Sarcasm kills, pizzagate

[Jolly_Penguin]

Even if he was acquitted, that doesn't mean he has shown his innocence. It just means they found a reasonable doubt about his guilt. It could still be more likely than not that he did it.

wtf. No, it means we don't have a reason to keep suspecting him.

Forget mere suspicion. You could have near certainty, and so long as there is a small but reasonable doubt, that is a finding of "not guilty" in criminal court.

If somebody isnt found guilty in criminal court it doesn't mean they are innocent and didn't do what they were accused of. It merely means that a reasonable doubt (or procedural error) was found to exist. Plenty of guilty people are found "not guilty" to a criminal court standard. Some then get sued in civil court (a balance of probability test) and are found liable.

If we still do, what's the point with the judicial system?

I think you mean what is the point of the very high standard of evidence in criminal court, and the answer is to err on the side of freeing the guilty rather than licking up the innocent.

 

[marc]

When I said 'last I heard', I'm not referring to hearing it from someone who heard it from someone who saw it online. I'm referring to seeing articles on it, such as at Politico , and Daily Mail, The Guardian, NY Daily News, etc.

Now, can you show where you got the impression that he was acquitted?

It says threats. Doesn't mean that threats came from Trump or anybody associated with him. They might as well have come from Trumps' fanboys (I'm assuming none of his supporters are women). And then it means nothing.

Which is all irrelevant to what I was saying.

No it doesn't mean he is innocent. But it doesn't mean he is guilty. It just means we don't have enough information upon which to even speculate. Anybody can accuse anybody of anything. Accusations are cheap and easy. Until they're backed up by something they're just talk, and should be treated as such IMHO

And now you seem to be dodging my question. You claimed he was acquitted. I pointed out that he wasn't, that the case was actually dropped. You implied I was just spreading rumors. I provided sources, and you haven't said where you got the impression he was acquitted, despite being asked this twice.

As for 'anybody can accuse anybody of anything', yes, but to get an actual federal court hearing I would expect that you need something more than just an accusation. That doesn't make the accusation true, but there is likely enough reason to at least give it a closer look.

 

[DrZoidberg]

It says threats. Doesn't mean that threats came from Trump or anybody associated with him. They might as well have come from Trumps' fanboys (I'm assuming none of his supporters are women). And then it means nothing.

Which is all irrelevant to what I was saying.

No it doesn't mean he is innocent. But it doesn't mean he is guilty. It just means we don't have enough information upon which to even speculate. Anybody can accuse anybody of anything. Accusations are cheap and easy. Until they're backed up by something they're just talk, and should be treated as such IMHO

And now you seem to be dodging my question. You claimed he was acquitted. I pointed out that he wasn't, that the case was actually dropped. You implied I was just spreading rumors. I provided sources, and you haven't said where you got the impression he was acquitted, despite being asked this twice.

As for 'anybody can accuse anybody of anything', yes, but to get an actual federal court hearing I would expect that you need something more than just an accusation. That doesn't make the accusation true, but there is likely enough reason to at least give it a closer look.

I think it's unclear if she dropped it because she was threatened or if she dropped it because her case was weak.

If we don't respect the legal system then anybody who has ever been accused for anything is automatically always guilty forever. That is not a world I want to live in. That's mob rule.

 

[marc]

Which is all irrelevant to what I was saying.

No it doesn't mean he is innocent. But it doesn't mean he is guilty. It just means we don't have enough information upon which to even speculate. Anybody can accuse anybody of anything. Accusations are cheap and easy. Until they're backed up by something they're just talk, and should be treated as such IMHO

And now you seem to be dodging my question. You claimed he was acquitted. I pointed out that he wasn't, that the case was actually dropped. You implied I was just spreading rumors. I provided sources, and you haven't said where you got the impression he was acquitted, despite being asked this twice.

As for 'anybody can accuse anybody of anything', yes, but to get an actual federal court hearing I would expect that you need something more than just an accusation. That doesn't make the accusation true, but there is likely enough reason to at least give it a closer look.

I think it's unclear if she dropped it because she was threatened or if she dropped it because her case was weak.

If we don't respect the legal system then anybody who has ever been accused for anything is automatically always guilty forever. That is not a world I want to live in. That's mob rule.

aaaand again you ignore the question of where you got the impression he had been acquitted.

At no point did I say that Trump was guilty, or even likely guilty, just that this case existed to point out some hypocrisy. Saying he was acquitted goes a lot further to give the false impression that the matter had been investigated and decided than saying the lawsuit exists.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Which is all irrelevant to what I was saying.

No it doesn't mean he is innocent. But it doesn't mean he is guilty. It just means we don't have enough information upon which to even speculate. Anybody can accuse anybody of anything. Accusations are cheap and easy. Until they're backed up by something they're just talk, and should be treated as such IMHO

And now you seem to be dodging my question. You claimed he was acquitted. I pointed out that he wasn't, that the case was actually dropped. You implied I was just spreading rumors. I provided sources, and you haven't said where you got the impression he was acquitted, despite being asked this twice.

As for 'anybody can accuse anybody of anything', yes, but to get an actual federal court hearing I would expect that you need something more than just an accusation. That doesn't make the accusation true, but there is likely enough reason to at least give it a closer look.

I think it's unclear if she dropped it because she was threatened or if she dropped it because her case was weak.

The case was dropped by the victim for whatever reason. There has been certainly less evidence of things (think Vince Foster) about the Clintons that has carried decades. Regardless, the point isn't whether Trump was guilty of this, it is about the standard of evidence required by a Trump supporter regarding partisan opponents verses allies. There was a case regarding Trump and rape. But that was hand waved aside. There were several investigations into Benghazi which clear the State Dept. repeatedly and yet Clinton was still targeted by Trump supporters over it especially because of deleted emails the anti-Clinton people kept clinging to.

If we don't respect the legal system then anybody who has ever been accused for anything is automatically always guilty forever. That is not a world I want to live in. That's mob rule.

This is the world Democrats have been subjected to for a while.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Which is all irrelevant to what I was saying.

No it doesn't mean he is innocent. But it doesn't mean he is guilty. It just means we don't have enough information upon which to even speculate. Anybody can accuse anybody of anything. Accusations are cheap and easy. Until they're backed up by something they're just talk, and should be treated as such IMHO

And now you seem to be dodging my question. You claimed he was acquitted. I pointed out that he wasn't, that the case was actually dropped. You implied I was just spreading rumors. I provided sources, and you haven't said where you got the impression he was acquitted, despite being asked this twice.

As for 'anybody can accuse anybody of anything', yes, but to get an actual federal court hearing I would expect that you need something more than just an accusation. That doesn't make the accusation true, but there is likely enough reason to at least give it a closer look.

I think it's unclear if she dropped it because she was threatened or if she dropped it because her case was weak.

If we don't respect the legal system then anybody who has ever been accused for anything is automatically always guilty forever. That is not a world I want to live in. That's mob rule.

aaaand again you ignore the question of where you got the impression he had been acquitted.

At no point did I say that Trump was guilty, or even likely guilty, just that this case existed to point out some hypocrisy. Saying he was acquitted goes a lot further to give the false impression that the matter had been investigated and decided than saying the lawsuit exists.

I was asking questions.

 

[marc]

Which is all irrelevant to what I was saying.

No it doesn't mean he is innocent. But it doesn't mean he is guilty. It just means we don't have enough information upon which to even speculate. Anybody can accuse anybody of anything. Accusations are cheap and easy. Until they're backed up by something they're just talk, and should be treated as such IMHO

And now you seem to be dodging my question. You claimed he was acquitted. I pointed out that he wasn't, that the case was actually dropped. You implied I was just spreading rumors. I provided sources, and you haven't said where you got the impression he was acquitted, despite being asked this twice.

As for 'anybody can accuse anybody of anything', yes, but to get an actual federal court hearing I would expect that you need something more than just an accusation. That doesn't make the accusation true, but there is likely enough reason to at least give it a closer look.

I think it's unclear if she dropped it because she was threatened or if she dropped it because her case was weak.

If we don't respect the legal system then anybody who has ever been accused for anything is automatically always guilty forever. That is not a world I want to live in. That's mob rule.

aaaand again you ignore the question of where you got the impression he had been acquitted.

At no point did I say that Trump was guilty, or even likely guilty, just that this case existed to point out some hypocrisy. Saying he was acquitted goes a lot further to give the false impression that the matter had been investigated and decided than saying the lawsuit exists.

I was asking questions.

Well none of that seemed to be in the format of a question. And does asking questions make someone incapable of answering questions put to them in return? as you are still not answering the question I asked repeatedly.

 

[ksen]

wtf. No, it means we don't have a reason to keep suspecting him.

Forget mere suspicion. You could have near certainty, and so long as there is a small but reasonable doubt, that is a finding of "not guilty" in criminal court.

If somebody isnt found guilty in criminal court it doesn't mean they are innocent and didn't do what they were accused of. It merely means that a reasonable doubt (or procedural error) was found to exist. Plenty of guilty people are found "not guilty" to a criminal court standard. Some then get sued in civil court (a balance of probability test) and are found liable.

If we still do, what's the point with the judicial system?

I think you mean what is the point of the very high standard of evidence in criminal court, and the answer is to err on the side of freeing the guilty rather than licking up the innocent.

I am innocent. Where do I have to go for my licking up?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Which is all irrelevant to what I was saying.

No it doesn't mean he is innocent. But it doesn't mean he is guilty. It just means we don't have enough information upon which to even speculate. Anybody can accuse anybody of anything. Accusations are cheap and easy. Until they're backed up by something they're just talk, and should be treated as such IMHO

And now you seem to be dodging my question. You claimed he was acquitted. I pointed out that he wasn't, that the case was actually dropped. You implied I was just spreading rumors. I provided sources, and you haven't said where you got the impression he was acquitted, despite being asked this twice.

As for 'anybody can accuse anybody of anything', yes, but to get an actual federal court hearing I would expect that you need something more than just an accusation. That doesn't make the accusation true, but there is likely enough reason to at least give it a closer look.

I think it's unclear if she dropped it because she was threatened or if she dropped it because her case was weak.

If we don't respect the legal system then anybody who has ever been accused for anything is automatically always guilty forever. That is not a world I want to live in. That's mob rule.

aaaand again you ignore the question of where you got the impression he had been acquitted.

At no point did I say that Trump was guilty, or even likely guilty, just that this case existed to point out some hypocrisy. Saying he was acquitted goes a lot further to give the false impression that the matter had been investigated and decided than saying the lawsuit exists.

I was asking questions.

Well none of that seemed to be in the format of a question. And does asking questions make someone incapable of answering questions put to them in return? as you are still not answering the question I asked repeatedly.

You're just putting words in my mouth. Please stop.

 

[marc]

Which is all irrelevant to what I was saying.

No it doesn't mean he is innocent. But it doesn't mean he is guilty. It just means we don't have enough information upon which to even speculate. Anybody can accuse anybody of anything. Accusations are cheap and easy. Until they're backed up by something they're just talk, and should be treated as such IMHO

And now you seem to be dodging my question. You claimed he was acquitted. I pointed out that he wasn't, that the case was actually dropped. You implied I was just spreading rumors. I provided sources, and you haven't said where you got the impression he was acquitted, despite being asked this twice.

As for 'anybody can accuse anybody of anything', yes, but to get an actual federal court hearing I would expect that you need something more than just an accusation. That doesn't make the accusation true, but there is likely enough reason to at least give it a closer look.

I think it's unclear if she dropped it because she was threatened or if she dropped it because her case was weak.

If we don't respect the legal system then anybody who has ever been accused for anything is automatically always guilty forever. That is not a world I want to live in. That's mob rule.

aaaand again you ignore the question of where you got the impression he had been acquitted.

At no point did I say that Trump was guilty, or even likely guilty, just that this case existed to point out some hypocrisy. Saying he was acquitted goes a lot further to give the false impression that the matter had been investigated and decided than saying the lawsuit exists.

I was asking questions.

Well none of that seemed to be in the format of a question. And does asking questions make someone incapable of answering questions put to them in return? as you are still not answering the question I asked repeatedly.

You're just putting words in my mouth. Please stop.

I'm not putting any words in your mouth. You initially stated Trump had been acquitted, and seemed to dismiss me when I corrected you. All I asked is where did you get the impression he had been acquitted? It should be a simple question.

 

[fast]

It's going to take more than a judicial outcome to alleviate suspicion. Geez

 

[DrZoidberg]

It's going to take more than a judicial outcome to alleviate suspicion. Geez

But it shouldn't. A witch hunt society makes nobody happy.

 

[blastula]

Trump adviser’s son removed from transition after spreading conspiracy theory

But the nutjob father is still in.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Trump adviser’s son removed from transition after spreading conspiracy theory

But the nutjob father is still in.

Trump is ruining the livelihood for thousands of stand-up comedians. News reporters are now doing their jobs instead.

 

[funinspace]

Trump adviser’s son removed from transition after spreading conspiracy theory

But the nutjob father is still in.

Yep, but they dumped the wrong Flynn. Fuck...the probable new head of the NSA tweeting out about fake news to damage Clinton. I hope he is just a cynical bastard, and not a True Flake.

https://twitter.com/search?q=NYPD from:genflynn&src=typd&lang=en

U decide - NYPD Blows Whistle on New Hillary Emails: Money Laundering, Sex Crimes w Children, etc...MUST READ! http://truepundit.com/breaking-bomb...ldren-child-exploitation-pay-to-play-perjury/ …

General FlynnVerified account ‏@GenFlynn Nov 4
RT #spiritcooking w/ #NeveryHillary Y #DrainTheSwamp - NYPD Ready 2 Make Arrests in Weiner Case http://bit.ly/2fjmNnM via @BreitbartNews

 

[blastula]

So a bunch of jokers on 4chan and Reddit are spinning a laughable conspiracy theory including Hilary Clinton and some pedophile sex ring operating out of a pizzeria. I guess we have to outlaw humor now as some members of our community can't handle sarcasm.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38205885

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald...ng_pizzagate_summary/?st=iwbxzh24&sh=77374009

Those people on reddit don't look like they're joking.

 

[DrZoidberg]

So a bunch of jokers on 4chan and Reddit are spinning a laughable conspiracy theory including Hilary Clinton and some pedophile sex ring operating out of a pizzeria. I guess we have to outlaw humor now as some members of our community can't handle sarcasm.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38205885

https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald...ng_pizzagate_summary/?st=iwbxzh24&sh=77374009

Those people on reddit don't look like they're joking.

That's the nature of sarcasm. It could always be sincere.

 

[blastula]

What make you think it started as a joke? It looks like just another incident of the current, rampant conspiracy theorizing.

 

[DrZoidberg]

What make you think it started as a joke? It looks like just another incident of the current, rampant conspiracy theorizing.

Come on! It's preposterous. It's all based around a guy looking a bit too happy in a picture.

 

[blastula]

It's not based on one thing, it's based on lots of tidbits of information and innuendo that are connected in a way meaningful to conspiracy theorists. Absurdness is of little hindrance to widespread belief (see religion). This story is still ridiculous now and is still widely believed.

Pizzagate: From rumor, to hashtag, to gunfire in D.C. - The Washington Post