repeatedly there.

                    14. You are clearly starting to decompensate again.

                      “I quoted hard evidence direct from autopsies “

                      Actually you quoted very little. I’ll give an example. The lungs were very heavy. That is important but your left wing site didn’t discuss that with you. They think you are dumb and will accept anything they tell you. You have proven them correct.

                      “You chose to defend him based on a manual you hadn’t read.”

                      You obfuscate the truth. I wanted to know what the manual said to make sure Chauvin’s hold was according to the book. I asked you to provide it to me since you were acting as if you had the actual manual.

                      “I shot down your defense based on material in the manual and common sense.”

                      You have no common sense.

                      You also do not understand the law. It is the job of a prosecutor to prove Chauvin guilty.

                      A man is innocent until proven guilty. You still don’t get that.

                      “Here you alleged Biden was guilty of wrongdoing.”

                      That is a lie. Though I personally believe Joe Biden to be guilty I didn’t say he was. You are so bad in argument that you have to change what the other person said.

                      ” I don’t think we have anything left to talk about “

                      You never had anything to talk about. That is why you lie and change the words others have said. You are a nutcase.

                    15. “You said you would ignore me, but unfortunately you didn’t. You don’t know when to keep your mouth shut.”

                      I said I would ignore you if you continued to follow and harass me but clearly said I would let it slide this time. It would be illogical for me to say you’re harassing me beyond the first post here and your typical idiocy when I asked you to prove the case thereafter and it seemed you were attempting but failing to do so. My ignoring you was logically related to you following me in other articles (and I noted at best, implying at worst I would pull your card) unless you are scared to allege or attempt to prove anything and are just talking nonsense.

                      “What I said was ” acts that could be criminal.”. I didn’t say they were.”

                      And as I suggested, if you’re scared to allege or imply Biden’s son committed a crime you are throwing stones from a glass house when Trump has multiple associates who have Actually been convicted of crimes which implicate him (on top of receiving $200m+ from foreign sources since 2016).

                      You proceeded to suggest I look at hard evidence. It’s not my job to look for said evidence when you made the accusation. Now you suggest you made no accusation so I’m not really sure why you followed me here.

                    16. “I said I would ignore you if you continued to follow and harass me but clearly said I would let it slide this time.”

                      You have said so many things you can’t keep what you said straight. You must not be very harassed to keep responding. Not very bright either.

                      “And as I suggested, if you’re scared to allege or imply Biden’s son committed a crime “

                      I didn’t even say Hunter committed a crime. For a person that thinks he understands the law not to even understand the English language is appalling.

                    17. Mark N. “You have said so many things you can’t keep what you said straight. You must not be very harassed to keep responding. Not very bright either.”

                      Once again, reading comprehension- “in another thread”. I encouraged you to prove your case against Biden, and it was implicit I gave you a pass on this single thread, particularly considering we were still engaged in discussion in another.


                      Mark N. [quoting CK07″“And as I suggested, if you’re scared to allege or imply Biden’s son committed a crime “]

                      I didn’t even say Hunter committed a crime. For a person that thinks he understands the law not to even understand the English language is appalling.”


                      So you’re scared and simply sharing your fears with me because you have no life, just as you’re scared to answer a simple question. Got it. Sit down clown.

                    18. “prove your case against Biden,”

                      I did. Everything I said was true. There was nothing to prove. You can copy the entire statement and pick out what was wrong. You already tried that by changing my words. You failed and then you failed again and again.

                      I am waiting for you to explode or implode. With you it’s hard to tell. Call 911 first.

                      If you stop posting I will check in on you at a newer thread.

                    19. Mark N. says:
                      January 9, 2021 at 10:40 AM
                      “CK, you are a fraud. You would have been better off continuing to play the part of a fool.”
                      ===

                      I do find it interesting that a guy who posts 20 times in a row under an anonymous pseudonym for 4 days straight, makes up several excuses as to why including being forgetful when called out on it, and claims I’m crazy for thinking otherwise, all of a sudden has no problem remembering to type any credentials the next 5 days and 20+ posts.

                      ===
                      Mark N. Says “That is all one has to say to open the door for a deep investigation of the entire Biden Family.
                      Add Ukraine and China, one notes some despicable things happening. I won’t even bother mentioning Russia.”
                      ===

                      I don’t have time to deal with your thoughts and fears. Either you think he committed a crime and are willing to try and prove it or you don’t. Thus far you’ve yet to provide a shred of evidence and want me to go looking for it.

                      ===
                      Mark N. says “A valid police hold indicates that a police officer used a valid hold on a known criminal who was resisting arrest before being touched. That arrest was immediately preceded with a criminal act by Floyd who already appeared “not in control of himself” That was the man the police had to deal with.”
                      ===

                      So in your mind this meant it was reasonable and defensible to kneel on his neck for 5 minutes after cuffing him. Got it. I guess you also would have been fine with him shooting him on the ground after he lay unconscious, right? So long as he used proper form.

                      ===
                      Mark N. says “Why are you acting so dumb? You have taken the prosecutors side. The proof of guilt must come from the prosecutor. Therefore one of the things you must prove is that Chavin didn’t act legally.”
                      “I am just a commenter that is destroying your arguments and forcing you to make disconnecting statements to prove that you have expertise in this area. I could take a common person off the street and they would have better judgement than you. In fact that is exactly the person who will end up on the jury.”
                      ===

                      Okay Mark so you’re right about one thing. A common person is the type of person who ends up on the jury. They also have the basics of the law explained to them and are instructed how to take the elements of a crime one by one, which is something you refuse to do.

                      Let’s start with the basics so as not to confuse you.

                      The first element for murder is the Actus Reus.

                      An officer shoots an armed and deadly suspect and the suspect dies with the shooting being one of the contributing factors. Has he committed the Actus Reus for murder?

                      We’ll address the mens rea in your followup.

                    20. “I do find it interesting that a guy who posts 20 times in a row under an anonymous pseudonym …”

                      Wake up CK, wake up. Almost all post under anonymous pseudonyms. That is the rule, not the exception.

                      “I don’t have time to deal with your thoughts and fears.”

                      You don’t have the ability. You are a fraud.

                      “So in your mind this meant it was reasonable and defensible to kneel on his neck for 5 minutes after cuffing him.”

                      There was no damage to Floyd’s neck or trachea. Your comment about shooting doesn’t relate. It is plain stupid.

                      “They also have the basics of the law explained to them and are instructed how to take the elements of a crime one by one, which is something you refuse to do.”

                      That is exactly what I have done. You take giant leaps of logic and keep landing on your nose.

                      You love playing games with those legal terms. You think that by using such words you sound authoritative. No. You sound stupid.

                    21. Mark N. says:January 9, 2021 at 3:50 PM “Wake up CK, wake up. Almost all post under anonymous pseudonyms. That is the rule, not the exception.”
                      ===

                      Yes, but the logical question is why did you decide to hide behind one for so long. Is it because you knew you didn’t know what you were talking about?

                      ===
                      Mark N. says: January 9, 2021 at 3:50 PM “You don’t have the ability. You are a fraud.”
                      ===

                      Pretty sure no one has the ability to disprove something the other person is scared to explicitly allege. You’d rather keep beating around the bush than provide evidence and back up anything you say. You’ve made that clear. You’ve given the most cowardly rationale I’ve heard yet as you throw stones, hide your hands and hide behind a large rock. I’m sure if you hadn’t been outed you’d still be hiding behind the name anonymous.

                      ===
                      Mark N. says: January 9, 2021 at 3:50 PM “There was no damage to Floyd’s neck or trachea. Your comment about shooting doesn’t relate. It is plain stupid.”
                      ===

                      You’re misstating it, but neck compression isn’t the same as a neck injury. You’re not a medical expert but seem to be looking for evidence that his neck was or wasn’t broken. Maybe this language from one of the other autopsies will help you. “”asphyxiation from sustained pressure.” Does Asphyxiation mean you’re going to find a broken larynx or trachea Dr. Mark N.? Does the absence of injury to the right ventricle mean someone couldn’t have had a heart attack? They examined every part of his body, even his digits so you picking this to try and shoot down the actus reus should require a bit of medical knowledge. You’re basically saying Chauvin’s actions did not cause or contribute to Floyd’s death when that’s the opposite of the conclusions the autopsies reached, and unlike their authors, you have no medical experience.

                      ==
                      Mark N. says: January 9, 2021 at 3:50 PM “That is exactly what I have done. You take giant leaps of logic and keep landing on your nose.
                      You love playing games with those legal terms. You think that by using such words you sound authoritative. No. You sound stupid.”
                      ===

                      Umm. That is how you process a basic criminal law question. You eat the elephant one piece at a time, one element at a time. Did the defendant contribute to the decedent’s death, yes or no?

                      Then did the defendant intend or not care if he helped cause the decedent’s death, yes or no?

                      You’re asking me whether it was legal for him to kill him or not and that doesn’t even matter until you get to defenses. You want to jumble it all together and at the same time make arguments that you don’t think Chauvin’s action had anything to do with Floyd’s death. You’re not a medical expert, you want to ignore the conclusions of 3 autopsies and pick and choose bits of information therein and then pretend only the facts that sound good to you matter. That’s not how the law works.

                      What sounds stupid is someone (you) who demands a debate on a subject they don’t know the basics of, refuses to learn, and then acts like day 1 crim law 101 terms are rocket science.

                    22. Again CK, the question is why almost all the posters on the blog use anonymous names? Do you not have the aptitude to figure out that simple question? Instead you ask, “why did you decide to hide behind one”? Ask yourself why you hide behind one. You have to be pretty dull not to be able to answer that question.

                      “You’d rather keep beating around the bush than provide evidence “

                      I provided you two items Bobulinsky’s statement and Hunter’s laptop. Are you going to tell us you never heard of them? …Let’s all laugh in unison.

                      “but neck compression isn’t the same as a neck injury.”

                      Do you wish to tell us what neck compression means? When you dive under water one could say there is total body compression from the water. Can you tell me what that means as well? Was the neck bruised or broken? Was the trachea damaged. Can you tell us the damage?

                      The official autopsy found “no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation,” “No Life-threatening injuries identified” “neck discloses no areas of contusion or hemorrhage within the musculature” “The larynx is lined with intact musculature” ”cervical spine… free of hemorrhage”.

                      The above will be cited by the defense. It’s up to you to prove homicide. Using hypothetical questions doesn’t work. Appeals to emotion do not prove fact. Logic is an essential item in this debate and you do not seem to posses the ability to adequately draw logical conclusions.

                      It is not enough to use the legal terms. You have to be able to provide the elements in a logical fashion. You don’t do that. You only repeat the legal terms absent the required fact. You think that makes you look smart, but absent the proof you look the opposite.

                      “you want to ignore the conclusions of 3 autopsies “

                      The official autopsy does not agree with your conclusions (see above). You keep saying these things but fail to prove them. Instead you act knowledgeable when you aren’t and accuse your opponent of knowing nothing when he knows more than you and has been more accurate.

                    23. Mark N-“Again CK, the question is why almost all the posters on the blog use anonymous names? Do you not have the aptitude to figure out that simple question? Instead you ask, “why did you decide to hide behind one”? Ask yourself why you hide behind one. You have to be pretty dull not to be able to answer that question.”
                      ===

                      Yes, plenty of posters use anonymous names, not in conjunction with a second handle here, nor do they lie about using them in conjunction. It’s pretty simple what I’m asking. Why did you feel the need to pretend to be two separate people?

                      ===
                      Mark N.- “I provided you two items Bobulinsky’s statement and Hunter’s laptop. Are you going to tell us you never heard of them? …Let’s all laugh in unison.”
                      ===

                      Okay, so next time someone says Trump may have committed crimes, I suppose you’ll shut up the moment they tell you read Mary Trump’s book and the Mueller report? That’s not providing evidence but if you want to keep wallowing in your own ignorance destroying your glass house as you aim at others windows go right ahead.

                      ===
                      Mark N.-“Do you wish to tell us what neck compression means? When you dive under water one could say there is total body compression from the water. Can you tell me what that means as well? Was the neck bruised or broken? Was the trachea damaged. Can you tell us the damage?”
                      ===

                      I don’t need to. You’re trying to convince the jury 3 autopsies, a video, and a dying man’s statements aren’t evidence that Chauvin’s actions had anything to do with Floyd’s death when they very clearly are to any reasonable observer. The problem is you aren’t a reasonable observer and you want to be both defense and jury.

                      ===
                      Mark N.- “The official autopsy found “no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation,” “No Life-threatening injuries identified” “neck discloses no areas of contusion or hemorrhage within the musculature” “The larynx is lined with intact musculature” ”cervical spine… free of hemorrhage”.
                      The above will be cited by the defense. It’s up to you to prove homicide. Using hypothetical questions doesn’t work. Appeals to emotion do not prove fact. Logic is an essential item in this debate and you do not seem to posses the ability to adequately draw logical conclusions.”
                      ==

                      I’ve never heard of a defense resting its case without making any argument. That doesn’t mean these arguments won’t be shot down in light of the following underlying and proximate cause of death determinations:

                      “his death was caused by the police subdual and restraint”- US armed forces medical examiner

                      “Cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression” -Hennepin county medical examiner

                      “asphyxiation from sustained pressure”-Independent autopsy.

                      Are you alleging these assessments were not made or on their face do not outweigh the defenses argument that one autopsy didn’t find “asphyxia” or “strangulation” when that same autopsy never mentioned either term to begin with and reached an entirely different conclusion you’re ignoring?
                      That’s like arguing a victim of a gun shooting didn’t die from being shot because the autopsy didn’t note “bleeding out” while ignoring the fact that it concluded trauma and a cerebral contusion were the causes of death.

                      ==
                      Mark N.-“The official autopsy does not agree with your conclusions (see above). You keep saying these things but fail to prove them. Instead you act knowledgeable when you aren’t and accuse your opponent of knowing nothing when he knows more than you and has been more accurate.”
                      ===

                      You’re clearly delusional. No reasonable juror is going to give you the actus reus that Chauvin’s actions had nothing to do with Floyd’s death. Your best bet is to try to defend against the guilty Mens Rea but you seem incapable of this and the facts don’t support you. You want to play defense and jury but don’t wish to know or follow the rules to begin with yet suggests I should “start thinking about why trials take place and who determines innocence or guilt.” It’s like challenging someone to a one-on-one game of basketball when you don’t know what dribbling is and demanding you be allowed to run around the court carrying the ball and count points you haven’t scored.

                    24. “Why did you feel the need to pretend to be two separate people?”

                      Why do you pretend to be two separate people? It’s strange because ultimately your answer will be the same as mine. You have been discussing case this with one individual entity. In your case two would be overkill.

                      Trump has gone through investigations along with people spying on him for over 4 years. Joe Biden’s been given a pass. The claims against Trump have been proven false. So far the claims against Biden continue to grow and Biden has even lied about the computer. You are being hypocritical, but that is common with your breed.

                      Mary Trump didn’t prove anything and the Mueller report has been proven to be a hit piece more than anything else. Nothing significant was found. Take note how you divert from the discussion at hand, Chauvin. You are as ineffective here as you are there.

                      “3 autopsies, a video, and a dying man’s statements “

                      Quoting from the official autopsy:
                      “no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation,” “No Life-threatening injuries identified” “neck discloses no areas of contusion or hemorrhage within the musculature” “The larynx is lined with intact musculature” ”cervical spine… free of hemorrhage”.

                      The dying man was saying the same things from the start before the neck hold.

                      You need to look at the video and see how Floyd acted from the start. You do realize his history as a violent convicted criminal. Additionally I don’t think any in the crowd were physicians.

                      Your fundamental claim is the neck hold, but when asked if you could tell us if the trachea was damaged you said, “I don’t need to.” In other words you were offended so that is enough to convict a man of homicide. Most unintelligent people know that is foolish.

                      Again you refer to the medical examiner’s report that didn’t explain the autopsy in your blurb but he did when he said:

                      “no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation,” “No Life-threatening injuries identified” “neck discloses no areas of contusion or hemorrhage within the musculature” “The larynx is lined with intact musculature” ”cervical spine… free of hemorrhage”.

                      There was a paid expert witness who did an autopsy. In the medical field expert witnesses have a habit of contradicting prior testimony in another case. I did not find the full autopsy report by Baden but I will look at it if you can produce it. We do have the reports of Fentanyl and other drugs in Floyd’s body along with the lungs that unexpectedly weighed 2-3X normal. You can’t seem to handle the lungs.

                      Again you play the legal terms without being able to provide a logical sequence of events that proves your contentions.

                    25. Mark N.- “Why do you pretend to be two separate people? It’s strange because ultimately your answer will be the same as mine. You have been discussing case this with one individual entity. In your case two would be overkill.”
                      ===

                      I’ve only ever posted as CK07 here. You’re being disingenuous but this is a pointless discussion knowing you won’t give a straight answer.

                      ===
                      Mark N.-“Take note how you divert from the discussion at hand, Chauvin. You are as ineffective here as you are there.”
                      ===

                      You followed me here to talk about what you thought Biden did. You want me to go look for things but don’t want to suggest any crime was committed, lest you have to take on any burden yourself. I’ve got better things to do with my time so if you don’t want to try and prove anything, I’m more than happy to stick to the Chauvin case.

                      ===
                      Mark N.-“Additionally I don’t think any in the crowd were physicians.”
                      ===

                      Well an off duty Minneapolis first responder was present who demanded they check his pulse, as they rebuffed her. Also when the ambulance first responder arrived they stated “the fact that you guys aren’t checking his pulse and doing compressions if he needs them, you guys are on another level!”

                      ===
                      Mark N.-“Your fundamental claim is the neck hold, but when asked if you could tell us if the trachea was damaged you said, “I don’t need to.” In other words you were offended so that is enough to convict a man of homicide. Most unintelligent people know that is foolish.”
                      ===

                      Again, trachea damage is not necessary to prove you hampered someone’s breathing. You want to change the debate to a medical one when you have no medical experience. The evidence is clear that Chauvin made it more difficult for Floyd to breathe, Floyd complained about what Chauvin was doing and said he couldn’t breathe in conjunction, and Floyd passed out as Chauvin continued his antics for several minutes.

                      ===
                      Mark N.- “I did not find the full autopsy report by Baden but I will look at it if you can produce it. We do have the reports of Fentanyl and other drugs in Floyd’s body along with the lungs that unexpectedly weighed 2-3X normal. You can’t seem to handle the lungs.”
                      ===

                      As I explained before if the lungs and the asphyxiation or neck compression are both contributing factors in death, I do not need to explain the lungs. Legally Chauvin has committed the actus reus for murder if he has committed an act contributing to Floyd’s death. I don’t need to prove the drugs or the lungs had nothing to do with Floyd’s death if you can’t defend against the autopsies conclusions that the restraint, neck compression etc. was one of the causes of death. It’s like sacrificing a pawn or bishop to force a checkmate as far as the Actus Reus is concerned. That in itself isn’t determinative of guilt because now the battle moves to the Mens Rea. As for the autopsy from Baden, I don’t believe that’s been disclosed in full to the public yet, although his and his university partner’s conclusions have along with conducting press conferences:
                      https://www.mncourts.gov/getattachment/Media/StateofMinnesotavTouThao/Container-Documents/Content-Documents/Exhibit-2.pdf.aspx?lang=en-US
                      Do you need me to provide the army report as well? You’ll find it similarly unfavorable to your defense.

                      ===
                      Mark N. “Again you play the legal terms without being able to provide a logical sequence of events that proves your contentions.”
                      ===

                      Logical sequence of events:
                      Floyd walks around with no difficulty breathing.
                      Cops restrain and cuff him and he has some difficulty.
                      He pushes back and they restrain him on the ground as Chauvin places his knee on Floyd’s neck.
                      Floyd complains he can’t breathe and notes the knee is part of the reason.
                      Chauvin disregards.
                      Bystanders beg police to stop with the excessive force and Floyd passes out.
                      Chauvin continues to kneel on his neck to the horror of onlookers.
                      EMTs arrive and chastise officers who walk off seemingly unconcerned.

                      Thus, while Floyd may have died absent Chauvin’s actions, Chauvin’s actions would seem to have hastened the process at the very least, therefore Chauvin has committed the Actus Reus for murder.

                      Chauvin also acted in reckless disregard for Floyd’s wellbeing and possessed the mens rea for murder.
                      The manual instructs officers not to use such holds against suspects who are passively resisting, therefore a seasoned officer such as Chauvin cannot rely on the manual for his defense to the stated Mens Rea.

                      Have I left anything out?

                    26. “I’ve only ever posted as CK07 here.”

                      In our discussions I pointed out times when you were lying so how do I know you are telling the truth? I can say the same thing. Are you unable to think logically?

                      “You followed me here to talk about what you thought Biden did. “

                      I post to others but not much. I’m not looking to be tied up with such incomplete and boring analysis. Actually I read what Young said. Your post was incidental but was ignorant so I decided to comment.

                      If you don’t want me to respond to posts you make don’t post to people like Young. I look at their comments and sometimes beyond. I am not interested in the BS you spew but sometimes the ignorance forces me to go where I know I should never have gone. Too much wasted time that would be more productive reading or talking with someone with knowledge like Young.

                      It’s enough to say that had the evidence against Biden been presented against Trump he probably would have successfully been impeached and convicted with Republican approval and put in jail. Politicians don’t do that to insiders like Biden because they wish to protect themselves.

                      “Again, trachea damage is not necessary to prove you hampered someone’s breathing.”

                      Is that your case?

                      Floyd complained of not being able to breathe before he was restrained by Chauvin. There was a reason. Likely Floyd was dying from the drugs he was taking and possibly took as the police were arresting him.

                      If you want to prove actus reus go ahead, People are restrained all the time. I have been waiting for you to show me proof that Chauvin acted outside of the manual and outside what he was taught to do. Don’t forget that Floyd was a convicted and violent felon that was resisting arrest. Show me that the neck compression was significant without damage. Show me that Chauvin intended to or knew that Floyd would die.

                      If Chauvin appropriately placed you in that neck hold the likelihood is that no damage would occur.

                      I believe you are correct (possibly for the first time) that Baden’s autopsy has not been fully disclosed to the public. One has to ask why not? I think such a finding should be released with the data behind it. I take note that they mentioned nothing of the drugs, the lungs, and the fact that no damage was noted in the important area of the neck. The man did die. Whether he was shot dead or died of an overdose, the two things they both have in common is cerebral anoxia. That is what happens when a man dies. They need to show why they believe the cerebral anoxia was caused by the restraint when everything else points to an overdose.

                      “Floyd walks around with no difficulty breathing.”

                      He had difficulty breathing before the restraint. If he had no difficulty breathing and then had some difficulty that demonstrates increasing shortness of breath and that whatever process killed him started before he had the neck restraint. That is exactly what happens with a fentanyl overdose. The breathing becomes more labored until death.

                      “The manual instructs officers not to use such holds against suspects who are passively resisting,”

                      That type of comment requires the manual. Police have been killed by people that are resisting and one needs to consider what is and what is not passive? What is and what is not dangerous? Drugs cause people to become crazy and dangerous to others and themselves.

                      “Have I left anything out?”

                      Your entire argument. The fragments do not provide any type of case against Chauvin.

                    27. Mark N says:
                      January 11, 2021 at 7:09 PM
                      “In our discussions I pointed out times when you were lying so how do I know you are telling the truth? I can say the same thing. Are you unable to think logically?”
                      ===

                      I’m really not sure what you’re talking about or where you pointed out me “lying”. I’ve explicitly quoted you caught in multiple lies so perhaps you are delusional.

                      ===
                      Mark N.-“It’s enough to say that had the evidence against Biden been presented against Trump he probably would have successfully been impeached and convicted with Republican approval and put in jail. Politicians don’t do that to insiders like Biden because they wish to protect themselves.”
                      ===

                      Yep, delusional. Bill Clinton got impeached for lying about a blowjob. Trump lied about paying a pornstar for sex and we turned a blind eye to it. He also was warned not to hire someone believed to be compromised by Russian entanglements and did it anyway, now acts surprised the FBI didn’t ignore this. He also has over half a dozen associates locked up for obstruction or worse involving the Russian investigation. Had any democratic president done what Trump was accused of the investigation would go on for 20 years. Look at Benghazi, White Water, Hillary’s email scandal etc.. The republicans make mountains out of molehills then act like Democrats are insane for not tolerating things they’d demand blood for. But back to the topic at hand.

                      ===
                      Mark N.- “Floyd complained of not being able to breathe before he was restrained by Chauvin. There was a reason. Likely Floyd was dying from the drugs he was taking and possibly took as the police were arresting him.”
                      ===

                      So if someone is complaining of difficulty breathing due to covid then you put your weight on their back and they pass out two minutes later, dying shortly thereafter, does the fact that they complained of difficulty breathing an hour before death mean they would have died absent your involvement? If Chauvin hastened his death by one-minute, even assuming he’d have died regardless, Chauvin is still guilty of the actus reus for murder legally. That’s how the law works.

                      ===
                      Mark N.- “If you want to prove actus reus go ahead, People are restrained all the time. I have been waiting for you to show me proof that Chauvin acted outside of the manual and outside what he was taught to do. Don’t forget that Floyd was a convicted and violent felon that was resisting arrest. Show me that the neck compression was significant without damage. Show me that Chauvin intended to or knew that Floyd would die.”
                      ===

                      It sounds like you’re giving up on Actus Reus. As far as showing you the neck compression was significant, the autopsy conclusions I provided do that in explaining asphyxia. Baden noted “the pressure on the neck interfered with blood flow to his brain and air flow to and from his lungs.” Wilson noted “the neck and chest compression” interfered “with breathing or the delivery of oxygen to the organs.” This led to cerebral anoxia which is “lack of appropriate blood flow to the brain.” You’re looking for a broken neck and claiming that you’d have to see one to indicate asphyxia an trained professionals are explaining that’s not how it works.
                      As for proof Chauvin acted outside the manual: https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12646/Exhibits09182020.pdf
                      If you can navigate a pdf this time see page 4 of 76 number 4. “Employees shall use reasonable judgment in carrying out their duties and responsibilities. They need to weigh the consequences of their actions.”
                      See page 18/76
                      “The MPD authorizes two types of neck restraints: “conscious neck restraint and unconscious neck restraint”
                      “Conscious neck restraint: The subject is placed in a neck restraint with intent to control and not to render the subject unconscious, by only applying light to moderate pressure”
                      “Unconscious neck restraint: The subject is placed in a neck restraint with the intent of rendering the person unconscious by applying adequate pressure.”
                      “The conscious neck restraint may be used against a subject who is actively resisting.”
                      “The unconscious neck restraint shall only be applied in the following circumstances:
                      1. On a subject who is exhibiting active aggression, or;
                      2. For life saving purposes, or;
                      3. On a subject who is exhibiting active resistance in order to gain control of the subject and if lesser attempts have been or would likely be ineffective.”
                      “Neck restraints shall not be used against subjects who are passively resisting as defined by policy.”
                      So, which of these circumstances applies to the situation at hand? You can say he was a violent suspect all you want but why are you using a hold that isn’t even to be used on passively resisting suspects, when he’s been knocked out for 3 minutes or so? You’re asking me how I knew Chauvin intended to or knew Floyd would die and as I’ve said repeatedly that’s not the standard for depraved heart murder (which Chauvin is also charged with). He need only act with reckless disregard for Floyd’s life and that’s exactly what the footage shows.

                      ===
                      Mark N. “I believe you are correct (possibly for the first time) that Baden’s autopsy has not been fully disclosed to the public. One has to ask why not?”
                      ===

                      It’s explained in the paperwork disclosing the conclusions. In short they’re putting the finishing touches on their final reports but are waiting for FOIA “responses and requests for microscopic slides, pictures, and other evidence gathered during Dr. Baker’s initial autopsy of Mr. Floyd.” They “have requested all of these materials but have yet to receive them.” If Baker had given them the material they requested it’s likely they’d have produced the finalized report.

                      ===
                      Mark N.-“That type of comment requires the manual. Police have been killed by people that are resisting and one needs to consider what is and what is not passive? What is and what is not dangerous? Drugs cause people to become crazy and dangerous to others and themselves.”
                      ===

                      See above for link to and additional quotes direct from the manual. As for what is passive, I would think a reasonable person would consider a person who is unconscious for several minutes to be in a passive state. The jury standard in the US is one of reasonableness. Of course no one can prove anything to an unreasonable lunatic juror, which is why we allow attorneys to remove jurors for cause instead of just limiting them to preemptory challenges.

                      ===
                      Mark N.-“Your entire argument. The fragments do not provide any type of case against Chauvin.”
                      ===

                      It does to a reasonable juror. You’re trying to be both the defense and the jury and you’re not acting as a reasonable one. You asked that I prove my case, and implied it would be to the standard at court, when you brought up that I should think who decides cases. Instead you act like I have to prove the case to you, when it’s clear you’ve already made up your mind and will not budge on anything until no shadow of a doubt remains. The attorneys would have removed you for cause long ago. As I’ve pointed out before you’re literally to the right of Trump and Limbaugh on this.

                    28. “I’m really not sure what you’re talking about ”

                      OK, I get that. You don’t know when you are lying or misquoting another. I pointed that out to you but you continue to lie about it. It’s all in black and white for you to review.

                      “Yep, delusional. … … …“

                      You can’t stay on one topic. A flight of ideas? I’m not in favor of discussing Bill Clinton’s impeachment, one I wasn’t in favor of. You on the other hand are a hypocrite so the discussion is a waste of time. Principles are not your strong suit.

                      “So if someone is complaining of difficulty breathing due to covid “

                      No one brought Covid up or said it was more than incidental in this case. Is this another flight of ideas?

                      “hastened his death by one-minute, even assuming he’d have died regardless, Chauvin is still guilty”

                      I think that is a dangerous statement. It’s also meaningless until all the elements are logically tied together. Even then it is iffy.

                      “It sounds like you’re giving up on Actus Reus.”

                      You didn’t prove it. (for the record, above I asked you to prove Actus Reus .)

                      “Baden noted “the pressure on the neck interfered “ Yet after all this time neither of us has a copy of the complete autopsy or a defense of such statements, but we do have…

                      Quoting from the official autopsy:
                      “no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation,” “No Life-threatening injuries identified” “neck discloses no areas of contusion or hemorrhage within the musculature” “The larynx is lined with intact musculature” ”cervical spine… free of hemorrhage”.

                      You still haven’t proven that Chauvin did not follow the manual. There are a bunch of words that are not clearly defined in the document provided. Again, since there were no pages you want people to count pages. That is ridiculous like most things coming from you. Normal people recognize that the document is a statute and within the documents there are numbers provided in sequential order so one can quickly look them up. Despite all your self-inferred knowledge that doesn’t exist, you didn’t know that. In this case the number is 5-311 and is far better than a page number and can reduce the size of you quotes so you can target in on the words which you failed to do.

                      In any case, those words are clear, “may be used against a subject who is actively resisting.” 5-311 A Under definitions they use the same term as Baden (compressing … neck) Floyd was actively resisting. The restraint prevents them from resisting and can prevent bodily harm to the criminal, police officer or anyone nearby. In the meantime they were waiting for an ambulance.

                      “Neck Restraint: Non-deadly force option. Defined as compressing one or both sides of a person’s neck with an arm or leg, without applying direct pressure to the trachea or airway” That is exactly what Baden says without explanation. That makes Baden’s statements standing alone meaningless.

                      We don’t have the training manual, but it sounds like Chauvin was following these statutes.

                      “but are waiting for FOIA “responses and requests for microscopic slides, pictures, and other evidence gathered during Dr. Baker’s initial autopsy of Mr. Floyd.””

                      They didn’t have the drug analysis either. Do you think they still don’t have it? That sounds highly unlikely.

                      ” In short they’re putting the finishing touches on their final reports”

                      But you provide the answer. Not providing the final report means they can provide the final report after they know what needs to be said. That the full report isn’t out and that the full report doesn’t include the drug analysis makes that autopsy not trustworthy. The defense attorney will not confuse the jury with those big terms you like to use that confuse you into thinking by quoting those terms you have provided the facts. You didn’t. Baden has to answer the drug analysis and then other experts will show that the neck hold was appropriately used.

                      “See above for link to and additional quotes direct from the manual. “

                      I don’t think your link is the procedure manual that is used in teaching how to use the holds.

                      You are using fragments that do not add up “to a reasonable juror”

                      “will not budge on anything until no shadow of a doubt remains.”

                      Reasonable doubt is the legal term, but the prosecutor dealing with jurors that perceive things differently has to try and prove ‘beyond a shadow of a doubt’ which isn’t all that different. If he can’t do that, unless the jurors are identical, he will be unable to get more than a split jury and will have to go for another charge. Very likely Chauvin will be proven innocent of any homicide charge.

                      “As I’ve pointed out before you’re literally to the right of Trump and Limbaugh on this.”

                      As I pointed out before you have TDS and are unable to separate the rule of law from Trump. Nothing I am saying wouldn’t have been said by a staunch liberal Democrat not that long ago. You don’t know the law, the Constitution or how civil societies are supposed to act. All you do is regurgitate the words and phrases of the far left and provide links that you fail to understand.

                    29. Mark N. says: January 12, 2021 at 10:34 AM
                      “OK, I get that. You don’t know when you are lying or misquoting another. I pointed that out to you but you continue to lie about it. It’s all in black and white for you to review.”
                      ===

                      I offer you to quote an example of any material untruth on my part. I have quoted ample examples of your own contradictory statements, verbatim.

                      ===
                      Mark N. says: January 12, 2021 at 10:34 AM
                      “You can’t stay on one topic. A flight of ideas? I’m not in favor of discussing Bill Clinton’s impeachment, one I wasn’t in favor of. You on the other hand are a hypocrite so the discussion is a waste of time. Principles are not your strong suit.”
                      ===

                      Yet you wished to imply if Trump was accused of what the alt-right claims Biden has done, he would be in jail. That’s absurd and I’ve provided a clear case of the double standard and hypocrisy from the whiny right.
                      ===
                      Mark N. says: January 12, 2021 at 10:34 AM
                      “No one brought Covid up or said it was more than incidental in this case. Is this another flight of ideas?”
                      ===
                      It’s called logical reasoning. It’s something you have to be capable of understanding to pass the LSAT. I gave an analogy between the facts and this case and a simple comparison. You seem to call anything you can’t process a “flight of ideas.”

                      ==
                      Mark N. says: January 12, 2021 at 10:34 AM
                      “I think that is a dangerous statement. It’s also meaningless until all the elements are logically tied together. Even then it is iffy.”
                      ===

                      It’s accurate. Given the Actus Reus is meaningless for a conviction without the Mens Rea in this instance it’s somewhat trivial unless the suspect either intended to or acted in reckless disregard for whether they aided in the death of the suspect. Another analogy: you enter the hospital room where a patient is on life support. You trip on their breathing tube causing it to become dislodged and they die. In an alternate reality, you come in and take their breathing tube out and they die. In both cases you hastened their death and committed the Actus Reus for murder. However, only in the latter did you intend to or act in reckless disregard for whether you might kill them. Therefore you are only guilty of both the Actus Reus and Mens Rea for Murder in the second example and should therefore only be guilty of murder in the second example, hence why it’s not nearly as dangerous as you’re making it out to be. You have to functionally be able to separate Actus Reus from Mens Rea.
                      ===
                      Mark N. says: January 12, 2021 at 10:34 AM
                      “You didn’t prove it. (for the record, above I asked you to prove Actus Reus .)
                      “Baden noted “the pressure on the neck interfered “ Yet after all this time neither of us has a copy of the complete autopsy or a defense of such statements, but we do have…
                      Quoting from the official autopsy:
                      “no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation,” “No Life-threatening injuries identified” “neck discloses no areas of contusion or hemorrhage within the musculature” “The larynx is lined with intact musculature” ”cervical spine… free of hemorrhage””
                      ===
                      And so Dr. Mark N., are you suggesting the blood flow and/or oxygen could not be cut off from the brain or vital organs absent life-threatening injuries or hemorrhage? If you’re not then I’m not sure why you continue to quote these passages. The conclusions of all 3 autopsies was that the neck compression was one of the causes of death. The video evidence points to that fact as well as the dying man’s statement. You’ve only provided arguments that it was not the sole cause of death, that does not overcome the Actus Reus for murder given the evidence supplied. For more evidence turn to the army medical examiner report labeling the cause of death “Cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual restraint, and neck compression.”
                      ===
                      Mark N. says: January 12, 2021 at 10:34 AM
                      “You still haven’t proven that Chauvin did not follow the manual. There are a bunch of words that are not clearly defined in the document provided. Again, since there were no pages you want people to count pages. That is ridiculous like most things coming from you. Normal people recognize that the document is a statute and within the documents there are numbers provided in sequential order so one can quickly look them up.”
                      ===
                      Most people in my line of work know how to navigate a pdf and can see the pdf page numbering system. I’m not sure what your problem is with them but given your repeated difficulties I will not refer to the page numbers that would allow you to jump through the pdf but instead discuss it as if it were a paper handout.

                      ===
                      Mark N. says: January 12, 2021 at 10:34 AM
                      “In any case, those words are clear, “may be used against a subject who is actively resisting.” 5-311 A Under definitions they use the same term as Baden (compressing … neck) Floyd was actively resisting. The restraint prevents them from resisting and can prevent bodily harm to the criminal, police officer or anyone nearby. In the meantime they were waiting for an ambulance.
                      “Neck Restraint: Non-deadly force option. Defined as compressing one or both sides of a person’s neck with an arm or leg, without applying direct pressure to the trachea or airway” That is exactly what Baden says without explanation. That makes Baden’s statements standing alone meaningless.
                      We don’t have the training manual, but it sounds like Chauvin was following these statutes.”
                      ===
                      I’m not sure what you’re having difficulty processing here. Actively resisting is defined in section 5-302 “A subject engages in active resistance when engaging in physical actions (or verbal behaviors reflecting an intention) to make it more difficult for others to achieve actual physical control.”
                      Passive resistance is in the same section “when the subject does not comply with verbal or physical control efforts, yet the subject does not attempt to defeat an officers control effort.”
                      See also 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.”
                      So again I ask you, even if you say the neck restraint was a viable option at one point, how do you explain it being used 3+ minutes after the suspect is passed out? How was it appropriate or still required? You have yet to address the fact that it was being used minutes after Floyd was rendered unconscious.
                      ===
                      Mark N. says: January 12, 2021 at 10:34 AM
                      “They didn’t have the drug analysis either. Do you think they still don’t have it? That sounds highly unlikely.
                      But you provide the answer. Not providing the final report means they can provide the final report after they know what needs to be said. That the full report isn’t out and that the full report doesn’t include the drug analysis makes that autopsy not trustworthy.”
                      ===
                      Waiting to ensure a report is entirely comprehensive isn’t the same as not completing the details necessary to give a final evaluation. It would be like waiting for details from one doctor as to a decedent’s stage 4 kidney disease before issuing a full report on their death from an explosion for instance. If you wish to rely on the Army’s conclusions instead or the parts of the county friend to the police department’s you’re ignoring then you’ll see relatively the same conclusions instead. You want to keep discussing the drugs etc. but unless you’re claiming they’re all lying about the neck compression, cutoff of oxygen or blood playing any role in his death you have to concede that the Actus Reus for murder is present regardless of what other factors may have contributed to his premature death.

                      ===
                      Mark N. says: January 12, 2021 at 10:34 AM “Reasonable doubt is the legal term, but the prosecutor dealing with jurors that perceive things differently has to try and prove ‘beyond a shadow of a doubt’ which isn’t all that different. If he can’t do that, unless the jurors are identical, he will be unable to get more than a split jury and will have to go for another charge. Very likely Chauvin will be proven innocent of any homicide charge.”
                      ===
                      Jurors don’t need to be identical for them to be reasonable and able to comprehend the facts. The fact is Chauvin’s actions played a role in Floyd’s death. Then we come to the question I’ve asked you half a dozen times before to the jury. For Mens Rea, and they will have to answer or discuss it:
                      Having read the manual:
                      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.
                      This is the Mens Rea question, and it’s one that overcomes your weak defense to any sane juror. By your standard no juror could be convinced of guilt in any situation ever.

                    30. “I offer you to quote an example of any material untruth on my part.”

                      CK, that is disingenuous as I showed you examples before including quotes you created that were not mine. You didn’t rectify the problem.

                      You quote me all the time but the only thing they contradict is what you want to hear.

                      The Truth is Trump was accused of all sorts of crimes for over 4 years with spying on him and impeachment. Nothing significant was found.

                      The FBI sat on the Hunter Biden tapes for a year and the Biden dealings have been going on for many years. There is a lack of parity.

                      Out of the blue you said “So if someone is complaining of difficulty breathing due to covid …“ No one was discussing Covid as it was incidental. Yes, you have a flight of ideas. You are unable to keep track of the details and know which ones are important and which ones are not expanding the discussion to places no man should go.

                      “hastened his death by one-minute” according to you causes an individual to be guilty of the death. That is not true for this case despite the words you like to use and is not what causes the defendant to be found guilty.

                      “are you suggesting the blood flow and/or oxygen could not be cut off…”

                      *Could* does not lead to a conviction. It leads to reasonable doubt.

                      “The conclusions of all 3 autopsies was that the neck compression was one of the causes of death. “

                      Not so. Neck compression existed just like the compression of the wrists from hand cuffs. The report clearly states there was no injury to the neck or any portions within.

                      “Cardiopulmonary arrest complicating …”

                      *Complicating* is not the same as causation.

                      ” I’m not sure what your problem is with them “ [page numbers that don’t exist]

                      You have tell another when you are acting weird and counting pages instead of numbers especially when the statutes have an inherent numbering system that is sequential like 313.2, 313.3 …314 etc. You are totally off the wall.

                      You are impressed with numbers and big words because they hide your inadequacies. If you want to claim that Floyd’s resistance was of a lower level you have to prove what the actual resistance and threats were. You have done none of that. You wrapped yourself around words instead of deeds. That is a sign of ignorance.

                      “So again I ask you, even if you say the neck restraint was a viable option at one point, how do you explain it being used 3+ minutes after the suspect is passed out?”

                      The defense doesn’t have to explain it. The prosecution has to prove it significant to his case not with big words or appeal to authority of legal text books but by using actual words the jury understands.

                      The 3+ minutes you talk of were not pretty, but in Chauvin’s mind he may have thought that Floyd could still be a risk and since the ambulance was coming and he was not causing harm with his knee that it would be best to leave Floyd where he was until medical attention could be provided by the paramedics. Sometimes it is not good to move patients.

                      Do you know that people have been pronounced dead by physicians and are later found to be alive?

                      ” but unless you’re claiming they’re all lying about the neck compression, cutoff of oxygen or blood

                      That would be strangulation which was not found. Many restraints can limit oxygenation. In fact if Floyd was put in the car where his belly pushed on his diaphragms that would also reduce oxygenation. You lack the specific facts along with the understanding of what all the words mean despite the fact you like to use big words to make you look smart.

                      “The fact is Chauvin’s actions played a role in Floyd’s death. “

                      Doctors play a role in people’s deaths all the time as do the triage nurses, the secretaries, the porters and everyone else that come in contact with a dying patient. Many do things that are wrong and not even noticed or do it slower than they should. They are not charged with homicide when the patient dies. Sometimes claims can be made against them for various reasons but then the prosecutor has to prove intent or reckless negligence.

                      You have failed to do either in the Chauvin case. You would make the perfect witless prosecutor.

                    31. Seems my original post was deleted. I assume because of too many links. There were a couple of snarky words removed, though nothing worse than was stated before. Fortunately I wrote it in word so I could quote you easily. I think we’re getting near the end finally so I’ll wrap it up here with closing arguments. Suggest you do the same.

                      ===
                      Mark N. says: ““I offer you to quote an example of any material untruth on my part.”
                      CK, that is disingenuous as I showed you examples before including quotes you created that were not mine. You didn’t rectify the problem.”
                      ===

                      Could it be as with basic crim law words Mens Rea and Actus Reus you don’t know what MATERIAL words and untruths are and have just been ignoring it the entire time I’ve been saying it? I apologize for forgetting you know nothing of the law and refuse to study it. “Material” is a legal term largely synonymous with significant. As with when I “misquoted” you before, it was towards the beginning of our discussion and I was paraphrasing you from memory rather than having to dig and quote it verbatim. I didn’t change the significant meaning of your words but you still went ballistic.

                      You on the other hand would truncate my sentences to change the overall meaning as I showed repeatedly. You would also clearly contradict yourself. Also, you don’t seem to know what the term “imply” means and would pretend you never suggested or implied something you didn’t state explicitly yet were more than happy to read words that weren’t there into the statements of others. This is really getting off topic though you seem to love to squirm out of the topic at hand so I’ll dead it here. You’re free to discuss it with yourself.

                      ===
                      Mark N. says: “You have tell another when you are acting weird and counting pages instead of numbers especially when the statutes have an inherent numbering system that is sequential like 313.2, 313.3 …314 etc. You are totally off the wall.
                      You are impressed with numbers and big words because they hide your inadequacies. If you want to claim that Floyd’s resistance was of a lower level you have to prove what the actual resistance and threats were. You have done none of that. You wrapped yourself around words instead of deeds. That is a sign of ignorance.”
                      ===

                      If you’re so determined to prove I’m the one who doesn’t know how to follow a basic pdf go send the links to others with computer literacy (you claim to be riddled with problems involving wordpress and your “friend” so perhaps you can send it to him). Ask them if they can find the pages numbers I referenced. Considering most pdf’s don’t have searchable text it makes more sense to reference the page number but you’d rather whine about this than the case at hand, I don’t have time for it.

                      ===
                      Mark N. says: “Out of the blue you said “So if someone is complaining of difficulty breathing due to covid …“ No one was discussing Covid as it was incidental. Yes, you have a flight of ideas. You are unable to keep track of the details and know which ones are important and which ones are not expanding the discussion to places no man should go.
                      ===

                      It was an example given for a simple analogy. Analogy is a common non-legal term so I presume I don’t have to define that for you as well.

                      ===
                      Mark N. says: January 13, 2021 at 12:03 PM “are you suggesting the blood flow and/or oxygen could not be cut off…”
                      *Could* does not lead to a conviction. It leads to reasonable doubt.
                      ===

                      The autopsies concluded the neck compression and restraint were a complication of Floyd’s cardiopulmonary arrest. You earlier claimed complication does not imply causation, however the cdc’s own guidelines for filling out a cause of death contradict your claim: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/dvs/blue_form.pdf

                      See part I: “Enter the chain of events—diseases, injuries, or complications—that directly caused the death.”
                      Completely separate from part II: “Enter other significant conditions contributing to death but not resulting in the underlying cause given in PART I.”

                      Now unless you want to reveal some shocking and astounding revelation about how you’re actually a medical professional, then I advise you to leave it to the professionals to explain. If you don’t have something directly contradicting their assertion that the restraint paid a role in his death then you CANNOT overturn the Actus Reus to a reasonable person.

                      There is no reasonable doubt if all you are alleging is there is no proof of injury, when the type of injury you’re describing isn’t necessary to prove the cause of death described. This is back to my example of a person dead from cardiac arrest caused in part by a gunshot wound and your defense is “well the autopsy says they didn’t bleed out” (and no, that isn’t a direct quote from you). That fact does nothing to combat the damning evidence of the report. It barely introduces a shadow of a doubt, much less a reasonable one.

                      ===
                      Mark N. says: “That would be strangulation which was not found. Many restraints can limit oxygenation. In fact if Floyd was put in the car where his belly pushed on his diaphragms that would also reduce oxygenation. You lack the specific facts along with the understanding of what all the words mean despite the fact you like to use big words to make you look smart.”
                      ===

                      Basic terms in a field aren’t used to make one look smart. The fact that you don’t know what they mean is just evidence you’re out of your depth and should never have demanded this debate in the first place. The fact is Chauvin’s actions played a role in Floyd’s death and he acted without reasonable regard for Floyd’s life.

                      Once again you aren’t a medical professional and suggesting because an autopsy didn’t say a word it’s proof of something else. You may want to look up “mechanical asphyxia”. Regardless, the Actus Reus is hardly in dispute at this point, you’re trying to overturn it based on your ignorance of medical terms.

                      Suggesting because strangulation wasn’t specifically cited, Chauvin’s hold didn’t cut off oxygen or blood to Floyd’s organs or brain is like claiming “because a square is a rectangle and this shape isn’t a square it can’t be a rectangle” (and no again you didn’t say that I’m giving an example of your lack of logic). Just because strangulation may be one cause of this doesn’t mean it is the only cause. Your assertion in no way refutes the causes of death found by 3 autopsies with conclusions from at least 4 medical professionals.

                      ===
                      Mark N. says: “Doctors play a role in people’s deaths all the time as do the triage nurses, the secretaries, the porters and everyone else that come in contact with a dying patient. Many do things that are wrong and not even noticed or do it slower than they should. They are not charged with homicide when the patient dies. Sometimes claims can be made against them for various reasons but then the prosecutor has to prove intent or reckless negligence..”
                      ===

                      I had to explain this to you so you could understand the difference between actus reus and mens rea. They aren’t charged because usually they don’t act with intent or reckless unreasonable disregard for the life of their patient. Had Chauvin not knelt on Floyd’s neck for minutes after he lay unconscious to the horror of begging onlookers he too might not be charged with murder.

                      ===
                      Mark N. says: January 13, 2021 at 12:03 PM “So again I ask you, even if you say the neck restraint was a viable option at one point, how do you explain it being used 3+ minutes after the suspect is passed out?”
                      The defense doesn’t have to explain it. The prosecution has to prove it significant to his case not with big words or appeal to authority of legal text books but by using actual words the jury understands.”
                      ===

                      Once the Actus Reus has been proven all that’s left is to show Chauvin either intended to kill Floyd or acted with reckless disregard as to whether he killed him or not. I’m not sure why you don’t think you’ll have to try and explain this away just because you don’t know what Mens Rea means. Whether the jury knows or not, the judge will understand why a question like that is relevant. If you want it ignored you have to raise an objection, and the one you seem to be claiming is relevance. It’s clearly relevant to proving Chauvin’s depraved heart in this murder.

                      ===
                      Mark N. says: January 13, 2021 at 12:03 PM “The 3+ minutes you talk of were not pretty, but in Chauvin’s mind he may have thought that Floyd could still be a risk and since the ambulance was coming and he was not causing harm with his knee that it would be best to leave Floyd where he was until medical attention could be provided by the paramedics. Sometimes it is not good to move patients.”
                      ===

                      So this is your best defense. To you Chauvin might have reasonably thought an unconscious and handcuffed man who was begging for his life just moments before and said he couldn’t breathe was still such a risk that he not only shouldn’t move him, but shouldn’t move his knee from his neck or his weight from his back?

                      It’s so unreasonable even the First Responders had to comment on how unbelievable it was when they arrived: “the fact that you guys aren’t checking his pulse and doing compressions if he needs them, you guys are on another level!” Multiple witnesses had to remind the officers how ridiculous their actions were. That is further evidence that even if Chauvin was as ignorant as you say, a reasonable officer in his situation being reminded that his knee and weight were likely harming the suspect, would have changed tactics.

                      Just to remind you, your defense is claiming that the defendant thought a man who was handcuffed and unconscious for over 3 minutes “may still be a risk” hence why he needed to keep his knee on his neck for the entirety of the time. You’re not counting on a reasonable jury, you’re desperate for a jury pool with someone as mentally depraved as the defendant was in that moment.

                      Again this is practically the definition for depraved heart murder in Minnesota which Chauvin is charged with: “Whoever, without intent to effect the death of any person, causes the death of another by perpetrating an act eminently dangerous to others and evincing a depraved mind, without regard for human life, “

                      ===
                      Mark N. says: “You have failed to do either in the Chauvin case. You would make the perfect witless prosecutor.”
                      ===

                      Let me introduce you to another legal term you may be familiar with because it’s the subtitle for the blog you’re posting on. Res Ipsa Loquitor. That means the thing speaks for itself. This is a term of negligence in civil law, not criminal law and it’s usually used in cases where the injury would not occur but for negligence. I bring it up here not to raise it, but so that you can understand what the video evidence is. The thing speaks for itself. You actually have to defend against it.

                      Let’s pretend for a moment you actually were somewhat legally trained and you were against a “witless prosecutor.” It’s not enough to simply say “you failed to prove the case against me” (not quoting you directly here) when he brings a video like that. You actually have to defend against it or the jury will invariably reach their own very reasonable conclusions of guilt. If he so much as points to the 3 minutes and says “this is evidence of a depraved heart murder because no officer acting reasonably would do what you just witnessed” you’re going to have a guilty verdict if you fail to defend your client. So you must, and you did provide a tepid defense.

                      Again, first your defense was that the manual had the hold so it was reasonable. I shot that down by showing that the hold is not to be used once a suspect is in cuffs, against a passively resisting subject or once it is no longer necessary (and even other observing officers have a duty to stop it once it is no longer necessary).

                      Now your defense is claiming that the defendant thought a man who was handcuffed and unconscious for over 3 minutes “may still be a risk” hence why he needed to keep his knee on his neck for the entirety of the time.

                      I don’t know how you think this argument is going to give a reasonable jury a reasonable doubt as to Chauvin’s depraved heart, but suffice to say, an unconscious handcuffed man who claimed he can’t breathe and complained of the defendant’s knee being on his neck as a cause of such could not reasonably be a risk to even the most unreasonable of observers. Chauvin acted in reckless disregard for his life and acted as a cause of his death and with the guilty heart necessary for depraved heart murder. I rest my case.

                      You lose.

                      (PS a better defense would be claiming it’s protected under Graham v Connor but even that defense would be defeated because it’s based on “the severity of the crime at issue; whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others; and whether [the suspect] is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.” and in all of those cases Chauvin’s use of force 3+ minutes after Floyd passed out, would have been inappropriate).

                    32. CK thank you for providing what little knowledge you have of the law. It would be better if you knew how to put the words in motion rather than just repeating words most are familiar with. I try to stay away from these words with your type because they can be too easily used to avoid having to logically present a case. That has been your problem. Absent those words you would have been forced to spell out what you were trying to say and then perhaps you would have seen that what you were trying to say was foolish.

                      I truncated your sentences frequently with a … since all I want to do is point out the exact phrase I am commenting about. You copy entire paragraphs and more containing multiple thoughts because you are hiding from reality and wish to be vague. That goes along with your big words left unattached to a reasonable response.

                      “You’re free to discuss it with yourself.“

                      No problem. That is what I have had to do all along as you went on tangents and ideas that weren’t applicable or responsive.

                      ” how to follow a basic pdf…”

                      When the statute numbers are listed 313.2 313.3, 314 in sequential orders one doesn’t tell people to hand count pages from the front to back or back to front. They provide the number.

                      “It was an example given for a simple analogy. “

                      It was another one of your errors and non responsive tangential answers that was meaningless. Again it demonstrates the same problem as your use of big words. You are unable to build your case based on the facts at hand.

                      “The autopsies concluded the neck compression and restraint were a complication of Floyd’s cardiopulmonary arrest.”

                      The autopsy report found no damage of the neck and no strangulation.

                      Quoting from the official autopsy:
                      “no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation,” “No Life-threatening injuries identified” “neck discloses no areas of contusion or hemorrhage within the musculature” “The larynx is lined with intact musculature” ”cervical spine… free of hemorrhage”.

                      ” If you don’t have something directly contradicting their assertion that the restraint paid a role in his death “

                      I can’t prove it’s significance one way or the other based on what is known. That is the job of the prosecutor or in this case your job that you are unable to perform.

                      “The fact is Chauvin’s actions played a role in Floyd’s death”

                      That is true. Chauvin arrested Floyd. The ambulance drivers took Floyd to the hospital. Playing a role is a meaningless statement. You have to use meaningful words with evidence to prove whatever events you wish to prove.

                      “Suggesting because strangulation…”

                      If Floyd was strangled one would have evidence and could prove direct relationships between the strangling, lack of oxygenation and death. You don’t have such evidence. You don’t have the facility necessary to prove this case because you lack the talent and you lack the ability to garner the evidence needed that so far I have not seen. (again you used an analogy to hide your inability to use common words and the significant evidence that exists.)

                      “usually they don’t act with intent”

                      Prove Chauvin’s intent.

                      “reckless “

                      Prove Chauvin didn’t follow the manual

                      “Had Chauvin not knelt on Floyd’s neck for minutes after he lay unconscious to the horror of begging onlookers he too might not be charged with murder.”

                      It all boils down to a couple of minutes.

                      The police were restraining Floyd. We don’t know what was in their minds but whether they were in restraint positions or not they would have left him on the ground waiting for the ambulance or if they thought he had an arrest they might have performed CPR. The question gets to the type of pressure exerted by Chauvin at that time and I don’t think it was more than a touch which leaves Floyd in the same position he would be in if Chavin was not in the neck hold position.

                      ” all that’s left is to show Chauvin either intended to kill Floyd “

                      Prove it.

                      ” acted with reckless disregard “

                      Prove it and prove its significance. Then prove that the charge of homicide is reasonable and will lead to a conviction for homicide.

                      “So this is your best defense. “

                      No, but you need to prove it to get a conviction.

                      “his weight from his back?”

                      Chauvin’s knee was involved in a neck hold, was the other foot standing on Floyd’s back?

                      ““the fact that you guys aren’t checking his pulse and doing compressions …”

                      Not doing those things is not homicide. The police are not paramedics. Can you prove they knew Chauvin had arrested? When you open up a line of inquiry at trial you open some doors and close others. You are making a case where some arguments can end up contradicting other arguments. For that reason you have to follow a singular line of reasoning, but you haven’t. Instead you are using the shot gun approach with a long range target and completely missing him.

                      “your defense is claiming that the defendant “

                      I am not claiming anything. I am answering your unconnected low quality bits and pieces of argument. The prosecutor has to put them all together in a logical sequence so many of your questions will become moot.

                      “your defense is claiming that the defendant “

                      Again you use big words Res Ipsa Loquitur and didn’t even spell the word Loquitur correctly. It has a “u” not an “o”. Things may speak for themselves but you have to say what those things are in addition to using big words. There is no Res Ipsa Loquitur in this case and if you look up the actual meaning behind those words and what has been shown in this case you will find that in this case things do not speak for themselves and you are unable to speak for them.

                      You have failed to prove anything except that you do not have a good grasp of the law.

                    33. Seems I’m being modded alright. Last time used a word that was synonymous with ‘deserving pity’ to describe one of your arguments. If it stands without that I’m shocked but glad I saved this:

                      ===
                      Mark N. says: -“CK thank you for providing what little knowledge you have of the law. It would be better if you knew how to put the words in motion rather than just repeating words most are familiar with. I try to stay away from these words with your type because they can be too easily used to avoid having to logically present a case. That has been your problem. Absent those words you would have been forced to spell out what you were trying to say and then perhaps you would have seen that what you were trying to say was foolish.”
                      ===

                      The case was presented logically, repeatedly over 50 some posts. The fact that you’re either can’t process it or can’t overcome my arguments so you choose argue over the use of insignificant words like “dug” and “beg” making mountains out of molehills and make wild accusations for my intent using basic legal terms, rather than debate the overarching argument is your downfall. If you wanted to change the argument from depraved heart murder to unintentional second degree murder that would be one thing, but these trivial discussions over the words I use are pointless and don’t help you mount a viable defense.

                      ===
                      Mark N. “I truncated your sentences frequently with a … since all I want to do is point out the exact phrase I am commenting about. You copy entire paragraphs and more containing multiple thoughts because you are hiding from reality and wish to be vague. That goes along with your big words left unattached to a reasonable response.”
                      ===

                      So to you I “wish to be vague” yet you can’t answer direct questions asked repeatedly of you? I’m not sure if the nonsense you spew makes sense in your own head.
                      Changing a sentence from “How did you come to the conclusion that I don’t understand the autopsy DOESN’T LEGALLY DETERMINE ONE’S INTENT” to “How did you come to the conclusion that I don’t understand the autopsy” is a change material to that statement particularly if your next claim is “I didn’t say you didn’t understand the autopsy. I said, “I don’t think you understand that a coroner’s report is statutory and doesn’t legally determine culpability or intent.”” If you quoted it properly your later statement would have been pointless, repetitive and only conveyed your own inability to read at best.

                      Or how about when you misread the actual document to state “The autopsy report also states that the manner of death is not a legal determination” When it actually states “the manner of death is not a legal determination OF CULPABILITY OR INTENT”? These words are material to the statements you’ve intentionally removed them from.

                      ===
                      Mark N.-“It was another one of your errors and non responsive tangential answers that was meaningless. Again it demonstrates the same problem as your use of big words. You are unable to build your case based on the facts at hand.”
                      ===

                      It was an analogy. I built my case on the facts at hand and provided a simplified example to explain away the argument you made. I could have easily substituted Floyd’s earlier claim of difficulty breathing with the man with a simplified case in my analogy. He explained he couldn’t breathe when they tried to put him in the car because he just had COVID. This sidebar of yours isn’t relevant to the point I was making which you seem unable to process or unwilling to acknowledge.

                      ===
                      Mark N.-“Quoting from the official autopsy:
                      “no physical findings that support a diagnosis of traumatic asphyxia or strangulation,””
                      ===

                      You keep saying you’re quoting from the “official autopsy” but where is this language in the Hennepin County autopsy?
                      This is the autopsy I believe you’re referring to: https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/6992-george-floyd-full-autopsy/4c5bdf52fbbd775ce156/optimized/full.pdf
                      It sounds like you’re either quoting a far-right site or the defense’s arguments for one of the accused. I’m posting it from a separate site than the case so you can see the document in full. I did a google search for it because the case exhibits always had it attached to other items and I don’t want you to have the same issue sifting through a pdf as before.

                      ===
                      Mark N.-“I can’t prove it’s significance one way or the other based on what is known. That is the job of the prosecutor or in this case your job that you are unable to perform.”
                      ===

                      When 3 medical reports from 4 medical professionals conclude the restraint was one of the causes of death and the prosecution presents this fact, YOU have to defend against it. It’s not my job to play doctor. You’re attempting to reverse engineer their conclusions to say what elements could or couldn’t have been present to reach them based on your own limited medical knowledge and it sounds like the arguments of others. No an autopsy conclusion is not a legal determination of culpability or intent, but it does help establish the factual determinations as to cause of death.

                      This is similar to fingerprint or dna analysis telling you who was on the scene of the crime. It’s not conclusive as to their guilt, just like this can’t tell us Chauvin intended for his hold to aid in killing Floyd. It can tell us whether it did or not and it appears all the medical professionals who examined the body came to the conclusion that it did. Pointing this fact out destroys every counter argument you’ve alleged for Actus Reus. Yes, the jury will be the ultimate trier of fact but you haven’t given them much to go on in defense of your client. You’re hardly attempting to counter the conclusions of the autopsies by repeating the same excerpts that do not rule out their findings.

                      ===
                      Mark N.-“If Floyd was strangled one would have evidence and could prove direct relationships between the strangling, lack of oxygenation and death. You don’t have such evidence. You don’t have the facility necessary to prove this case because you lack the talent and you lack the ability to garner the evidence needed that so far I have not seen. (again you used an analogy to hide your inability to use common words and the significant evidence that exists.)”
                      ===

                      I used an analogy to make it simple for you to understand. You still don’t get it. Yes, if it said Floyd was strangled that would be sufficient to explain the cause of death. So would mechanical asphyxiation, so would an explanation of it cutting off blood flow or oxygen to major organs. Once again you repeat your argument analogous to a square is not a rectangle, therefore a rectangle is not a square. Simply because the autopsy doesn’t mention strangulation doesn’t mean that the hold didn’t cause a loss of blood flow or oxygen as described in the autopsy I quoted. Your argument is a bad attempt to refute that and it sounds like you think repeating the same lie often enough will make it true.

                      ===
                      Mark N.- “Prove Chauvin didn’t follow the manual”
                      “I am not claiming anything. I am answering your unconnected low quality bits and pieces of argument. The prosecutor has to put them all together in a logical sequence so many of your questions will become moot.”
                      ===

                      “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.”
                      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)
                      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)
                      A The Conscious Neck Restraint may be used against subject who is actively resisting. (0.4/1 6/1 2)
                      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.”

                      George Floyd was unconscious for several minutes after Chauvin used a hold that was only to be used against an actively resisting suspect at best, or a suspect who Chauvin inended to render unconscious at worst and Chauvin continued using this hold for 3-5 minutes. Therefore, Chauvin did not follow the manual. I have written all of this before. You have no valid response, therefore, you lose. Is that logically sequenced enough for you?
                      Do they have to spell it out for you that you should not continue to use a hold that is only to be used to put a suspect unconscious several minutes after they have gone unconscious? Is that what the reasonableness standard is in your mind?

                      ===
                      Mark N.-“Again you use big words Res Ipsa Loquitur and didn’t even spell the word Loquitur correctly. It has a “u” not an “o”. Things may speak for themselves but you have to say what those things are in addition to using big words. There is no Res Ipsa Loquitur in this case and if you look up the actual meaning behind those words and what has been shown in this case you will find that in this case things do not speak for themselves and you are unable to speak for them.”
                      ===

                      Semantics from the same guy who confused David Dorn (the slain police captain) with Michael Dorn (the Star Trek actor) at the start of this discussion. In quoting Latin from memory I miswrote a letter. I suppose in your mind that means you’ve won the debate now, just like you thought when you wanted to spend hours challenging my use of the words “beg” and “dug”? The meaning is there. I already explained I wasn’t using it to raise it legally because it’s a term used in civil law. I was just using it to explain that you, pretending to be a defense attorney, cannot let extremely damaging evidence go unchallenged, no matter what the prosecution says. It would be like the prosecution drops the bloody glove and a video of the dna analysis being presented at trial, and Cochran throws his hands up saying “I got nothing there, but hey, they didn’t say much so I think we’re good.” That’s damning evidence just like the video tape. The defense has to contest it before resting its case. You tried and failed.

                      I have spent far too long explaining and breaking this case down to you. Do you wish to rest your case? If so suggest you wrap it up or just take your loss.

                      ===
                      Mark N.-“You have failed to prove anything except that you do not have a good grasp of the law.”
                      ===

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

                2. ““Here you alleged Biden was guilty of wrongdoing.”

                  That is a lie. Though I personally believe Joe Biden to be guilty I didn’t say he was. You are so bad in argument that you have to change what the other person said.””

                  ===

                  So you’re just bringing your personal beliefs to me without evidence and scared to make any accusations because you have no life? Got it.

                  ===
                  “Actually you quoted very little. I’ll give an example. The lungs were very heavy. That is important but your left wing site didn’t discuss that with you. They think you are dumb and will accept anything they tell you. You have proven them correct.”
                  ===

                  I provided direct quotes from the conclusion of all 3 autopsies. Each said the neck compression was a contributing factor in his death.
                  I also provided the video which clearly showed Chauvin was responsible for the neck compression.

                  Can you reasonably dispute either of these facts? If not, news-flash, the Actus Reus for murder has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
                  Everything else you say about his heavy lungs etc. is irrelevant at that point as are any other contributing factors. If you don’t understand that you still don’t understand the very basics of Criminal Law.

                  ===
                  ““You chose to defend him based on a manual you hadn’t read.”

                  You obfuscate the truth. I wanted to know what the manual said to make sure Chauvin’s hold was according to the book. I asked you to provide it to me since you were acting as if you had the actual manual.”
                  ====

                  lets see your direct quotes:


                  “December 31, 2020 at 9:35 PM [quoting CK07 “I was horrified by the unnecessary and grotesque use of force ”] So was I until I got over the shock and reviewed police procedure and what had actually happened.””

                  “January 1, 2021 at 9:58 AM “That that type of restraint is in the police manual is lost”

                  “January 4, 2021 at 9:13 PM “I never said I read the manual”

                  That would clearly seem to closer fit the definition of “obfuscat[ing] the truth” than anything I said. I provided a manual excerpt which hurt your sole defense to his guilty Mens Rea. I was not required to provide the manual at all when it was YOUR defense. Eventually I gave it to you anyway and you still complained and refused to read it.

                  ===
                  “You also do not understand the law. It is the job of a prosecutor to prove Chauvin guilty.”
                  ===
                  Beyond a reasonable doubt. I did that, now you make arguments that would only work if the standard were a “shadow of a doubt.”

                  I said I’d stop teaching you for free but I guess I feel bad for you alt-right idiots having been misled to your doom in DC.
                  Here’s some basics: In a court of law to allege a defense you have to provide it. You can’t say the manual says something and not provide it.
                  Without the manual, you have no defense. Even with the manual you have a very weak defense if the manual contradicts your argument.
                  It does because it instructs officers to move cuffed suspects in a recovery position.

                  Even if it didn’t contradict your argument the manual would remain a flimsy if not utterly invalid defense if it was unreasonable for the officer to rely on it in the given situation.

                  That is how we get to your final exam question:

                  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?

                  Now answer the question if you want to keep discussing this or I suggest you stop embarrassing yourself.
                  You seem scared to answer a simple question.

                  1. “So you’re just bringing your personal beliefs to me without evidence and scared to make any accusations because you have no life? Got it.”

                    No, in my response to your comments about Joe Biden (not mine), I said “Biden’s son has compromised the likely next president of the United States. Additionally, he implicated his father, Joe Biden, in acts that could be criminal.”

                    “I provided direct quotes”

                    Tell us why the lungs weighed 2-3 times more than expected. You call that irrelevant because you don’t know what that means. The left’s blog site didn’t feed you that information so you are stuck. If you paid a subscription price I suggest you get your money back.

                    “I provided a manual excerpt “

                    Excerpts are what the left dumps on innocent ignorant people like you that think those excerpts make themselves look smart.

                    “Beyond a reasonable doubt. I did that, now you make “

                    No you didn’t. You couldn’t even produce the manual that you said you had. The jury looking at a prosecutor like you would find anyone innocent and ship you to the nearest mental hospital.

                    “Is it reasonable “

                    As far as your question goes, it is not a question of fact rather emotion mixed with conjecture. It is a statement that demonstrates your confusion. The only answer that can be provided is that you are confused, and don’t know what you are talking about.

                    However here is a fact, why were the lungs 2-3times the expected weight? I have loads of questions that involve that singular question. That is important. You should be embarrassed that you couldn’t answer this question the first time, but you don’t even recognize when you should be embarrassed.

                    1. ====
                      Mark N.- “No, in my response to your comments about Joe Biden (not mine), I said “Biden’s son has compromised the likely next president of the United States. Additionally, he implicated his father, Joe Biden, in acts that could be criminal.”
                      ====

                      Allegations based on your fears and hearsay. Check.

                      ====
                      Mark N.- “I did. Everything I said was true. There was nothing to prove.”
                      ====

                      Yes, you proved you could throw out unsubstantiated and hypocritical allegations. Your mother must be proud.

                      ====
                      Mark N.- “Tell us why the lungs weighed 2-3 times more than expected. You call that irrelevant because you don’t know what that means.”
                      ====

                      I call that irrelevant because if you understood criminal law you’d know that if both are contributing factors to his death, Chauvin is still guilty of murder. Lets say you slit someone’s wrist who is dying of a heart attack. He bleeds out and dies of the heart attack. You allege he’d have died from the heart attack anyway. The coroners note your slitting of his wrist and the heart attack each contributed to his death. The fact that he had a heart attack that would have killed him absent your slitting his wrist doesn’t save you from being guilty of murder.

                      The neck compression didn’t improve Floyd’s chances of survival of whatever other conditions were present, it decreased them. Chauvin acted in reckless disregard for Floyd’s life by continuing to kneel 5 minutes after he was unconscious. Get it dum-dum?

                      ====
                      Mark N.- “Excerpts are what the left dumps on innocent ignorant people like you that think those excerpts make themselves look smart.”
                      ====

                      The excerpt came from a police website, but when I provided the full manual you were still confused how to find things, so I was right to give you something simple.

                      ====
                      Mark N.- “As far as your question goes, it is not a question of fact rather emotion mixed with conjecture. It is a statement that demonstrates your confusion. The only answer that can be provided is that you are confused, and don’t know what you are talking about.”
                      ====

                      It’s apparent you don’t understand the law or what you’re talking about, but you’re scared to answer a basic question about your defense, which follows the legal standard. Got it. You lost via forfeiture.

                      ====
                      Mark N.- “If you stop posting I will check in on you at a newer thread.”
                      ====

                      We get it…you have no life but wish to be like me.
                      Not a bad aspiration kid: https://youtu.be/b0AGiq9j_Ak

                    2. For a guy that talks so much one would think he would understand what the simple words “could be” mean. You have failed in that regard. Everything I said that involved Joe Biden was true and indisputable especially since I made no definitive accusations of Joe Biden rather how Hunter could have implicated Joe Biden in things that could be criminal.

                      You state the lungs weighing 2-3 times expected is irrelevant demonstrates how little you know of the case and the findings.

                      If a policeman arrests someone in the correct manner and that person has a heart attack and dies on his way to the police station, are you going to claim the police officer is guilty of murder?

                      You seem to want to blame people for events and laud those that rape, loot and kill. You have things backward. Floyd has become a hero to you for which you are willing to convict a police officer of murder. I’m not saying Chauvin is good or bad. I am simply saying you do not provide the evidence to prove him guilty of murder. Evidence isn’t really your problem rather your view of Floyd as a hero makes anyone involved in his death even if innocent guilty of something heinous. Your priorities are where you head is, in the toilet.

                    3. Mark N. “For a guy that talks so much one would think he would understand what the simple words “could be” mean. You have failed in that regard.
                      ===

                      I understood what you were saying, what you were implying and pointed out that until you provide concrete evidence what you have is speculation and hearsay. I also pointed out that is a very hypocritical accusation to imply when one is led by a man who has multiple associates actually convicted of crimes. Now we should be freaking out because some guy alleges Biden’s kid did something, with even Fox News being unable to corroborate evidence? That is illogical. By your standard we should be concerned that the moon landing was faked, that 911 was an inside job, that there’s a group of snake-headed world leaders running the world from the shadows. Plenty of people of people who allege these things without concrete evidence.

                      ===
                      Mark N. “You state the lungs weighing 2-3 times expected is irrelevant demonstrates how little you know of the case and the findings.
                      If a policeman arrests someone in the correct manner and that person has a heart attack and dies on his way to the police station, are you going to claim the police officer is guilty of murder?”
                      ==

                      Having tried to explain this to you so many times I keep thinking you’re going to have this -Aha!- -Eureka!- moment where you understand what’s being said and how crim law works.
                      I’m in a generous mood today. Let me start again from the top without the snark.

                      In criminal law when the state makes an allegation they first try to establish facts. That is what the autopsies are for. That is what the video evidence is for. That is what the transcript of Floyd’s dying words in the video are for.
                      These are the undisputed facts the prosecution provides in the case:
                      1. Floyd Died
                      2. Chauvin’s knee was on Floyd’s for 9 minutes, during 5 of which Floyd was unconscious
                      3. Floyd’s words included “I can’t breathe…your knee…” etc and his dying words were “I can’t breathe”.
                      4. Three autopsies said neck compression was one of the contributing factors in Floyd’s death.
                      5. Chauvin was told repeatedly by onlookers that he was killing Floyd vis a vis his knee being on Floyd’s neck.

                      Do you dispute any of those facts?

                      Ok next point. There are two things that have to be proven to prove murder in the 2nd.
                      1. A guilty Actus Reus.
                      Elements include, someone taking an action that caused the death or contributed to the cause of death for another

                      2. A guilty mens rea
                      Elements include, someone intentionally taking another’s life or acting in reckless disregard (depraved heart) for whether they took another’s life.
                      To establish reckless disregard, you have to show someone acted unreasonably given the circumstances.

                      ——-
                      So let’s take your example for the officer that’s taking a man to prison and the man dies of a heart attack on the way. For some reason the court decides to try the officer for murder.
                      First they have to prove the actus reus. Did he cause or contribute to the death of the victim?
                      It’s hard to prove he caused a heart attack if that’s all that killed him, but suppose he spooked him real bad not knowing of the man’s heart condition, or was a little rough on him. Is he guilty of the Actus Reus for murder?
                      Yes.

                      However that isn’t going to cause him to serve any jail time unless he also is proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have possessed the necessary Mens Rea for murder.

                      Did he intend to cause the victims death?
                      Clearly not.

                      Did he act with reckless disregard and in an unreasonable fashion as to whether he caused the victims death?
                      No again.

                      That’s what separates your example from the case in point.

                      ——————————————————–
                      Let’s try another example to make sure you have it straight.
                      1. A child is attacked by a serial rapist. Fortunately for the child, the rapist in his excitement has a massive seizure, allowing the child time to grab a gun and shoot him in the heart. The autopsy concludes the man died as a result of complications involving the seizure, the bullet, high blood pressure, diabetes, AIDs, Cancer and Lupus.

                      Has the child committed murder?
                      Let’s again start by examining the actus reus. Did the child kill or contribute to the killing of the victim in this case. The facts show that he did. The autopsy concluded that the bullet was one of many causes of the man’s death so even though the seizure may have killed him absent the bullet, the defense can’t overcome the prong for the Actus Reus of murder.

                      Here’s why it doesn’t matter in my example. Has the child committed the mens rea for murder. Well clearly he intended to kill the man. So, yes, he murdered him you say.
                      Not quite. The child can overcome the guilty mens rea with a valid defense that he acted reasonably in this case, because it was self-defense. Doesn’t matter that the man was having a seizure in this case, because any reasonable child in the defendant’s situation would shoot the man dead to ensure he doesn’t get attacked as soon as the man recovers from his seizure.

                      —————————————————
                      Here’s how that differs from your case.
                      Clearly the actus reus is established in both. I think you can see that now. The facts you want to admit regarding an enlarged heart don’t help get him off of the actus reus when it’s an established fact that the neck compression was also a contributing factor in Floyd’s death.

                      You can try to contest the conclusions of all 3 autopsies that it was, but that’s a high burden to meet. You’d need a new autopsy showing it wasn’t a factor, some way to get the autopsies thrown out of court, doctors as expert witnesses swearing on the record that the examiners all erred and committed a violation of their oath as doctors or were simply incompetent. If you’re not able to do that you can allege as many additional facts as you want, but it doesn’t help you with Actus Reus.

                      The neck compression was a factor in death. That’s all that matters for this prong.

                      Now let’s look to Mens Rea.
                      Did Chauvin intend to kill Floyd? We both think not.

                      Did Chauvin act with reckless indifference to whether he killed Floyd or not? Well, he did kneel on his neck for 5 minutes after Floyd passed unconscious. Witnesses did warn him he was killing Floyd. Floyd’s last words were “I can’t breathe”. Those aren’t matters of emotion. Those are all established facts as you can see from the above list of 5 undisputed facts.

                      Does that prove to a reasonable jury Chauvin acted with reckless disregard to whether he killed Floyd? Most likely, yes. Unless you have a few lunatics on the jury who would likely be filtered out ahead of time.

                      But, wait. You have one last defense. Yes, that’s it, your trump card. The Manual. Now let’s see if it’s a valid defense to the guilty Mens Rea as self-defense was in my example with the boy. Did he act in a way that was reasonable when he continued to rely on it, given all of the undisputed facts listed, 5 minutes after Floyd passed out? No.

                      Did the manual tell him or suggest in any way that he should continue this kneel in the given situation (man has passed out and would not appear a threat to any reasonable observer, also complained he couldn’t breathe before passing out etc.)? Also no.

                      Thus, Chauvin, cannot rely on the manual for his defense.

                      Now it may be reasonable for a rookie cop, loosely familiar with the training manual, who looks to the seasoned cop for guidance, to allow the seasoned cop to go on uncontested. That’s why Lane has a chance at making it out of this given his 4 days on the job. A reasonable jury could go either way on Lane. For Chauvin it’s almost impossible. Unless you want to say, you can’t prove anything in any case, because we never can prove what’s in someone’s mind beyond a shadow of a doubt, but we clearly can beyond a reasonable one.

                      I hope you get it now. Now to make the most of whats left of my lunch.

                    4. “I understood what you were saying, what you were implying.

                      You actually didn’t or you wouldn’t have made such a fool of yourself.

                      You didn’t understand “implicate” and “could be”, simple phrases missed by you.

                      Allegations have been raised on the internet from very fine sources. Such allegations include the material on Hunter’s computer and by Bobulinsky.

                      “”Fox News being unable to corroborate evidence”

                      One tiny bit of evidence in a sea of plenty. Such a foolish thing to focus on in defense of any Biden.

                      I wait for Joe Biden who has not explained how he is not involved while he lied about what existed.

                      You hinge your case on nonsense like this smaller part of a large ignorant response.

                      “Did he intend to cause the victims death?
                      Clearly not.”

                      Same with Chauvin.You have no proof otherwise.

                      Did he act with reckless disregard and in an unreasonable fashion as to whether he caused the victims death?

                      No again, unless you otherwise have significant proof.

                      The question is, did Chauvin act legally. Prove Chauvin didn’t.

                      Now, let us get back to things other than the muttering of a crowd. The lungs were 2-3 X the expected weight. Your response to this along with all your bluster, lack of knowledge, mis quotes and mistruths end up failing to adequately dispel what it means. This piece of evidence alone placed against all your other arguments IMO will lead to a not guilty of homicide. That is just one of many reasons why you sound ridiculous.

                      https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12951-TKL/Memorandum08172020.pdf

                      The above link disputes what you say.

                      Take note of the words by Lane’s attorney defending Lane some of which disputes what you say.

                      “Notably Officer Chauvin’s “restraint” did not cause any area “of contusion or hemorrhage within the musculature” of the neck. There was no damage to the larynx. The autopsy report also states that the manner of death is not a legal determination.”

                      You are recognized as an A$$ not for the many mistakes and lack of understanding of the case but for your arrogant and flighty way of displaying it.

                    5. Mark N. says: January 8, 2021 at 6:02 PM “You actually didn’t or you wouldn’t have made such a fool of yourself.
                      You didn’t understand “implicate” and “could be”, simple phrases missed by you.”
                      ====

                      It’s clear what you were implying but are afraid to come out and say since you know you can’t prove it. If you weren’t implying anything then you’re bringing me something you’re not sure is true or not, made up or not, factual or not and you’re trying to convince me of it or just have too much time on your hands.

                      ===
                      Mark N. says: “I wait for Joe Biden who has not explained how he is not involved while he lied about what existed.”
                      ===

                      What did he lie about? I don’t know what you’re talking about here.
                      ==
                      Mark N. says “Did he act with reckless disregard and in an unreasonable fashion as to whether he caused the victims death?
                      No again, unless you otherwise have significant proof.”
                      ===

                      Kneeling on an unconscious man’s neck for 5 minutes after he passes out and was already saying he couldn’t breathe and complaining of your knee on his neck IS significant proof of a depraved heart. That’s practically the definition. This is the Ivan Drago “If he dies, he dies” position. Whether he was trying to kill him or not, a reasonable person would not do that if he cared if he killed him.
                      You seem not to know what a reasonable person is at law.

                      ==
                      “The question is, did Chauvin act legally. Prove Chauvin didn’t.”
                      ===

                      Why am I talking to a guy who clearly couldn’t pass a bar exam if his life depended on it? I’ve broken criminal law down to its most basic parts for you time and again, and in spite of this you’re still talking like a child. If he acted legally he wouldn’t have both a guilty actus reus and mens rea with no valid defense. That is how you address a question of criminal law, not your trying to broaden the question to muddy the waters, you break it down piece by piece which I did. You keep trying to do the opposite because either you don’t understand the law or know you can’t win when the law is broken down properly. Reread my last post again and again until you get it or pick up a crim law book for the love of God.

                      ==
                      Mark N. says “Now, let us get back to things other than the muttering of a crowd. The lungs were 2-3 X the expected weight. Your response to this along with all your bluster, lack of knowledge, mis quotes and mistruths end up failing to adequately dispel what it means. This piece of evidence alone placed against all your other arguments IMO will lead to a not guilty of homicide. That is just one of many reasons why you sound ridiculous.”
                      ==

                      As I explained, if you contribute to someone’s death you have met the burden for a guilty actus reus. You seem to think this isn’t true. Revisit my example with the child or the one you gave earlier and you may understand why just throwing more contributing causes of death doesn’t help you if you can’t remove any. This is about the actus reus element. Did he or did he not contribute to Floyd’s death?

                      ==
                      Mark N. says “https://www.mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12951-TKL/Memorandum08172020.pdf
                      The above link disputes what you say.”
                      ==

                      This is the link I gave you. It’s a co-defendant’s argument. Of course it’s going to make a persuasive case favorable to your case. That doesn’t mean you take its persuasive arguments at face value. You look at the facts therein and read into what is being said

                      ===
                      Mark N. says “Take note of the words by Lane’s attorney defending Lane some of which disputes what you say.
                      “Notably Officer Chauvin’s “restraint” did not cause any area “of contusion or hemorrhage within the musculature” of the neck. There was no damage to the larynx. The autopsy report also states that the manner of death is not a legal determination.”
                      ==

                      Lol, if you have to leave material words off of your quote to make your point, that makes your point nonsense.
                      The autopsy report states “the manner of death is not a legal determination of culpability or intent.’

                      Do you see how that is incredibly different from
                      “the autopsy report also states that the manner of death is not a legal determination”

                      Of course it’s not a determination of ultimate culpability or intent because it cannot say who caused the neck compression or anything with regard to their mens rea. This was why the autopsy evidence was listed under my Actus Reus section not the mens rea section.

                      I never said the autopsy by itself determined Chauvin’s guilt or intent. I said the autopsy combined with the footage establish the fact that Chauvin caused the neck compression, which as I listed under my facts in the last post “Three autopsies said neck compression was one of the contributing factors in Floyd’s death.” Do you dispute this fact? Are you saying three autopsies don’t list neck compression as one of the contributing factors? Or are you saying you don’t see why that fact is a huge burden to overcome if you want to fight the Actus Reus that Chauvin’s actions helped kill Floyd?

                      This is why I brought up the autopsy ONLY in relation to the Actus Reus. It has nothing to do with what he’s intending or what was going on in his head. This is why you separate Actus Reus from Mens Rea. You keep trying to mix the two because you don’t know how to break down a basic legal question.

                      ===
                      You are recognized as an A$$ not for the many mistakes and lack of understanding of the case but for your arrogant and flighty way of displaying it.
                      ====

                      Please read a law book. Learn how to break down a law question. It’s like I’m trying to explain to someone how to process a quadratic equation step by step and they’re coming back to tell me “you can’t mix variables.” Your understanding of basic legal concepts is HORRENDOUS. I’m not arrogant, you’re just not good at this. It’s like someone with a reasonable understanding of the law is talking to someone who can’t grasp the most basic of legal concepts. There are plenty here on both sides of the aisle that have a better understanding of constitutional law etc. than me, and I’m not ashamed to say it. Anyone here with a worse understanding of criminal law than you, especially having the basics explained to them with more attention than 10 tutors would have the patience to try, should be very ashamed of their inability to grasp something so easy. Maybe this just isn’t for you.

                    6. CK, you are a fraud. You would have been better off continuing to play the part of a fool.

                      Hunter Biden’s computer
                      Bobulinsky

                      That is all one has to say to open the door for a deep investigation of the entire Biden Family.

                      Add Ukraine and China, one notes some despicable things happening. I won’t even bother mentioning Russia.

                      You either are dumb or pretend to be dumber than you are if you didn’t note any of the things mentioned above.

                      A valid police hold indicates that a police officer used a valid hold on a known criminal who was resisting arrest before being touched. That arrest was immediately preceded with a criminal act by Floyd who already appeared “not in control of himself” That was the man the police had to deal with. Additionally Floyd had previously been involved in multiple violent offenses which poses a danger to the public and the police.

                      It was imperative to arrest Floyd. He resisted. He likely swallowed another Fentanyl while being arrested. The officers offered Floyd all types of considerations to permit a peaceful arrest yet Floyd didn’t comply and instead became a danger to all in that area. Floyd caused the necessity for the use of force.

                      “Why am I talking to a guy who clearly couldn’t pass a bar exam if his life depended on it? “

                      Why are you acting so dumb? You have taken the prosecutors side. The proof of guilt must come from the prosecutor. Therefore one of the things you must prove is that Chavin didn’t act legally.

                      You don’t answer simple questions of that nature because virtually all of your knowledge is polluted with inaccuracies and mistruths of one who doesn’t understand the law or the American justice system. That is what you must do to convince a jury of guilt. You can blame me as much as you want, but the defense doesn’t have to prove guilt and if you don’t provide evidence the defense doesn’t have to say a word. The case would be thrown out.

                      Contributing to the death of another is not criminal as long as the accused was acting legally without intent which gets to the paragraph above. You don’t know how to logically connect bits of information.

                      The co-defendent’s argument was provided by you but you were not the source. It actually provides proof of Chauvin’s innocence, but you provided it to demonstrate Chauvin’s guilt. So much for your deep investigation of the case and so much for your knowing or adequately evaluating what you link to. Such links on your part are only vanity plays that convince no one but yourself that you have something of importance to say. In reality you are ignorant of this entire event.

                      “Of course it’s not a determination of ultimate culpability “

                      Without knowledge you are arguing Chauvin’s case. Ultimate culpability requires that you provide evidence that it was Chauvin who with intent or in violation of the law did something that may have helped lead to the death of Floyd so that he can be charged with homicide. You can’t do that so you pop data in and out without logical linkage. You hide what you are doing with legal terms that frequently do not squarely relate to what you are saying.

                      ““Three autopsies said neck compression was one of the contributing factors in Floyd’s death.””

                      The autopsy report states certain things happening at the times but that does not mean it is a contributing factor or how it was a contributing factor. In effect it states the opposite showing no damage to the airway.

                      There is no reason for me to read a law book. I am not a lawyer. I am just a commenter that is destroying your arguments and forcing you to make disconnecting statements to prove that you have expertise in this area. I could take a common person off the street and they would have better judgement than you. In fact that is exactly the person who will end up on the jury.

                    7. Response showed up wrong place.
                      ==
                      Mark N. says:
                      January 9, 2021 at 10:40 AM
                      “CK, you are a fraud. You would have been better off continuing to play the part of a fool.”
                      ===

                      I do find it interesting that a guy who posts 20 times in a row under an anonymous pseudonym for 4 days straight, makes up several excuses as to why including being forgetful when called out on it, and claims I’m crazy for thinking otherwise, all of a sudden has no problem remembering to type any credentials the next 5 days and 20+ posts.

                      ===
                      Mark N. Says “That is all one has to say to open the door for a deep investigation of the entire Biden Family.
                      Add Ukraine and China, one notes some despicable things happening. I won’t even bother mentioning Russia.”
                      ===

                      I don’t have time to deal with your thoughts and fears. Either you think he committed a crime and are willing to try and prove it or you don’t. Thus far you’ve yet to provide a shred of evidence and want me to go looking for it.

                      ===
                      Mark N. says “A valid police hold indicates that a police officer used a valid hold on a known criminal who was resisting arrest before being touched. That arrest was immediately preceded with a criminal act by Floyd who already appeared “not in control of himself” That was the man the police had to deal with.”
                      ===

                      So in your mind this meant it was reasonable and defensible to kneel on his neck for 5 minutes after cuffing him. Got it. I guess you also would have been fine with him shooting him on the ground after he lay unconscious, right? So long as he used proper form.

                      ===
                      Mark N. says “Why are you acting so dumb? You have taken the prosecutors side. The proof of guilt must come from the prosecutor. Therefore one of the things you must prove is that Chavin didn’t act legally.”
                      “I am just a commenter that is destroying your arguments and forcing you to make disconnecting statements to prove that you have expertise in this area. I could take a common person off the street and they would have better judgement than you. In fact that is exactly the person who will end up on the jury.”
                      ===

                      Okay Mark so you’re right about one thing. A common person is the type of person who ends up on the jury. They also have the basics of the law explained to them and are instructed how to take the elements of a crime one by one, which is something you refuse to do.

                      Let’s start with the basics so as not to confuse you.

                      The first element for murder is the Actus Reus.

                      An officer shoots an armed and deadly suspect and the suspect dies with the shooting being one of the contributing factors. Has he committed the Actus Reus for murder?

                      We’ll address the mens rea in your followup.

                    8. “I do find it interesting that a guy who posts 20 times in a row under an anonymous pseudonym …”

                      You are repeating yourself. Does Polly want a cracker?

                      Maybe you should take a break and take your meds.

  6. As long as voluntarily ignorant humans continue to believe the information fed to them by Politicians, MSM and so called Social Media, all who not only control said information, contort it and censor any opposing thoughts, there will always be division. Especially from such small minds whose lives constantly are drowning in thumbs up, checks, likes and 280 characters. Every human has the free choice to put down their forsaken phones, seek the truth or just be content wasting away their lives feeding their soul draining digital addictions all to the wealthy profit of their digital dealers. Choose wisely!

    1. Yeah, Anonymous, you must know the truth. Just avoid all information and you’ll know what to think. ..Not..!!

      1. Never said “avoid all information”, it’s about where one gets their information and believes it to be gospel without so much as seeking other sources, i.e., reading submitted bills, checking state data banks on actual hospital occupancy, etc., rather than MSM’s take. There are many sources besides Politicians, MSM and Social Media.

        1. Anonymous, you’re saying we should ‘gather our own news’.

          Sure, we all have time for that. Call friends in various states and ask what they’ve been hearing. Write to soldiers in hotspots to get their impressions. Walk around your city to get views from the street.

          Yeah, home-made news is more nutritious.

          1. Congratulations troll, you’ve explained the basic means by which one gets news and information leading to the truth. Goodbye!

  7. Turley “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.”
    ***

    Another favorite was John Kerry emerging like a human sperm in a clean suit from some science project.

    I couldn’t stop laughing. Reminded me of scenes in the old movie “Everything You Wanted to Know About Sex But …”

    Not good for the Kerry image either that there are so many videos of him darting his tongue out like a lizard. I don’t know what that is about. I assume he can’t stop it because if he could he would. Watch for it.

    1. DiBlasio is likely New York’s worst mayor in nearly 90 years and cannot make a good decision to save his life. Blandly listing his latest round of bad decisions enrages the usual crew here, who are too crude and reflexive to merit a position at the DNC press office. (They’re also enraged at a glancing – non-critical – reference to one of Michael Dukakis’ PR pratfalls).

      1. I think we are also not to say that Deblasio’s [Herr Wilhem’s] wife and children are very strange looking.

        They make me think of the old Carpenter movie “They Live”. Also Mayor Lightfoot.

        Is it a microaggression to wonder if aliens really have landed and begun to settle in with humans?

        Then there are the folks here and about who made fun of Melania’s genuine accent but are comfortable with Mrs. Baldwin’s completely phony Spanish accent or Kamala’s pretend Southern accent, or, come to think of it, Herr Wilhelm’s name change to Deblasio.

        Is anything genuine anymore?

        1. The diBlasio youth (who ought to offer a tribute to their grandfather by taking back the family name) have normal range features for [] youth. They just have wretched haircuts (the son in particular, though lately he appears to have concluded that a 1970s afro was something he could live without). As for Chirlaine McCray, I cannot imagine looking at that mug in the mirror every morning. diBlasio married fairly late in life (at 34), to a women who had enough years on him that you could not call her a contemporary, to a woman who was so aged you’d never expect her to produce a child (by some stroke of dumb luck, she did), to a women with a considerable history of lesbianism. It makes very little sense. Nothing about him makes much sense.

          1. This is cute. Prof. Turley’s son enters some settings that puts your comment on moderation for containing particular stop words. The anthropological term ‘caucasoid’ has an analogue referring to Tropical Africans. You cannot use it here without permission. We live in inane times.

            1. I know. I tried it when referring to the United ? College Fund I think. No luck.

              Have you noticed attempts to criticize Trump’s appearance from those whose party has some of the funniest and strangest looking people in the country? I wondered where certain people went when carnivals closed– Democrat party.

              Nadler looks like an Egg escaped from an Alice in Wonderland movie set. The mayor of Chicago and Deblasio’s family could do ‘Mars Attacks’ without makeup. I expect tentacles at any moment. Kerry the Lurch has that lizard tongue tic going, or perhaps he is a lizard. Then there are the inverse geniuses like Hank Johnson. Somebody has been messing with elections for a long time.

              1. “Nadler looks like an Egg escaped from an Alice in Wonderland movie set.”

                Thanks, a lot. I had to look at scores of cute puppy pictures, just to get that disgusting (but clever) image out of my head.

      2. Tabby, you can’t make an argument without Estovir’s puppets to back you up. So we can disregard your nonsense about the “usual crew”.

        1. Paint-Chip, you need to come clean and admit you propositioned Estovir when he was in LA on business and he turned you down cold.

          1. I bet that fool Estovir ain’t never been to California. But I see Art Deco using that code Paint Chips. He’s like all the others here. They use code to say who they are.

    2. Young, what about Donald Trump’s orange make-up and yellow hair? Have you ever paused to realize how insane Trump actually looks???

  8. Predictably, in a twwet this afternoon Turley wrote:

    “Many of us criticized Pres. Trump for this statement and his past attacks on Raffensperger…….”

    Yeah, but not you you phony. Where’s that column? What a BS artist. He then goes on to attack Raffensberger for releasing the tape of his call with Trump. Nothing about what Trump said.

    Get ready for the Fox News worth column tomorrow.

    1. joe friday………..I can usually ignore the ugly rants and vicious comments of those contributors who suffer from undescended testicles; however, you are really getting on my nerves.

      1. LoL

        Cindy, that is a winner, but I think he would be happy if he had testicles at all no matter where they were.

  9. Julian Assange needs to go free:

    Powerful words from Stella Morris. Please listen:

    https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1346135552240746496

    ‘”Today is a victory for Julian. Today’s victory is the first step towards justice in this case.”

    ‘Julian Assange’s partner, Stella Moris, responds to the ruling at the Old Bailey that he cannot be extradited to the US on health grounds.’

  10. No state lottery commission would pay on a ticket with as many questions of fraud clouding its validity as are surrounding this election in swing states. If the commission did pay it would be clawing its money back.

    State certifications of fraudulent elections are no more sacred and untouchable than payouts on a fraudulent lottery ticket. In the face of fraud or failure to follow state laws in conducting the election, which has happened in several places, the certifications must be voided.

    China and Google and dead people and paper ghosts don’t have a vote in American elections.

    1. Young, the “questions of fraud” have to be serious and verifiable. They are neither. Trump set this scam up months before the election – he knew it likely he’d lose – and now Republicans are running around trying to gin up anything they can find as fraud. Note howeber that i numerous court cases his attorneys have specifically and directly – they have clearly disavowed it – not claimed fraud.

  11. Who cares about Blasio? why doesn’t JT comment on Brad Raffensperger. How is the media suppose to report on Trump? He lies, is dishonest and is anti-science. His base is the far right who hates government and minorities, If I was a journalist, I would speak the truth which is Trump is a narcissist who care nothing about human suffering. Trump is the one cheating by calling state election officials, governors and state attorneys to cheat by add votes for him that don’t exists!

    1. He likely has to figure out how to present it at length so as not to alienate his new base here. 280 Characters is simple but you’re talking about an entire article where he has to appear stern without appearing to rip Don to shreds the way he deserves.

    2. JT, is deBlasio’s action a problem under the law?

      Where is your column about Trump’s phone call with Raffensberger on Sunday? Talk about delusional.

    3. Howard– I can tell by your sentence construction that there is a good chance you are pumping nonsense from a distant country for a small wage. But good for you for trying. You have to make a living. Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

    1. amazing. FBI has more and more bad apples in the barrel. spoiling the whole bunch

      really goonish stuff that

      Sal Sar

        1. just what one would expect from the idiot who calls himself Art Deco

          he’s a good little American soldier

          book-smart, but truly understands very little

          1. “soldier”

            Of course, he’s never served in the military, but he’s the kind who falls into lockstep with government goons and thugs.

  12. Party’s have no business ini our Constitutional Republic. Period. Replace them with the coalition systems and while your at it ban any form of politics that is Anti Constitutional starting with any form of Socialism, i.e. Communism, Nazi ism aka International and National Socialism and Regressive Liberalism. All forms of reversing us back into the dark ages of Government Of the Establishment for the Aristocracy and against the Citizens. It has never been ‘res publica of, by, and for the Citizens. While I’m on the soap box If the Military is not going to uphold their Oath of Office …. why pay them. What happened to those who got us out of the Obama Wars, I guess they must have retired and let the Bring Back Using The Draft leftists now apparently planning to wear Yellow Berets.

    /s/ 23 year veteran of Infantry and NEVER became a REMF or violated my Oath of Office.Don’t intend to in the future. Don’t care how many actually did votre sociaist fascist.

  13. ATLANTA-BASED U.S. ATTORNEY SUDDENLY DEPARTING

    The U.S. attorney in Atlanta departed his post Monday after previously indicating that he would not leave until Inauguration Day.

    The reason for U.S. Attorney Byung “BJay” Pak’s change of plans are not clear. In an internal email announcing his departure obtained by TPM, Pak cited only “unforeseen circumstances” as the reason he was leaving Monday rather than Jan. 20.

    Pak was nominated by Trump and confirmed by the Senate in 2017.

    It is not uncommon for U.S. attorneys to step down in the weeks leading up to the inauguration of a new administration, as a courtesy to clear the way for the incoming president to choose his or her own appointees. Other Trump-appointed U.S. attorneys have also left their posts in recent days.

    But the news that Pak is out effective Monday, rather than Jan. 20, as he had previously indicated, comes as Georgia is the focus of intense political attention.

    President Trump has been on an unrelenting crusade to overturn the election results in Georgia and other battleground states that went for Joe Biden. On Saturday, he asked Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to “find” votes for him on an hour-long call that was published Sunday by the Washington Post.

    Georgia is also the site of an extremely high-stakes Senate run-off Tuesday, where control of the Senate will come down to whether Democrats can nab both Senate seats that are on the ballot.

    Before his appointment as U.S. Attorney, Pak, a Republican, served as a representative in Georgia’s General Assembly.

    Edited from: “Atlanta Based U.S. Attorney Abruptly Departs Office Soon Than Latter”

    Today’s Talking Points Memo

  14. Trump Using Putin’s Playbook To Subvert Democracy

    Trump’s hourlong telephone call over the weekend with Georgia’s chief election official, Brad Raffensperger, pressuring him to “find” enough votes to overturn President-elect Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s victory in that state only brought into stark relief what Mr. Trump has been doing for weeks. He has called the Republican governors of Georgia and Arizona to get them to intervene. He has summoned Michigan’s Republican legislature leaders to the White House to pressure them to change their state’s results. He called the Republican speaker of the Pennsylvania House twice to do the same.

    He and his staff have floated the idea of delaying Mr. Biden’s inauguration, which is set in stone by the Constitution, and he met with a former adviser urging him to declare martial law. His erratic behavior has so alarmed the military that he might try to use force to stay in the White House that every living former defense secretary — including two he appointed himself — issued a warning against the armed forces becoming involved.

    And he has encouraged Vice President Mike Pence and congressional allies to do anything they can to block the final formal declaration of Mr. Biden’s victory when Congress meets on Wednesday, seeking to turn what has historically been a ceremonial moment into a last-ditch showdown over the election. The idea has disturbed even many senior Republicans and it is guaranteed to fail, much to the president’s frustration.

    “The ‘Surrender Caucus’ within the Republican Party will go down in infamy as weak and ineffective ‘guardians’ of our Nation, who were willing to accept the certification of fraudulent presidential numbers!” Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter on Monday, quickly drawing a warning label from the social media firm.

    He denied subverting democracy, posting a quote he attributed to Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, one of his Republican allies: “We are not acting to thwart the Democratic process, we are acting to protect it.”

    But Mr. Trump’s efforts ring familiar to many who have studied authoritarian regimes in countries around the world, like those run by President Vladimir V. Putin in Russia and Prime Minister Viktor Orban in Hungary.

    “Trump’s attempt to overturn the election, and his pressure tactics to that end with Brad Raffensperger, the Georgia secretary of state, are an example of how authoritarianism works in the 21st century,” said Ruth Ben-Ghiat, author of “Strongmen: From Mussolini to the Present.” “Today’s leaders come in through elections and then manipulate elections to stay in office — until they get enough power to force the hand of legislative bodies to keep them there indefinitely, as Putin and Orban have done.”

    Edited From: “An Insurgency From Inside The Oval Office”

    Today’s New York Times

    1. One thing more set in stone. If Biden is administered the current Oath of Office he will have committed four felonies in just a few sentences.. Even more true of his VEEPette.

  15. 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.

    We have a ways to go, likely before our children’s children have children, before our trajectory is either stopped or reversed. 2020 was a mere dress rehearsal

    The vaccines will not stop the the “pandemic”. Being fit will protect you from the virus, however. The virus is here to stay. It belongs to a family of viruses that predates COVID-19, and will continue to mutate and thrive, just like other RNA viruses do, e.g. flu virus, HIV. These viruses exhibit fitness. The same thing can not be said about many individuals of our nation. It’s called natural selection.

    “Previous studies have clearly shown that epidemic and pandemic RNA virus spread may select for mutations that alter RNA virus pathogenesis, virulence, transmissibility, or a combination of these, yet this process remains poorly studied among emerging coronaviruses in animals and humans.”

    – NEJM, Dec 30, 2020

    Americans need to get back to living, working, worshipping and evolving.

Leave a Reply