Polyticks: Bob Butler's Perspective

[jdcpapa]

https://www.wsj.com/video/can-you-belie ... 8442AD504F

If you were at all familiar with the evidence, you would know the evidence exists. As is, in order to defend your worldview, you will lie without bothering to learn the evidence.

I asked you to provide evidence that Trump believes Biden was elected legitimately and evidence that he was convinced by others? In your cite, the testimony is that Trump was in disbelief over his loss to Biden and others convinced him of his loss. There is no testimony specific to the legitimacy of the election in your cite. There is no testimony specific to Trump's belief that Biden is a legitimate president.

‘Can You Believe I Lost to This Effing Guy?’ Trump Knew Biden Won, Aides Testify

Trump in private stated he lost. Period. I don't know what convinced him, but he was convinced. Your mindset requires you to try to weasel word around the fact. You can't.

Yes, there is testimony, from witnesses attending the J6 committee hearings and depositions, that suggests Trump knew he lost, as is quoted above. In my opinion, that quote is an indication that Trump acknowledged the loss to Biden. However, he did not believe the loss was "handed down" in a legitimate election.

Clearly, you could care less whether it was a legitimate election or not. Provide evidence that Trump believes Biden was elected legitimately. Presently, 37% of Americans believe Biden was not elected legitimately. This statistic is up 16% and rising from the same poll taken 2 years ago.

[Bob Butler]

Yes, there is testimony, from witnesses attending the J6 committee hearings and depositions, that suggests Trump knew he lost, as is quoted above. In my opinion, that quote is an indication that Trump acknowledged the loss to Biden. However, he did not believe the loss was "handed down" in a legitimate election.

Clearly, you could care less whether it was a legitimate election or not. Provide evidence that Trump believes Biden was elected legitimately. Presently, 37% of Americans believe Biden was not elected legitimately. This statistic is up 16% and rising from the same poll taken 2 years ago.

I do care about whether an election is legitimate or not. I believe there were 60 cases where Trump alleged fraud and he lost them all? I don't think the legal establishment decides cases based on poll results?

The grand juries have established probable cause. The trials on the 91 felonies are coming up soon enough, or at least I hope they will be soon enough. I hope they will be televised. Until then, you are determined to create your own truth and you are not alone. Possibly after that?

The odd thing would be if the 14th Amendment Section 3 gets invoked. Suddenly, you would have to take a hard look at the other Republican candidates. Will any of them promise to bring in Trump as the Chief of Staff, or is that an office of the US? At any rate, it would give half a chance for the GOP to recover some sort of base, or was the chance of that lost with the Tea Party? Even if the other Republican candidates have no chance in the general election, will the Trump Base still be the Trump base?

[jdcpapa]

Yes, there is testimony, from witnesses attending the J6 committee hearings and depositions, that suggests Trump knew he lost. In my opinion, Trump having knowledge that he lost the election does not prove that he believes he lost the election legitimately.

Provide evidence that Trump believes Biden was elected legitimately. Presently, 37% of Americans believe Biden was not elected legitimately. This statistic is up 16% and rising from the same poll taken 2 years ago.

I do care about whether an election is legitimate or not. I believe there were 60 cases where Trump alleged fraud and he lost them all? I don't think the legal establishment decides cases based on poll results?

Yes, Trump sought to overturn the 2020 presidential election and failed. You admit that he sought remedies in court and failed. This is evidence that Trump believes Biden was not elected legitimately.

[Bob Butler]

If after 60 court cases, 91 indictments and the attorney general telling him so, you would think it would get through. If you think it didn’t, well, that’s you, not Trump.

I’ve been thinking on the nature of truth. There is scientific truth. Predicting how celestial objects move through the heavens led Newton to create calculus and Einstein relativity. As an engineer, I could support that form of truth, though science always has unsolved problems and constantly updates itself.

Courts deal with legal truths. They deal with witnesses, evidence, oaths, juries and such like. Constitutions are amended, laws passed and appeals generated. There is no question this is a different flavor of truth. There is no question that Trump and you do not respect it.

Religion? At least in the US, each individual can believe what he feels like, and try to have the government enforce his beliefs. Let’s just say it is less decisive than the scientific or legal procedures. You can guess by the description how much less it is from my view.

But we seem to be dealing with yet another form of truth. Individuals have mindsets, systematic ways of understanding how their world works. The perceived truth is in how well the data matches the mindset. This is at the same time the mindset adjusts the data in order to confirm the mindset. The result can be as messy as the religious approach to truth. As my mindset is different from yours, what seems true by this approach varies highly.

And the scientific, legal and religious approaches to truth can be hidden through mindsets. If the mindset says a given approach to understanding the problem prevails, it does.

I would say the legal approach should be decisive in most questions involving the peaceful transfer of power. You seem to think your personal opinion is what counts. I suspect attempting to change each others minds will be kinda futile.

What evidence do you have that “Trump truly believes Biden was not elected legitimately”? I have him as a serial liar. Whenever the truth contradicts with his interest, his interest wins. Thus, what he says means little or less.

To me, what is important is resolved through the legal procedures. To you it seems to be that what you wish is so.

[Higgenbotham]

Courts deal with legal truths. They deal with witnesses, evidence, oaths, juries and such like.

Courts do, but kangaroo courts don't.

Fast facts:

69%: Involved eyewitness misidentification and of these:

34% of these misidentification cases involved an in-person lineup
52% involved a misidentification from a photo array
7% involved a misidentification from a mugshot book
16% involved a misidentification from a show-up procedure
5% involved a misidentification from a one-on-one photo procedure
27% involved a misidentification through the use of a composite sketch
11% involved a voice misidentification
2% involved a misidentification through hypnosis
54% involved an in-court misidentification
29% involved a misidentification through some other procedure (e.g., mistakenly “recognizing” someone on the street and reporting them to law enforcement)
77% of the misidentification cases involved multiple procedures
84% of the misidentification cases involved a misidentification by a surviving victim
42% involved a cross-racial misidentification
32% involved multiple misidentifications of the same person by different witnesses

18% involved a failure to identify the exoneree in at least one procedure

43%: Involved misapplication of forensic science

29%: Involved false confessions
49% of the false confessors were 21 years old or younger at the time of arrest
31% of the false confessors were 18 years old or younger at the time of arrest
9% of the false confessors had mental health or mental capacity issues, known at trial

17%: Involved informants

https://innocenceproject.org/dna-exoner ... ed-states/

Trump is dealing with kangaroo courts. We all know this. Case closed.

[Bob Butler]

Trump is dealing with kangaroo courts. We all know this. Case closed.

It is traditional in the US legal system to allow the defense to respond before you close a case. Only if you are running a kangaroo court?

Following your link, they seem to be really really proud to have found their 247 exonerations. Good work. Worth doing. Carry on. Chasing elsewhere, there were 10,085,207 cases in the. year 2019 alone. That seems really good. Even with scientific studies you get more errors that.

What ratio of false convictions to cases makes it a kangaroo court? Only a mere measly 91 felonies? Do you really believe there were no fake electors? That no documents were stolen?

As I said earlier, I hope the trials are televised.

[Higgenbotham]

Following your link, they seem to be really really proud to have found their 247 exonerations. Good work. Worth doing. Carry on. Chasing elsewhere, there were 10,085,207 cases in the year 2019 alone. That seems really good. Even with scientific studies you get more errors that.

The point which you failed to see is that out of tens of thousands falsely convicted in kangaroo courts, only a tiny fraction are exonerated.

1. Between 2% and 10% of convicted individuals in US prisons are innocent.
(Source: La Times NCRJS)

According to the 2019 annual report by the National Registry of Exonerations, wrongful convictions statistics show that the percentage of wrongful convictions is somewhere between 2% and 10%.

Which begs the question:

How many are wrongly convicted?

Keeping in mind that there are over 2.3 million incarcerated individuals in the United States, we can see that the number of innocent people behind bars is anywhere from 46,000 to 230,000.

That’s quite a frightening number.

But how many innocent people have been exonerated?

2. Over 2400 people have been exonerated in the United States since 1989.
(Source: Springer Link, The Innocence Project, Michigan Law)

When it comes to the number of wrongful convictions, the US is the undisputed leader, which is quite worrying.

Wrongful convictions statistics for 2018 show there were 151 exonerations that year. Another 143 individuals were exonerated in 2019.

3. Since 1989, there have been 375 convicts who were found innocent due to DNA testing.
(Source: The Innocence Project)

Since the introduction of DNA evidence, many wrongfully convicted individuals have been exonerated.

You might be wondering:

How many cases have been overturned by DNA?

From 1989 to now, 375.

The Innocence Project has worked on roughly half (190) successful cases, Innocence Project statistics reveal.

Looking at the DNA exoneration statistics and the nature of the supposed crimes, 130 exonerees were convicted for murders they didn’t commit.

In 40 cases, amounting to 31%, the witness’s identification was wrong. Moreover, 81 individuals falsely confessed, bringing the percentage of false confessions to 62%, and 17% involved informants.

Out of these 375 people, 21 have served time on death row awaiting execution.

https://thehighcourt.co/wrongful-convic ... tatistics/

Commies like Butler love kangaroo courts because they use them as tools to go after people or classes of people they don't like and wish to eliminate.

See the Promparty Show Trials in the former Soviet Union. Or just the standard "Tenner" they handed out before shipping innocent people off to the Gulags.

[Bob Butler]

If you had been paying attention, you’d know I worked contracts for the military and three letter intelligence agencies. I spent my professional life fighting commies. If you would rather hurl insults than argue fact and logic, you might find a relevant insult?

Sill, is the best you could do to use evidence of the USSR’s court system against the US? Come on. Get real.

If there is a bias in the court system, I suspect it is against minorities. Yes, work could and should be done to improve the legal system. 375 overturned by DNA since 1989 against 10,085,207 cases in 2019? That’s a start, but likely a pitifully small start. The conservative hatred of minorities is truly toxic. At best, they guess at who might be a troublemaker and create false evidence. A good number of the false convictions are not accidental. They are policy.

And you didn’t answer my question. Do you think going after Trump for his 91 felonies inappropriate? Another bias I suspect in the US legal system is that they do not focus enough on white collar crimes. If Trump hadn’t made a spectacle of himself, he might not have drawn the attention of the prosecutors. He would still be sitting pretty and doing reality shows. Do you care about the flaws in the justice system, fighting crime, or MAGA’s favorite crook?

[Higgenbotham]

Once again, you're cranking up the shit spewer and spewing shit in multiple directions. But at least you're doing it in the right place.

If you had been paying attention, you’d know I worked contracts for the military and three letter intelligence agencies. I spent my professional life fighting commies.

You spent your professional life enriching yourself in a bloated bureaucracy that is bloated because people like you inhabit it. I've previously characterized you as a high class welfare case. Your habits of thought are correspondingly slovenly.

Sill, is the best you could do to use evidence of the USSR’s court system against the US? Come on. Get real.

I am getting real. The USSR's court system is what Commies like you are using as a model to turn the US court system into. You cheer with every move toward that corrupt system. I am pointing out where you are taking it and why.

And you didn’t answer my question.

I answered your first question.

First question:

What ratio of false convictions to cases makes it a kangaroo court?

Answer: Two to ten percent.

I would suggest a unidirectional shit spewer.

[Bob Butler]

When I went to college working towards an advanced engineering degree, I did expect to be paid well. This is part of the way America works and should work. You object? You don’t think people who work hard to be able to do things others can’t shouldn’t be well paid? Have you tried working?

And did you notice Putin and Trump as buddies? There is an autocratic tendency in the conservative movement. I think of Putin, Xi and Trump surrounding themselves with yes men and making disastrous decisions as made of the same cloth. Calling progressives commie is ironic. Find an appropriate insult.

Where do I cheer a corrupt legal system? You are making up lies without evidence. As I said, one flaw with the US court system is conservative hatred of minorities and making up evidence against them. Some of what you covered is spot on. What I have called the ghetto mindset is real. Law enforcement sometimes sees it and will create a false case rather than doing their jobs. In many ways I’m with you. In other ways you are just distracting from the real base causes.

But the key question is whether you really believe Trump should be pursued for his alleged crimes. Should someone be trying to prove he took documents, created fake electors, interfered with a constitutional function, etc? If so, should he be locked up, or do you want him above the law? If the court system were perfect, would they not be doing much as they have been with regard to Trump, except they did it too slowly? The trials should have come before the primaries? They shouldn’t have given him the chance to delay, delay, delay?