Re: Capitol Mob - "Pretty Normal People"

On Monday, March 29, 2021 at 7:27:16 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
> On Sunday, March 28, 2021 at 5:25:20 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote: 
> > On Sunday, March 28, 2021 at 9:07:46 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote: 
> > > On Saturday, March 27, 2021 at 4:01:43 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote: 
> > > > On Thursday, March 25, 2021 at 9:51:58 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote: 
> > > > > On Wednesday, March 24, 2021 at 8:09:51 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote: 
> > > > > > On Wednesday, March 24, 2021 at 10:45:20 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote: 
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, March 23, 2021 at 11:10:12 PM UTC-4, Chuck Schuyler wrote: 
> > > > > > > > On Monday, March 22, 2021 at 9:28:58 PM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > On Monday, March 22, 2021 at 6:38:31 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, March 7, 2021 at 4:43:56 PM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, March 7, 2021 at 12:34:41 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, March 6, 2021 at 3:56:46 PM UTC-5, John Corbett wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, March 6, 2021 at 12:55:13 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, March 5, 2021 at 9:06:54 PM UTC-5, ajohnstone wrote: 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >I suppose I have an advantage over you ... He wasn`t killed at the riot. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >He texted his brother that the only thing that happened to him was that 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >he was hit by some bear spray. He went back to the precinct and had a 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >heart attack. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry to rain on your parade but i had already linked to this incident in 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > an earlier post 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I brought it up three weeks ago over in the nuthouse in a post to Don 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Willis. He actually believes what the mainstream media tells him. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/wudxrx_FIjo/m/8UyZ1ybLBQAJ 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-false-and-exaggerated-claims 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The author went into some detail about the Sicknick death and explained 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the motive behind the deliberate misrepresentation. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "...Without Sicknick having his skull bashed in with a fire extinguisher, 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > there were no deaths that day that could be attributed to deliberate 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > violence by pro-Trump protesters..." 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You are not the only one who accesses information from sources other than 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the mainstream media. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > You quoted me out of context. What I said was... 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > "I suppose I have an advantage over you because I never believed anything 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the Democrats or the mainstream media had to say about the event." 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don`t believe anything they say unless I can corroborate it myself 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > using sources I trust. They don`t have zero credibility, they are in the 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > red. The idea that five people died as a result of the Capitol incident 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > was never the default that needed to be disproven with me. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you think that if a cop went back to his precinct after battling BLM 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > rioters and died of a stroke you would have heard about it? Other than Fox 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > news the MSM is all spin, lies and propaganda for the Democratic Party. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > And liberals seem to think that holding Fox as an exception is 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > hypocritical, but not when they expose lies like this cop being killed by 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > violent Trump supporters. When they tell the truth and expose lies that 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > gains them credibility in my eyes, leftists seem to prefer the lies they 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > are told, they tenaciously hold onto these false narratives. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > It's a sad commentary on the mainstream media that we can't take their 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > word for ANYTHING. How can I trust people to accurately report the news 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > when they have such an obvious bias and agenda. Even if they are telling 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > me the truth, they are only telling half of it, the half they won't me to 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > know. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > It is an absolute disgrace that they ran with the story for weeks that a 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Capitol cop had been murdered during the riot and when they finally did 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > fess up, they did so without a hint of remorse. Most of the people who 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > control the information that the public is receiving are complete scumbags 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > who don't deserve an ounce of respect and most people don't give them any. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I have more respect for drug dealers, pimps, and whores than I do for the 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > most of the people that report the news. At least they are giving people 
> > > > > > > > > > > > > what they pay for. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > This new liberalism seems totally unprincipled to me, it seems very "the 
> > > > > > > > > > > > end justifies the means", if they can fib or spin information it is ok if 
> > > > > > > > > > > > it helps save the planet (in their eyes) or helps fight racism (in their 
> > > > > > > > > > > > eyes). Since all the people at the Capitol event are convicted racists in 
> > > > > > > > > > > > the eyes of the left anything done to them is fine. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > I generally avoid the MSM, but when I sign out of my email on AOL there 
> > > > > > > > > > > > are usually some headlines and I might click on one if the headline baits 
> > > > > > > > > > > > me. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > That's pretty much how I stay current. My homepage brings up headlines 
> > > > > > > > > > > froa variety of sources. Mostly liberal ones but a few conservative sites. 
> > > > > > > > > > > The sad thing is NOBODY is reporting straight news any more. I quit 
> > > > > > > > > > > subscribing to the Columbus Dispatch years ago. I can't remember the last 
> > > > > > > > > > > time I watched the nightly news on any of the networks. It used to be I 
> > > > > > > > > > > couldn't watch MSNBC or CNN for more than 30 seconds before I was ready to 
> > > > > > > > > > > punch somebody in the mouth but I've moved beyond that. Now I want to 
> > > > > > > > > > > strangle them. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > Today it was this one... 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > "Fighting Biden virus aid, GOP rekindles Obama-era strategy." 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > I clicked to find out what "strategy" was being "rekindled" and found 
> > > > > > > > > > > > out the strategy was telling the truth. The first paragraph has this... 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > "Republicans have one goal for President Joe Biden’s $1.9 
> > > > > > > > > > > > trillion COVID-19 relief package: to erode public support for the rescue 
> > > > > > > > > > > > plan by portraying it as too big, too bloated and too much wasteful public 
> > > > > > > > > > > > spending for a pandemic that’s almost over." 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > Calling it what it is is portrayed as some ploy to fool the public. 
> > > > > > > > > > > The one thing the MSM can't stand is somebody telling the truth. That's 
> > > > > > > > > > > dirty pool. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.aol.com/news/fighting-biden-virus-aid-gop-052006685-125614295.html 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > A huge chunk of money is going to bail out blue states so they can 
> > > > > > > > > > > > continue to do the things that put them in the red in the first place. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > Another headline was about the impending Chauvin trial. There will be 
> > > > > > > > > > > > nationwide riots because, why not? Looting and destruction has been 
> > > > > > > > > > > > decriminalized. The only thing that will stop this from occurring time and 
> > > > > > > > > > > > time again is a zero tolerance policy like that shown with the Capitol 
> > > > > > > > > > > > protests. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > Last summer the left decided that rioting was a legitimate form of protest 
> > > > > > > > > > > as long as it is the left that is doing the rioting. If the right does it, 
> > > > > > > > > > > it's an insurrection. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.aol.com/news/minneapolis-prepares-potential-unrest-ahead-110046142.html 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > You see a lot of talk about emotion in these articles, unfortunately it 
> > > > > > > > > > > > carries no weight in a courtroom (or shouldn`t, anyway). These people are 
> > > > > > > > > > > > bound to be disappointed. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > Democrats are always there to throw fuel on the fire... 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > “We know that this trial is going to reignite the same kind of 
> > > > > > > > > > > > emotional and social response that we saw last summer,” the 
> > > > > > > > > > > > councilman said. 
> > > > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > > > Hilarious that they are afraid that white supremacists are going to show 
> > > > > > > > > > > > up and start trouble. That is the least of their worries. 
> > > > > > > > > > > I think it's going to be very difficult to get a conviction one the murder 
> > > > > > > > > > > charge and some level manslaughter is the likely result with Chauvin 
> > > > > > > > > > > serving no more than a couple of years. A hung jury is a distinct 
> > > > > > > > > > > possibility too. Neither one of those will appease the left and we can 
> > > > > > > > > > > count on renewed rioting, excuse me, I meant renewed mostly peaceful 
> > > > > > > > > > > protests. 
> > > > > > > > > > Something new in the Chauvin case. A year almost to the day of the fatal 
> > > > > > > > > > Chauvin police stop Floyd swallowed drugs during a police stop and almost 
> > > > > > > > > > died. The court wasn`t going to allow this, but it seems like the judge 
> > > > > > > > > > changed his mind and is going to allow it. 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > Lawyers discuss it here... 
> > > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVIhEsR9GBU 
> > > > > > > > > It would seem that is pertinent to the question of the cause of death 
> > > > > > > > > which is central to the case. I still think Chauvin's actions were 
> > > > > > > > > inexcusable but if reasonable doubt can be raised as to thecause of death, 
> > > > > > > > > there shouldn't be a homicide conviction, even for the lesser charge of 
> > > > > > > > > manslaughter. 
> > > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > > My hunch is we will get a hung jury. That will probably mean either a plea 
> > > > > > > > > bargain or a retrial and likely another hung jury. 
> > > > > > > > I'm at Ground Zero. In fact, I dove by the courthouse last week when I 
> > > > > > > > took my wife to get her COVID shot. Barricades, fencing, and protesters 
> > > > > > > > already. 
> > > > > > > What could they be protesting at this time. Maybe they are just 
> > > > > > > practicing. In any case, it is a little disturbing to think our justice 
> > > > > > > system could be influenced by an angry mob but that seems to be the 
> > > > > > > reality. Those jurors are going to pass by those protesters on their way 
> > > > > > > into the courthouse. Is that going to influence them. That will depend on 
> > > > > > > the mental strength of the jurors and that can vary greatly from one 
> > > > > > > person to the next. 
> > > > > > I expect that jury selection is the most important aspect of this case. 
> > > > > > I expect that for most people their mind is made up and their bias will 
> > > > > > outweigh the evidence presented. I also expect most jurors are deceitful 
> > > > > > abut their true feelings in order to get on the jury (you watch, the media 
> > > > > > will uncover biased statements made by some of these jurors made on social 
> > > > > > media *after* they return a verdict). 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > I looked at the questionnaire they presented the jury, and I thought a 
> > > > > > question like "Would you think it to be an injustice if Chauvin was found 
> > > > > > not guilty of all charges?' or something along those lines should have 
> > > > > > been asked. If they don`t see this as a viable possibility they shouldn`t 
> > > > > > be allowed to serve. 
> > > > > There are rules that attorneys must follow during the voir dire process 
> > > > I saw "My Cousin Vinny" also. 
> > > I knew that term long before I saw that movie. I will admit I had to look 
> > > up how to spell it. 
> > For those that don`t know about that to which we allude... 
> > 
> > https://youtu.be/GTPUzRXozF0 
> > > > > although it would probably require a lawyer to tell us just what those 
> > > > > rules are. I'm not sure a question that specific would pass muster. 
> > > > Several jurors said they saw that tape of the incident. Is it possible 
> > > > to see the video and not form some opinion? 
> > > It's possible. 
> > You think it is possible to look at that video and come away with no 
> > opinions about what you saw?
> Yes, possible. Not likely, but possible.
> > >It's also possible for someone to set aside their earlier 
> > > opinion and base their verdict solely on the evidence presented at 
> > > trial. 
> 
> > The video has a strong emotional impact on a lot of people who saw it. 
> > In a courtroom it will be a cold, analytical assessment of what the film 
> > shows, which might serve to limit visceral reactions. But I think it will 
> > be hard for some jurors to overcome the idea that Chauvin has to be found 
> > guilty of *something*.
> Based on your earlier statements in other threads, it doesn't seem you had 
> the same reaction that most people had. On the other hand, a few lines 
> below this you stated, "I know that experts on law and crime have already 
> looked into the matter and decided the person is guilty.". Do you apply 
> that thinking to Chauvin?

  No, because I understand the political considerations outweigh the legal 
ones in cases like this.

  Like in the Trayvon Martin case...

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin

  "The State Attorney's office initially determined there was insufficient 
evidence to charge Zimmerman and did not file charges based on the capias 
request."

  "On March 16, Serino [the investigating detective] told the Orlando 
Sentinel that his investigation had turned up no reliable evidence that 
cast doubt on Zimmerman's account; that he had acted in self-defense. "The 
best evidence we have is the testimony of George Zimmerman, and he says 
the decedent was the primary aggressor in the whole event, everything I 
have is adding up to what he says."

  It wasn`t evidence that changed things, it was intense political 
pressure. Jesse Jackson was saying...

  "Jackson predicted that the protests will continue to multiply in number 
and that the ranks of protestors will swell until Zimmerman is arrested.

“As long as he is outside of the court system, the protests will 
intensify and spill over into other dimensions,” Jackson said. 
“His lack of appearance in the court system is a source of 
embarrassment and humiliation. He needs to face the court.”

  https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-xpm-2012-mar-23-la-na-nn-trayvon-martin-case-jesse-jackson-20120323-story.html

  Also the Arbery case should have never seen the inside of a courtroom, 
the initial prosecutor saw no grounds for charges. Political pressure 
changed that.

  And even in the Chauvin case the political pressure is evident. Why were 
all the cops charged with crimes, even the one who merely was holding back 
the crowd?

  These are all the product of political considerations, not legal ones. 
If Zimmerman stops a white guy and the guy attacks him and Zimmerman 
shoots him, does this go to court? Not a chance. Blacks have a gut feeling 
that these things play out like they do because of race, and the system is 
bending over backwards to appease them.

> > > > > I do 
> > > > > remember when I was being seated on one particular jury panel, the defense 
> > > > > lawyer asked one potential juror as to whether he believed his client was 
> > > > > guilty or not. His response was, "I don't know" indicating he wanted to 
> > > > > see the evidence which was not the answer the lawyer was looking for. He 
> > > > > wanted to see hear him say, "I presume he is innocent.". 
> > > > I have that same problem. I know the process, so I can`t assume 
> > > > innocence. I know that experts on law and crime have already looked into 
> > > > the matter and decided the person is guilty. 
> > > The great thing about our country is the people in charge don't get to 
> > > decide you are guilty. They have to prove it to a jury of your peers. 
> > > Totalitarian governments decide if people are guilty. 
> > But as I said, I know that people who know the law and are familiar with 
> > crime (both the initial police and the prosecutors/DA) have looked at the 
> > evidence and deemed the person to be guilty of the crime. To presume the 
> > person is innocent is also to presume these experts are wrong. A 
> > presumption of innocence makes that assumption.
> No, that is not true. By presuming an accused person is innocent, you are 
> saying to the people that have decided he is guilty that they are going to 
> have to prove that to you beyond a reasonable doubt.

 They would still have to do that even if I don`t presume innocence.

  Facts are pesky things, and the fact is that most of the people who go 
to trial are guilty of the crimes they are being charged with. Knowing 
that, an assumption of innocence is absurd.

> If they fail to do 
> that, if there is reasonable doubt as to whether the accused is guilty or 
> not, juries are supposed to acquit the accused. There is a very real 
> possibility a jury could conclude it is probable the accused is guilty but 
> if they have a reasonable doubt, they must acquit a person they think is 
> guilty.

  All that is possible without the presumption of innocence. A blank slate 
where neither guilt or innocence is presumed works just as well.

> > > > The best I can say is you 
> > > > will have to convince me that I can say with confidence the person 
> > > > committed the crime in question. But presume them innocent, no. 
> > > You would never be allowed on a jury in a criminal case unless you 
> > > perjured yourself during voir dire. It's a pretty standard question a jury 
> > > panel is asked. The defense wants 12 people willing to presume the accused 
> > > is innocent. 
> 
> > The defense would do fine with me. The prosecutors would still need to 
> > show me that I was looking at a guilty person.
> If you aren't presuming innocence, you make the prosecutor's job much 
> easier. 

  No, because a juror isn`t tasked with determining innocence.

>You would almost certainly be asked if you are willing to presume 
> the accused is innocent and if you gave the same answer you have given 
> here, you would be dismissed for cause. 
> 
> The criminal justice system stacks the deck against the prosecution and 
> for good reason. It is considered a much more serious travesty of justice 
> for an innocent person to be convicted than it is for a guilty person to 
> be acquitted.
> > > > > The lawyer's 
> > > > > facial expression revealed his dismay. The lawyer used one of his 
> > > > > peremptory challenges to dismiss that juror. Both sides are given a fixed 
> > > > > number of peremptory challenges which they can use to dismiss a juror 
> > > > > without cause. Sometimes he can be because he didn't like a juror's answer 
> > > > > as in the case above and sometimes it is just a hunch. Lawyers can also 
> > > > > have as many jurors dismissed for cause when such cause arises. That same 
> > > > > lawyer dismissed another juror for cause because another of his clients 
> > > > > was accused of burglarizing that juror's apartment. 
> > > > > > > > The pressure to convict him is immense. If the jury does it's job, I don't 
> > > > > > > > think Chauvin is convicted of second degree murder, but then again, I 
> > > > > > > > thought there was no way a jury would find OJ not guilty. Tough to tell 
> > > > > > > > what a jury will do nowadays in the grips of the secular religion of Woke. 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > I served on a jury in a murder case. Not a high profile one like this. The 
> > > > > > > pressure came from inside the jury room as it should be. Early on we 
> > > > > > > determined the accused was guilty but we deliberated for three days as to 
> > > > > > > the degree of murder. Ten wanted aggravated murder which is the Ohio 
> > > > > > > equivalent of murder one. Two wanted just murder (murder two). I was one 
> > > > > > > of the two and despite immense pressure from the ten we stood our ground. 
> > > > > > > Maybe it was my background as a professional umpire which had conditioned 
> > > > > > > me to making unpopular decisions. It was myself and another woman and 
> > > > > > > eventually the ten realized we weren't going to budge and reluctantly 
> > > > > > > agreed to the murder conviction rather than have a hung jury. 
> > > > > 
> > > > > > Maybe it was your background as an umpire that conditioned you to stick 
> > > > > > with your initial call even if it was wrong. 
> > > > > You'd never expect me to admit that would you? 
> > > > Are umpires allowed to change a call? 
> > > They are now. It used to be a judgement call was final. Now the emphasis 
> > > is on getting the play right either through consulting with your fellow 
> > > umpires or now through replay. It began back in the 1960s when Plate 
> > > umpires started asking the base umpires if a batter swung. It expanded 
> > > from there. Not all calls are subject to being reversed. 
> > > > 
> > > > I remember a story a ball player told where the ump told him "You know 
> > > > you`re safe, and I know you`re safe, but 40,000 people see my hand up 
> > > > calling you out, so you`re out". 
> > > That's an old story. I don't know if it every actually happened but it's 
> > > been repeated often. 
> > > > > > > > I'm glad I'm not on the jury, but I also know there's no way I'd ever be 
> > > > > > > > asked to serve on a trial like this. When questioned in the jury pool, I'd 
> > > > > > > > tell the attorneys that my mind is made up: George Floyd died of a drug 
> > > > > > > > overdose while the cops tried to reasonably restrain him and called for an 
> > > > > > > > ambulance. No murder. Chauvin may well be guilty of something, but not 
> > > > > > > > second degree murder. I don't think he did anything to intentionally harm 
> > > > > > > > this man. I don't see how the other cops even remotely did ANYTHING wrong. 
> > > > > > > > One cop had been on the job for four days. I think another cop was also 
> > > > > > > > brand new, and they reasonably deferred to Chauvin on the actions to take. 
> > > > > > > You could always use the old line, "I think we should give him a fair 
> > > > > > > trial and then hang him.". That should get you excused. A friend of mine 
> > > > > > > told me, only half in jest, that nobody is innocent. If they weren't 
> > > > > > > guilty they wouldn't be there. I've been on jury duty twice and it was an 
> > > > > > > interesting experience. The first time I spent three weeks in the jury 
> > > > > > > pool in Columbus, OH and sat on three jury panels, two criminal and one 
> > > > > > > civil. The other criminal trial was a forgery case which was a slam dunk 
> > > > > > > conviction. The civil case lasted almost a week and after the plaintiffs 
> > > > > > > had presented their case, the judge dismissed it without the jury every 
> > > > > > > deliberating. In the rural county I live in now, they call for jurors as 
> > > > > > > needed. I sat on another civil trial and the same thing happened. 
> > > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > > I shudder to think what this town will look like if Chauvin is found not 
> > > > > > > > guilty. Glad I'm armed. 
> > > > > > > I initially thought that Chauvin's actions were inexcusable and still do. 
> > > > > > I still think it is possible that it plays out exactly the same had the 
> > > > > > cops played "patty-cake" over Floyd. 
> > > > > > > Whether they were the primary cause of death or not now seems to be in 
> > > > > > > doubt. It might come down to the nuances of the law and whether Chauvin's 
> > > > > > > actions contributed to Floyd's death even if the drugs were the primary 
> > > > > > > cause. I don't know the answer to that and will probably be a question the 
> > > > > > > jury will have to wrestle with. 
> > > > > > I think the worst this is the mainstream media is reluctant to make 
> > > > > > public the mitigating factors that could contribute to the verdict. They 
> > > > > > should be informing the public, instead they add to the hysteria. I think 
> > > > > > they like to see cities burn, a lot of leftists have an anarchist 
> > > > > > streak. 
> > > > > Jurors are instructed to avoid any news coverage of a trial. 
> > > > I meant the general public. The MSM should have some obligation to tell 
> > > > people the facts that mitigate against the emotionalism of the angry mobs. 
> > > You talked about contributing to the verdict. Nothing the MSM tells the 
> > > general public should have any effect on the verdict because the jury 
> > > should not be listening to the MSM. 
> > I meant informing the public about why the verdict was reached, the 
> > factors that were given weight in the courtroom. As long as the public is 
> > largely ignorant of the "how`s" and "why`s" emotionalism will rule their 
> > response.
> The MSM does a very poor job of doing that. I remember when one of the 
> Kennedy cousins got acquitted of rape. He claimed it was consensual sex. 
> His accuser claimed he forced himself on her. More than one reporter said 
> that in the end, the jury chose believe him instead of her. That is not 
> what that verdict meant. The jury might well have found her to be more 
> credible but if they had reasonable doubt, they were required by law to 
> acquit.
> > > The MSM has no obligation. 
> > If Trump can be held responsible for not dissuading the Capitol mobs, 
> > why not the MSM? They often refer to the "climate of hate" that Trump is 
> > supposedly responsible for, yet their reporting directly throws gasoline 
> > on volatile situations. 
> >
> Trump is not responsible and neither are the MSM.
> > They even tried to tie Trump to the Asian attack because he told the 
> > truth about China being responsible for the COVID-19 crisis. Tenuous 
> > connections are fine, while direct connections are ignored (like BLM 
> > rhetoric getting cops killed). 
> > > They are free to be as bias as they want in 
> > > their reporting and most of them take full advantage of that. It used to 
> > > be despite their bias, reporters would at least try to report the news 
> > > fairly. Those days are long gone. Most of them have an agenda and it is 
> > > pretty obvious what that is. I have started watching News Nation on cable. 
> > > It's produced by WGN, the longtime superstation out of Chicago. It's more 
> > > like news reporting was 50 years ago. I think they have a bias, but they 
> > > aren't blatant about it. They attempt to get both sides of a story by 
> > > interviewing people with conflicting opinions and for the most part, keep 
> > > their own opinions to themselves.