If you care simply go out and vote against democrats.

Very accurate (but sad) article.  Expect the but but but Trump or but but but Republicans chorus without discussing the actual article. 

Trump is arguably the worst attack on the rule of law in our history.  Certainly in our lifetimes.   He is currently engaging in this attack.   Not old news, current news.   

Instead of recognizing current reality, this article turns to the past and deflects.

How is it possible for someone to care about the rule of law and write an article that totally ignores the worst, current offender:  Trump?

Expect the but but but Trump or but but but Republicans chorus without discussing the actual article. 

Hey, look at that.  It only took 10 minutes for that to happen.

Another feeble attempt to deflect from Trump.

You cannot deal with the point that Trump is currently, actively the biggest threat to the rule of law so you put up childish cartoons.

Another feeble attempt to deflect from Trump.

[✘] You cannot deal with the point that Trump is currently

NOT the subject of the article

Another feeble attempt to deflect from Trump.

Another feeble attempt to deflect to Trump

You cannot deal with the point that Trump is currently, actively the biggest threat to the rule of law

You can not get over the fact that someone doesn't want to follow you down the Trump rabbit hole even though the article is not about Trump

so you put up childish cartoons.

To paraphrase : a cartoon is worth a thousand words.  Especially when it is in response to nonsense

It only took 10 minutes for that to happen.

9 minutes slower than expected.

NOT the subject of the article

I am always confused if some folks on the left think every article circles back to trump  or they just use Trump as a deflection when there is no rational response.  CNN and MSNOW seem to go back and forth.

This article is about the assault on rule of law.   It ignores the single biggest, current assault - Trump.

That criticism is entirely valid.   You, et.al., have offered nothing of substance … just more feeble attempts to defend Trump.

I am always confused if some folks on the left think every article circles back to trump

You have to remember, their whole lives revolve around him.  It's really nothing new.  You are correct saying that they use the Trump deflection when they have no rational (or coherent) responses.

This article is about the assault on rule of law.  

I can't even say nice try to that sad attempt.  The title of the article is "The left's assault on American Justice."  The article itself is about the left's assault on American Justice.

It ignores the single biggest, current assault - Trump.

An article about The left's assault on American Justice does not bring up Trump. Who would have thought it?  If you don't like or or refuse discussing the article you may wish to find and publish an article about Trumps assault on American Justice.  That will give me a chance to bring up the lefts assault on American Justice 

That criticism is entirely valid.  

The criticism has nothing to do with the article

You, et.al., have offered nothing of substance … just more feeble attempts to defend Trump.

So you claim my refusal to talk about Trump in an article not about Trump is defending Trump.

Logical fallacy.

Pathetic logical fallacy.  I am done playing your game.

You have to remember, their whole lives revolve around him.  It's really nothing new.  You are correct saying that they use the Trump deflection when they have no rational (or coherent) responses.

Interesting.  Makes me wonder if the underlying issue is that not everyone's life revolves around Trump.  They are upset they can't break the spell.

Of course it does.   If one speaks of an assault on justice and omits the single biggest, current assailant, it is entirely appropriate to note that.

Expect the but but but Trump

Convicted felon Trump.

Convicted felon Trump.

34 times, and never spent so much as a day in jail.... But.....

The left is assaulting American Justice....some of these people must be smoking crack.

Thanks for proving my point

[✘]

Your “point” was no point at all. It was an attempt at preemptive deflection. There is massive hypocrisy in complaining about criminals not being punished while supporting a convicted felon who escaped punishment for his crimes.

Your “point” was no point at all.

Right.  

My point was to watch out for the but but but Trump in an article about the lefts assault on American Justice and you went right to the  but but but Trump.

you went right to the  but but but Trump

Actually you brought up Trump. That’s why I called it a preemptive deflection. So don’t blame me. I just responded to it.

Try again, I will give you a hint.  It was preemptively calling out the deflection I knew was coming.

One of the lamest responses when Trump is criticized is to whine that Trump was criticized.   Why do you continue to defend this irresponsible, dangerous buffoon?

How is it possible for someone to care about the rule of law and write an article that totally ignores the worst, current offender:  Trump?

Why is this 'happening' in this article? Because we are dealing with 'ascended' neocons and self-righteous religionists that have taken it upon themselves to put liberals in their so called place. . . under conservative control. These neos and religionists are doing this right in our face UNAPOLOGETICALLY and MERCILESSLY. 

I suggest liberal get a clue and realize that neocons and self-righteous conservatives (MAGA) only respect POWER. The question is do liberals have POWER and if not when the hell do we plan to get it and properly wield it?

Trump is a creepy control freak with intentions of destroying liberals and their ways of life. 

You can not get over the fact that someone doesn't want to follow you down the Trump rabbit hole even though the article is not about Trump

MAGA can fix this by telling Trump to shut up more often than he 'mouths.' MAGA supporters can not do that. . . as Trump takes 'care of its needs' by attempting to beat down and so -call own liberals. MAGA supporters eat that sh-t up!' And, Trump is always carrying a 'bowl' to feed his flock. Want to know why Trump is 'busy' talking all the time? Because the flock would wander off and away without a daily 'word' from their leader.

Let's test that theory: Tell Donald to stop talking and saturating our sets with 'news' on a daily basis and let us see if we can forget him as fast as Russia and Ukraine has disappeared from the "daily" news. Oh, right, Trump does not mind anybody. He is the wild child grown old and insufferable with a large following that can't quit him.

MAGA can fix this

Fix what?  Having the left keep diverting to Trump even when the article is not about Trump?  I don't think anyone other than God could pull that miracle off. 

Tell Donald to stop talking and saturating our sets with 'news' on a daily basis

You could always turn the station.  NCIS and Diners, Drive-ins and Dives reruns are almost always on and guaranteed not to raise your blood pressure as much as yelling at the TV when Trump is on.

when the hell do we plan to get it and properly wield it?

It is more of a how then when.  Stopping demonizing anyone that doesn't follow you even when Americans are 80/20 against you on some issues or having a plan other than orange man bad may be a place to start.

We will talk about Trump and the "Right's" assault combined. . . because Trump is Trump's 'America first' and MAGA supporters serve Trump loyally. Trump says so himself!

Trump swerved MAGA with starting a war with Iran. . . .  Good MAGA can get over that happening. . . loyalty is big with Trump and MAGA supporters 'bought the whole 'pig'!

MAGA can fix this by telling Trump to shut up more often than he 'mouths.'

It would benefit this discussion if you would show RESPECT for a period or periods, plural, at the end of sentences when you comment. That's all for now!

Ditto. MAGA-supporter adjacent commenters should take your suggestion and why are you calling Trump and I quote: "orange man." Trump's tan job has never been an issue for me.   Case in point: If I gave a damn (just a smidgeon) Trump's ab/use of regular aspirin against doctor's advice would be a concern, and yet he stubbornly insist on the 'habit.' That is a SPACE I am quietly watching to see the results of long-term ab/use.

Expect the but but but Trump or but but but Republicans chorus without discussing the actual article. 

Well.... if you can't argue the actual point, change the subject.  

Nobody is going to come here and let unjustified 'bashing' take place simply because of a partisan and opinionated so-called: 'title'!

I am always confused

Well, I've been on NT a long time, And I seen numerous occasions where you actually weren't confused!

So don't be so hard on yourself-- even the most intelligent amongst us have brief periods of confusion!

(After all, we're only human! )

Nobody is going to come here and let unjustified 'bashing' take place simply because of a partisan and opinionated so-called: 'title'!

Well.... if you can't argue the actual point, change the subject.  

"Keep it real" - Already!  I do not have time for any game of "smoke and mirrors." The title of this article is a made-up and partisan insult and I have called it out. So now what?

"Keep it real" - Already!  I do not have time for any game of "smoke and mirrors." The title of this article is a made-up and partisan insult and I have called it out. So now what?

Now you read the actual article. 

Then you say something intelligent, preferably referring to the statistics it contains. 

You then cite your own data that you believe contradicts the data in the article.  

You avoid copying and pasting AI verbiage, because if you don't care enough to type your own posts you can't really expect anybody else to care enough to read them.

You avoid obviously moronic attempts to change the subject and make it all about some nonsensical and transparent distraction.

Try that and get back to us.

This is an "opinion piece" and so I rendered my opinion about it being so. Leaving behind the 'smoke and mirrors':  So now what?

And, if I need "coaching" on how to structure or answer a comment on NT I will seek the advice of our moderators

And I will be 'big' enough not to insult your intelligence, because that is who I am.

Now you read the actual article.

Start with "yesterday" at comment 8 you will find that I addressed the article directly. So now what?

Convicted felon Trump

Now think about that "conviction".  It was based on a law that NOBODY had ever been charged with, meaning it was used to target him.  It was also past it's statute of limitations meaning the "rule of law" you all are crying about was thrown out because that is the ONLY real thing that was found after almost a decade of "investigations".  

"Theory" is already proven to be faulty.  He was out of office for 4 years while Biden stumbled and mumbled his way around and you all STILL blathered on endlessly about him.  YOU ALL are what kept him in the news cycle.  And for what?

If one speaks of an assault on justice and omits the single biggest, current assailant, it is entirely appropriate to note that.

Then why don't you note:

Mueller probe cut corners, broke rules to ‘get Trump,’ whistleblower claims

nypost

It is odd that on an article about assault on the justice in the US you won't mention that.[ ✘ ]

So who is keeping the "Bloated Head' one on television this morning?

Oh,. . . you mean "we" do not mind Trump and that causes him to flap his gums in distress? Of course, MAGA supporters do know Trump was running his mouth through the Biden Administration, largely decrying his loss to Biden (whipped the Bloated Head one 'bigly') as a sore loser.

And, MAGA supporters can remark all y'all want. . . I could care less. . . the Bloated Head one will get spoken about when it is appropriate and 'boots' to MAGA supporters whom can lump it.

Oh,. . . you mean

I mean exactly what I said.  No need to read into it.

Of course, MAGA supporters do know Trump was running his mouth through the Biden Administration

And you all freaked out and cried about it every time, keeping him on TV and in the spotlight.  The supposed "investigations" that turned up nothing helped in that aspect as well.

"It takes two - me and you - to make a thing go*. . . ." the popular song goes. And I have no reason to 'promote' "The Bloated Head One" - Trump. He excels at dragging people into his sewer like surroundings and 'entanglements,' because as everybody should know already he is bull-headed.

*  Rob Base & DJ EZ Rock

All voters should go out to vote because "they care." May the best candidates all around win!

All voters should go out to vote because "they care."

But what about those folks who really don't give a damn?

(I would imagine we've all known people who are like that that from time)*

______________________________________

*Hoping people will forgive me for having a brief Rhett Butler moment....                             

To be clear, I did state a condition: "Should." As in "(they) Should care."

The SPLC- a racist organization that made millions for a career grifter and built the "poverty palace" on the backs of gullible liberals. It's the Jim and Tammy Faye Baker show for progressives. 

a racist organization

So the white supremacists keep telling us, and they would know I guess.

The current administration could rectify this by hiring competent legal personnel instead of the boot 'n arse lickers it has a penchant for.

The ACLU and SPLC are private organizations. George Soros contributed to state-level elections, including prosecutor elections. (Federal prosecutors are not elected; they're appointed.) The Senate controls Federal judicial appointments—which is, after all, how the conservative majority that overturned Roe v. Wade was seated.

The 'lawfare' cases against Trump were largely state-level actions. Alvin Bragg, Fani Willis, and Letitia James were all elected by their local or state constituencies, not appointed by a central 'leftist' authority. Jury nullification is also a state-level issue since the vast majority of capital and everyday offenses are tried in state courts.

Naked political rhetoric attempting to beat dead tropes won't change hearts or minds. Beating these drums may rally a fanatical minority, but for independent voters, these issues won't garner much support. The GOP will need more than desiccated red meat to address the very real discontent currently felt by the electorate.

None of that addresses the point of the article, they are just tangential facts. 

None of that addresses the point of the article, they are just tangential facts. 

The point of the article is to beat dead horses.  Harry Reid died in 2021; that horse is quite dead.  I addressed most of the talking points listed in the blog so trying to claim my comment is off topic would be stretching a thin point.

Are you advocating for Federal intrusion into private enterprises and Federal weakening of state's rights?

ACLU and SPLC are private enterprises.  They are not engaged in illegal activity.  The charges of slander or libel are civil matters and can be adjudicated through civil litigation.  That's the proper method; not political interference.

Defunding police, Lawfare, and jury nullification are state issues, not Federal issues.  Federal elected officials attempting some sort of reform of these issues would infringe upon state's rights.

Federal prosecutors and judges are appointed positions.  Activist Federal judges and prosecutors are approved by the US Senate, alone.  What the 'activist judge' complaint is really about is the lifetime appointment of judges.  The issue of activist Federal judges and prosecutors can be addressed with term limits.

Harry Reid died in 2021; that horse is quite dead.

Great. I must have missed where anyone claimed he was alive.  You could actually pay attention to the context of why Reid came  up.

 addressed most of the talking points listed in the blog

no you didn't. You simply mentioned things that are tangential but don't actually address the points. do you think pointing out the SPLC is private is anyway relevant to to the topic? Why would you think anyone is disputing that or that it somehow rebuts the author's point? 

They are not engaged in illegal activity.  

Who said they were? Care to address what was actually written? 

Defunding police, Lawfare, and jury nullification are state issues, not Federal issues

So what if they are? How is that remotely relevant? Do you not know the left operates at both the federal and state level?  

What the 'activist judge' complaint is really about is the lifetime appointment of judges.

That's both irrelevant and completely untrue 

he issue of activist Federal judges and prosecutors can be addressed with term limits.

Well no. "Activist judges" would be just as activist as with term limits, if not more so. And prosecutors, as members of the executive branch, serve at the President's will. 

no you didn't. You simply mentioned things that are tangential but don't actually address the points. do you think pointing out the SPLC is private is anyway relevant to to the topic? Why would you think anyone is disputing that or that it somehow rebuts the author's point? 

Well the idea of using the judiciary to simply bash Democrats seems rather 'out of touch' since victims can't even get a day in court under the current Republican regime.  

Lawless Republicans crying wolf over the judiciary seems like a very bad political joke.  

ell the idea of using the judiciary to simply bash Democrats seem

No one is using the judiciary to bash democrats.  The point is the democrats are abusing the legal system to undermine the rule of law and to accomplish what they can't through democratic means. 

nce victims can't even get a day in court under the current Republican regime.  

That seems like a very bad political joke.   Pretty much every day "victims" are granted lawless relief by activist judges that fly in the face of the law and precedent before the adults step in and overturn it. 

Nice summary, Nerm. You do pay attention to the world around you

George Soros contributed to state-level elections, including prosecutor elections.

As did the Koch brothers through Americans for Prosperity. Every side has their boggiemen. 

The GOP will need more than desiccated red meat to address the very real discontent currently felt by the electorate.

So its not simply widespread cases of TDS after all?

Amazingly, one can be concerned about the rule of law yet focus on the Ds (even in the past and laced with fantasy) while ignoring the present 800-lb gorilla routinely pissing on the rule of law to try to secure authoritarian power (rule of man).

Here is what happened in his first two months in office:  " President Trump Actively Destroys the Rule of Law He Claims to Be Restoring "

And then by November:   " A classic authoritarian tactic’: outrage over Trump’s pardons for friends and allies "

And recently: " Court records reveal gutting of DHS oversight: ‘Incredibly dangerous ’" and " How Donald Trump is pushing the Supreme Court to weaken federal judges "

And so much more.

Trump, demonstrably, obviously does whatever he can to do whatever he wants, and the constitution, the rule of law, and what is good for the American people be damned.   How anyone cannot see this is just amazing (and sickening).

.

Expect Culture Wars Redux 3.14159 thru to November.

pie? 

and beyond!

Tomorrow is Pi Day! 

And I ate the last of my lemon mergingue last nite

( for your enjoyment ... those who dig π )

pie? 

Hair?

pie? 

Yep. A chicken in every pot- - and a car in every garage!

You can't do volume measurements without it

On “Lawfare”

The author argues that the American justice system has been corrupted through “lawfare.” That is a serious claim, but the argument presented relies largely on assertions rather than evidence.

First it helps to define the term. Lawfare refers to the strategic use of legal institutions as political weapons rather than for neutral enforcement of the law. If that is the standard, then the most sustained and visible use of lawfare in modern American politics is closely associated with Donald Trump .

Trump’s reliance on litigation long predates his political career. In the early 1970s he retained attorney Roy Cohn , whose legal philosophy emphasized aggressive countersuits and relentless attack against opponents. During a 1973 civil rights case brought by the United States Department of Justice against Trump Management , Trump responded with a $100-million countersuit accusing the federal government of defamation. The countersuit was dismissed and the case ultimately ended with a consent decree, but the tactic is noteworthy: litigation deployed as a strategic weapon rather than simply a dispute-resolution mechanism.

That approach became a recurring feature of Trump’s business career. Over the decades Trump and his companies have been involved in thousands of legal actions , an unusually large number even within the highly litigious real-estate industry. Lawsuits were frequently directed not only at business disputes but also at critics, journalists, and contractors. In one notable example, Trump filed a $5-billion defamation suit against journalist Timothy L. O'Brien after O’Brien questioned Trump’s claimed net worth in the book TrumpNation . The courts dismissed the case, and the dismissal was upheld on appeal. The case illustrates a pattern: litigation used not merely to remedy legal harm but as leverage against critics.

That strategy migrated directly into politics. After the 2020 election Trump and his allies filed more than sixty lawsuits challenging election results across multiple states. These cases were heard in state courts, federal courts, and ultimately reviewed by the Supreme Court of the United States . The overwhelming majority were dismissed or withdrawn because the plaintiffs could not produce evidence sufficient to support their claims. That outcome is not evidence of judicial corruption; it demonstrates that courts require proof rather than political rhetoric.

Yet when those cases failed, the response was not acceptance of judicial rulings but attacks on the legitimacy of the judiciary itself. Judges were labeled biased or corrupt simply for issuing unfavorable decisions. Undermining public confidence in courts when rulings prove inconvenient is itself a classic feature of lawfare.

The author’s supporting examples also suffer from a similar evidentiary problem. The claim that the American Civil Liberties Union has abandoned civil liberties rests on selective interpretation of internal policy debates, yet the organization continues to litigate free-speech cases across the ideological spectrum. Likewise, criticism of the Southern Poverty Law Center may be a legitimate subject of debate, but asserting that its “hate map” inspires violence without supporting evidence is simply an accusation.

More broadly, the argument repeatedly assumes causation without demonstrating it. Policies such as prosecutorial reform, bail reform, or police funding levels are presented as explanatory variables for crime trends without controlling for the many factors known to influence crime rates, including economic conditions, demographic changes, and the disruptions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. In a number of jurisdictions the observed trends are in fact inconsistent with the proposed causal relationship. Correlation alone does not establish causation.

If the concern is truly the weaponization of legal institutions for political purposes, then the most consequential developments in recent American politics involve attempts to overturn election results through litigation, pressure on law-enforcement agencies to pursue political rivals, and sustained attacks on the legitimacy of courts themselves.

Ironically, the developments described within the article align far more closely with the long-standing litigation strategy of Donald Trump than with the organizations or policies the author identifies as the source of the problem.

Research/editorial assistance provided by ChatGPT. The arguments remain my responsibility. The electrons belong to OpenAI. The air is free to breathe.

Claims of systemic corruption carry a heavy burden of proof; the evidence offered in the main article does not yet meet it.

How... curious .

If that is the standard, then the most sustained and visible use of lawfare in modern American politics is closely associated with Donald Trump .

Exactly.

Here is the analysis now from Claude (I literally copied and pasted the article and asked Claude to analyze it):

Overall impression: the piece is a partisan polemic that mixes plausible concerns with factual errors, misleading framing, selective evidence, and loaded language. It needs clearer sourcing, more balanced analysis, and stronger distinction between opinion and fact.

Main problems
- Loaded, sweeping language: Phrases like “certain criminals go unpunished” or “police…completely emasculated” are emotionally charged and overgeneralize without nuance or data.
- Cherry‑picking and selection bias: The article selectively cites incidents and studies that support its thesis (e.g., Soros funding, a single criminology finding) while ignoring counterexamples, national trends, or alternative explanations (crime fluctuations, local budget/retention issues, prosecutorial discretion data).
- Weak sourcing and attribution: Key claims rely on vague references (e.g., “a recently leaked memo,” “many on the list,” “we are now seeing what was done during the 2024 election”) or link to partisan summaries instead of primary documents, court records, or peer‑reviewed studies.
- Conflation of distinct phenomena: It lumps together civil liberties orgs (ACLU), civil‑rights litigation orgs (SPLC), philanthropic political spending (Soros), prosecutors, police staffing, judges, and jury behavior as if they are a single coordinated conspiracy. These are different actors with different incentives and legal constraints.
- Causal overreach: The piece claims direct causation (e.g., Soros money → permissive prosecutions → rise in violence) without rigorous evidence or controls for confounders.
- Mischaracterizations and factual errors: 
  - The ACLU’s mission and positions are complex; citing a single memo (without context) does not prove wholesale abandonment of civil liberties.
  - The SPLC maintains a hate‑group listing methodology that is controversial, but the claim that it “places them on maps from which such groups can be violently attacked” is an inflammatory and unsupported allegation.
  - “Defund the police” as a slogan and budgetary reality are distinct; most departments were not broadly defunded, and the article selectively cites staffing losses without exploring causes (retirements, pandemic, morale, local budgets).
  - The description of Harry Reid’s rule change oversimplifies judicial confirmation dynamics; the “nuclear option” applied in stages mainly affected filibuster rules for judicial nominations, but attributing current district‑court decisions solely to that change is reductionist.
  - “Lawfare” and jury nullification claims are asserted but lack documented, specific cases showing that criminal process was weaponized in the systemic way implied.
- Lack of metrics and comparative context: No quantitative measures of “worst attack” (benchmarks, historical comparisons such as Watergate, COINTELPRO, internment, or other institutional assaults).

Logical fallacies present
- Straw man: Portrays progressive reforms as wanting to “dispense justice…based upon race or class” without engaging with reformers’ stated goals (reducing mass incarceration, addressing bias).
- False dichotomy: Presents “tough on crime” vs. “lawlessness” as the only options, ignoring nuanced reform models.
- Hasty generalization: Infers national conspiracy from selective examples.
- Post hoc ergo propter hoc: Assumes funding or rhetoric caused specific outcomes without establishing causation.

How to improve the piece
- Separate opinion from verifiable claims; label normative judgments clearly.
- Use primary sources and cite them (court opinions, budgets, DOJ reports, academic studies).
- Provide comparative data and counterexamples; acknowledge complexity and legitimate debates about prosecutorial discretion, bail reform, policing, and judicial activism.
- Avoid emotive metaphors and unverified allegations (e.g., “places them on maps from which such groups can be violently attacked”).
- Define terms precisely (what counts as “defunded,” “lawfare,” “activist judge,” “attack on the rule of law”) and support claims with evidence.
- Address counterarguments (why some reforms are defended, institutional checks, outcomes where reforms reduced harm).

Conclusion
The article raises topics worth discussing (prosecutorial influence, policing, judicial power), but as written it is argumentative and selective rather than analytical. To be persuasive to a broader audience it needs precise definitions, balanced evidence, careful sourcing, and clearer causal analysis.

In short, the article is biased, replete with exaggeration, cherry-picking, etc.   But, worse, it totally ignores the worst offender against the rule of law — the one who is actively pissing all over the rule of law and the CotUS.   How is it possible for someone to properly care about the rule of law and the CotUS and totally ignore the guy who is hurting same the most??

You mean the seeded article is nothing but pro Trump propaganda?  Oh my !

Claims of systemic corruption carry a heavy burden of proof; the evidence offered in the main article does not yet meet it.

They don't need any stinking evidence.

Here's Claude AI's analysis of your link

Objectivity: Poor

This text makes no attempt at objectivity. It is explicitly one-sided advocacy:

• Uses loaded language throughout: "blatantly violates," "illegally stealing," "lawless and reckless"
• Presents contested legal interpretations as settled fact (e.g., calling executive orders "illegal" without acknowledging ongoing court proceedings)
• Offers no opposing viewpoint, no administration response, and no qualifying language
• The authors have a clear partisan interest in opposing the administration

This is expected for a press release — but a reader should not mistake it for balanced reporting.

Factual Claims: Mixed

Many claims reference real, documented actions, but framing matters:

Key Issues With Framing

1. Legal conclusions presented as fact — Calling actions "illegal" or "unconstitutional" before courts have fully ruled overstates certainty
2. "Hundreds of violent criminals" — Contested characterization; supporters argue most Jan. 6 defendants were not violent
3. No acknowledgment of executive authority — Some actions (like personnel decisions) fall within disputed but legitimate presidential powers
4. Selective scope — Only negative actions are listed; no context for administration rationale is provided

Bottom Line

This document is advocacy, not journalism. The underlying facts it references are largely real and verifiable, but the legal characterizations are one-sided, the language is inflammatory, and it presents no counterargument. It should be read as a political opposition statement, not an objective account of events.

• Pardoning of Jan. 6 defendants  Accurate — Trump pardoned roughly 1,500 on day one
• Firing of Inspectors General  Accurate — 17 IGs were dismissed, though legality is disputed in courts
• DOGE/Musk accessing federal data  Reported and partially confirmed ; scope is disputed
• Impoundment of appropriated funds  Courts have found some instances unlawful; others still being litigated
• Closure of USAID  Accurate — largely shuttered, legality actively contested in courts
• Executive orders called "illegal"   Characterization is disputed — several were blocked by courts, others upheld
• Plans to restore gun rights to felons  Reported, but described here as more settled than it is

Note the blue in the above.

I cannot help the tone of the authors, but most of what was written is supported by Claude's fact-checking.

Those links support the obvious fact that Trump has been defying the rule of law and the CotUS since he took office.   As noted there is much more.   So here is Claude providing a list of acts by Trump which defy the Rule of Law and/or the CotUS:

- Federal judge permanently blocked Trump’s executive order targeting law firm Perkins Coie as unconstitutional retaliation. https://apnews.com/article/206052ec8157380fb2e23010a6f88815?utm_source=openai

- Two federal judges ordered the administration to reinstate thousands of probationary federal workers after mass firings. https://apnews.com/article/7cc7320f469cc65529367aaea2fd9dcb?utm_source=openai

- A federal judge blocked Trump’s executive order attempting to restrict birthright citizenship; another judge issued similar nationwide relief. https://apnews.com/article/72d734dac006ea49d5a6b136f483eb21?utm_source=openai

- Judge blocked Trump’s suspension of asylum access at the southern border as unlawful. https://apnews.com/article/af374b821fb3872078beb5a495e01d8e?utm_source=openai

- Court ruled the administration cannot cut federal funding to dozens of cities and counties over “sanctuary” policies. https://apnews.com/article/a39891a127c06a6062d74ac2eac50544?utm_source=openai

- Appeals court refused to stay a judge’s order requiring rehiring of thousands of federal employees fired in the mass purge. apnews (see related AP coverage: https://apnews.com/article/7cc7320f469cc65529367aaea2fd9dcb?utm_source=openai)

- U.S. Court of International Trade enjoined Trump’s attempt to impose tariffs via an emergency economic declaration, finding it unlawful. https://apnews.com/article/0392dbd59f548e49ad4f64254ae3f94a?utm_source=openai

- Federal judge largely blocked executive orders ending federal support for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs. apnews (see coverage: https://apnews.com/article/7cc7320f469cc65529367aaea2fd9dcb?utm_source=openai)

- Trump issued sweeping pardons/clemency for many Jan. 6 defendants, a move critics say undermined prosecutions; national coverage documents releases and case dismissals. https://apnews.com/article/8ce8b2a8f8cb602d5eaf85ac7b969606?utm_source=openai

- Major national outlets reported that judges and legal scholars accused the administration of attacking judicial independence, ignoring court orders, and employing retributive policies against opponents (coverage and analysis). https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/03/26/trump-administration-constitution-court-orders-judges/?utm_source=openai

- Federal courts blocked other sweeping executive actions (e.g., nationwide injunctions against certain immigration and regulatory directives) as exceeding presidential authority — see AP roundup. apnews (see related reporting: https://apnews.com/article/7cc7320f469cc65529367aaea2fd9dcb?utm_source=openai)

Note: These are nationally reported instances (AP, WaPo) where courts or legal analysts found administration actions unlawful, unconstitutional, or otherwise in tension with rule‑of‑law norms. If you want, I can expand each bullet with the specific court opinions and dates.

You continue to try to deny the obvious fact that Trump is actively pissing on the rule of law and the CotUS to do whatever pleases him.

This captures the debate perfectly. 

Trump haters:  Trump is reckless! He's not following the rule of law! Here's proof:

apnews

Then:

Both rulings are overturned. Odd those aren't cited. But it makes the point nicely. Activist liberals cite activist judges as "proof" yet ignore they were overturned on appeal and those flawed rulings, in fact,  support the theme of the article. 

Same old pathetic tactic.

You refuse to recognize that Trump is actively pissing on the rule of law and the CotUS so instead you cast every criticism of Trump as mere hatred.

Trouble is, what Trump is doing is obvious so your tactic is obvious.   In other words, who do you think you are fooling?

The fact that some rulings are overturned is cherry-picking.   So here is a Claude-produced starter list of final losses by the Trump administration.

1) Perkins Coie / law‑firm targeting order — U.S. District Court — Mar 2025 — Permanent injunction blocking order as unlawful/retaliatory. Source: apnews

2) Mass firings / rehiring of probationary federal workers (AFGE challenge) — U.S. District Court → U.S. Court of Appeals (final mandates) — Apr 2025 — Courts ordered rehiring; appeals court refused to stay rehiring order. Source: apnews

3) Birthright‑citizenship restriction challenge — U.S. District Court — Apr 2025 — Policy blocked; court ruled administration exceeded authority. Source: apnews

4) Suspension of asylum at southern border — U.S. District Court — Apr 2025 — Policy enjoined as unlawful; relief upheld in final decisions. Source: apnews

5) Withholding federal funds from “sanctuary” jurisdictions — U.S. District Court — May 2025 — Court ruled administration cannot cut specified funding; injunction/relief issued. Source: apnews

6) Emergency tariff declaration (trade challenge) — U.S. Court of International Trade — Jun 2025 — Court enjoined emergency‑tariff action as unlawful. Source: apnews

7) Actions ending federal DEI support/programs — Multiple U.S. District Courts — 2025 (various) — Courts enjoined or blocked rollbacks of DEI programs in several final rulings. Source: apnews

8) Multiple immigration/regulatory nationwide injunctions (various challenges) — U.S. District Courts / Circuits — 2025–2026 — Several directives (immigration and regulatory) were finally enjoined or struck down as beyond authority. Source summary: apnews

9) Challenges related to pardons/clemency effects on Jan. 6 prosecutions — Various federal courts — 2025–2026 — Mixed outcomes, with several courts ruling against administration positions in final orders (varies by case). Source: apnews

Beyond this, how can anyone not recognize that Trump is engaging in blatant lawfare?    Directing Bondi to go after political enemies (and losing) is about as blatant as it gets.   Not only is it an abuse of the government, but it also illustrates that in this administration, the AG is operating as the legal arm of the PotUS rather than abiding by the law and the CotUS for the people — not the PotUS.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.politico.com/news/2026/03/13/court-blocks-dojs-probe-of-fed-chair-jerome-powell-00828448&ved=2ahUKEwiDjrbIjZ6TAxUynWoFHZgLF3EQFnoECCYQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1DZlpZcww4rDHNs7Tctwn5.  

Today a judge dismissed charges against Jerome Powell

Importantly (from your link):

“There is abundant evidence that the subpoenas’ dominant (if not sole) purpose is to harass and pressure Powell either to yield to the President or to resign and make way for a Fed Chair who will,” Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg wrote. “The Government has offered no evidence whatsoever that Powell committed any crime other than displeasing the President.”

Continuous abuse of the legal system by Trump.

It should be read as a political opposition statement, not an objective account of events.

Yes. That is what propaganda is: A non-objective account of events. 

Richard knows that. You know that. We all know that.

(I literally copied and pasted the article and asked Claude to analyze it):

Very good. So now I get to kill two birds with one stone.


 The SPLC maintains a hate‑group listing methodology that is controversial, but the claim that it “places them on maps from which such groups can be violently attacked” is an inflammatory and unsupported allegation.


There is obvious EVIDENCE to support the allegation:

"The FBI's decision follows an August 2025 coalition letter signed by eight conservative leaders-including Liberty Counsel Founder Mat Staver, Moms for Liberty CEO Tina Descovich, and Turning Point USA Founder Charlie Kirk, just weeks before his assassination. The letter was addressed to White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, urging federal agencies to stop referencing the SPLC's "defamatory hate map."

The SPLC's map currently lists over 1,400 organizations it deems "hateful or extremist." Critics argue that the list has expanded beyond its original scope to include faith-based, conservative, and parental rights groups that oppose the SPLC's ideological positions.

The letter also referenced the 2012 terrorist attack at the Family Research Council (FRC), where gunman Floyd Corkins confessed he targeted the organization because it was listed on the SPLC's hate map. Corkins was convicted and sentenced to prison for the attempted mass murder."

FBI Cuts Ties With Southern Poverty Law Center Over "Hate Map" Controversy - Alabama Gazette

So much for the "objectivity" of "Claude" and all other leftist arbiters of truth.

I can't believe that none of you remembered that.

More sophistry from you.

Out of all those points, you zero in on one, make an argument that would suggest Claude was wrong, and then categorically dismiss ALL the other items, Claude itself, and all other AI.

A ridiculous level of dishonesty.

On this point, you ignore the distinction between attackers citing an SPLC listing when choosing a target and the SPLC intentionally creating listings to incite violence or being legally/ethically responsible for violent acts.

Your evidence supports citing the listing but not intent by SPLC.   At worst, Claude made a mistake by not being sufficiently clear.  Not 'leftist' bias.  Get a grip.

Claude's take on your argument:

“There are documented cases where attackers cited SPLC listings when selecting targets, and some agencies have cut ties over concerns about the list. That said, citing such listings is not the same as proving the SPLC intends or directs violence.”

For the sake of curiosity, I fed your entire article to ChatGPT and asked it to analyze it.   Same test I used with Claude.   ChatGPT's assessment of your article:

Below is a claim-by-claim accuracy analysis of the article. I separate verifiable facts, misleading claims, and unsupported or opinion-based assertions. The goal is not to argue politics but to evaluate whether each statement is factually accurate, partly accurate, or inaccurate.

Overall assessment

The article mixes facts, opinion, and incorrect or unsupported claims. Several assertions rely on loaded language or political framing rather than evidence. Many claims are partly true but presented misleadingly, especially regarding prosecutors, police funding, and judicial rulings.

Claim-by-claim analysis

1. “The American justice system once was the envy of the world and now lets criminals go unpunished.”

Accuracy: Opinion / Unsupported

• This is a normative claim, not a factual statement that can be verified.
• Crime and prosecution rates fluctuate over time and across jurisdictions.
• The U.S. still ranks highly in many rule-of-law indexes (e.g., World Justice Project), though it has declined slightly in recent years.

Verdict: Opinion.

1. “Police in many blue districts have been emasculated and/or underfunded.”

Accuracy: Partly true but misleading

Facts:

• Some cities reduced police budgets in 2020–2021 after George Floyd protests.
• However, most of those cuts were temporary and later reversed.

Research findings:

• A 2023 analysis found police budgets nationwide increased overall after 2020.
• Many departments do face staffing shortages, but this is largely due to:
  • retirements
  • recruitment difficulties
  • pandemic disruptions.

Verdict: Partly true but overstated.

1. “The ACLU used to be non-political but has become a left-wing tool.”

Accuracy: Opinion / misleading

Facts:

• The ACLU has historically defended civil liberties across the political spectrum.
• Famous examples include defending:
  • Nazis’ right to march in Skokie (1977)
  • free speech for controversial groups

The 2018 internal memo referenced:

• A real internal memo discussed balancing civil liberties with equality concerns.
• It did not say the ACLU would stop defending free speech, but suggested considering harm in certain strategic cases.

Verdict: Mischaracterized.

1. “The SPLC puts hate groups on maps from which they can be violently attacked.”

Accuracy: Mostly false

Facts:

• The SPLC publishes a hate group map identifying organizations it considers extremist.
• It does not advocate violence against those groups.

The claim likely refers to:

• A 2012 shooting at the Family Research Council.
• The attacker said he used the SPLC map.

However:

• SPLC condemned the attack and had no role in inciting violence.

Also incorrect:

• Turning Point USA has never been listed as a hate group by SPLC.

Verdict: Mostly false.

1. “The FBI once used SPLC to identify hate groups.”

Accuracy: Partly true

Facts:

• Some FBI training materials referenced SPLC research on extremist groups.
• After criticism, the FBI removed those references.

Important clarification:

• The FBI never relied exclusively on SPLC to determine investigations.

Verdict: Partly true but exaggerated.

1. Soros funding prosecutors

Quote in article:

$40 million in campaign spending helped elect prosecutors controlling 72 million Americans.

Accuracy: Mostly true

Facts:

• Soros funded political action committees supporting reform-minded prosecutors.
• Estimates of spending are around $40–50 million since 2014.
• These prosecutors do represent jurisdictions covering tens of millions of residents.

However misleading elements:

• Soros does not directly control prosecutors.
• They are independently elected officials.

Verdict: Factually based but framed misleadingly.

1. Reform prosecutors “release criminals, refuse bail, and reduce felonies.”

Accuracy: Partly true

Facts:

Some progressive prosecutors have policies such as:

• reducing cash bail
• declining to prosecute low-level offenses
• seeking alternatives to incarceration.

But:

• These policies vary widely by jurisdiction.
• Studies show mixed results on crime impact.

Important:

• Most still prosecute violent crimes normally.

Verdict: Partly true but oversimplified.

1. “Defund the police actually happened.”

Accuracy: Partly true

Facts:

• A small number of cities reduced police budgets in 2020.
• Examples include:
  • Minneapolis
  • Austin
  • Seattle.

However:

• Most cuts were partial or temporary.
• Many cities increased funding again by 2022–2024.

Verdict: Partly true.

1. Police staffing losses of 2.2–16%

Accuracy: Generally accurate

• Police departments across the U.S. have experienced staffing declines.
• Causes include:
  • retirements
  • recruitment challenges
  • post-2020 morale issues.

However:

• The article implies this was caused primarily by defunding or politics, which is not clearly supported by research.

Verdict: Data accurate, interpretation questionable.

1. “Activist judges blocking Trump policies.”

Accuracy: Opinion

Facts:

• Federal judges blocked many Trump policies (travel ban, immigration actions, etc.).
• Courts blocking executive actions is normal judicial review, not evidence of activism.

Also misleading:

• Courts blocked policies from both Democratic and Republican administrations.

Verdict: Opinion framing.

1. “Harry Reid changed rules allowing radical judges.”

Accuracy: Partly true

Facts:

• In 2013, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid eliminated the filibuster for lower-court nominees.
• This allowed confirmation by simple majority vote.

However:

• The rule change applied to all future presidents, including Trump.
• Trump later benefited from the same rule when confirming judges.

Verdict: Factually correct but politically framed.

1. “The Supreme Court ruled district judges exceeded authority with nationwide injunctions.”

Accuracy: Unclear / likely misleading

There is no sweeping Supreme Court ruling eliminating nationwide injunctions.

Facts:

• Several justices have criticized nationwide injunctions.
• But the Court has not banned them outright.

Verdict: Likely inaccurate or exaggerated.

1. “Lawfare against Trump during the 2024 election.”

Accuracy: Opinion

Facts:

• Trump faced several criminal prosecutions.
• Courts found sufficient evidence for charges.

Calling them “lawfare” is a political interpretation, not a factual finding.

Verdict: Opinion.

1. “Jury nullification is corrupting the justice system.”

Accuracy: Misleading

Facts:

• Jury nullification has existed since early Anglo-American law.
• Jurors sometimes acquit despite evidence if they believe a law is unjust.

However:

• It is rare and difficult to measure.
• No strong evidence that DC or NYC are experiencing widespread nullification.

Verdict: Unsupported claim.

1. “Trump cases are unraveling.”

Accuracy: False / unsupported

Facts:

• As of now:
  • Trump has been convicted in one criminal case.
  • Several cases are ongoing or pending appeal.

There is no clear evidence that all cases are collapsing.

Verdict: False or speculative.

Major rhetorical problems in the article

The article contains several non-factual persuasion techniques:

1. Loaded language

Examples:

• “thug George Floyd”
• “extremist groups”
• “emasculated police”

These terms signal political framing rather than analysis.

1. Conflation

The article connects unrelated topics:

• civil liberties groups
• prosecutors
• judges
• jury behavior

without demonstrating causal links.

1. Unsupported conclusions

Example:

• “we let those who hate the country influence DA elections.”

This is pure assertion without evidence.

Bottom line

Category	Assessment
Factual statements	Some accurate
Context	Often missing
Claims about organizations	Frequently exaggerated
Claims about courts and law	Often opinion
Overall reliability	Mixed but politically biased

The article reads primarily as political commentary rather than factual analysis.

 

As an author, it would make excellent sense for you to run your original works by AI like ChatGPT just to see what it produces.   You could then fact-check the AI's results to see whether it is wrong or you are.   If you are wrong, you have the opportunity to correct your work before publishing it.   A great practice if accuracy is important to you as an author.

Why do you need some outlet created by some unknown programmer to debate an issue?

Out of all those points, you zero in on one, make an argument that would suggest Claude was wrong, and then categorically dismiss ALL the other items, Claude itself, and all other AI.

I simply used the example everyone should have remembered, especially something that can quickly look up things on the internet. I haven't dismissed anything, but it appears you have no answer for the absolute proof that the SPLC helped incite violence by calling an organization a hate group and then providing the address.

Seems as of now if you search for the answer you want, use different AI's and word the question as you want to get a certain answer you can.  It reminds me of how you word poll questions to get the response you want.

Garbage in, garbage out is still alive.  Maybe that will change in the future but not yet.

That is an accurate assessment.

You do not seem to understand what AI is.   The results are not programmed.   The results are based on human work products and are essentially a synthesis of a vast corpus of  content.   In contrast, the work of a single human author is limited by the author’s knowledge and affected by their bias.   In this regard, AI is a substantially better source than any single author outside of a truly objective domain expert.

Now if you think the AI content is wrong, rebut it as you would any claim by a human being.

I recognize that AI is inconvenient for those who want to engage in bullshit, but to me that is a good thing.

This illustrates a total lack of understanding how AI works.  That old computer truism breaks down when you understand that the corpora for AI are carefully controlled to mitigate garbage and that the net knowledge is based on an incredibly vast domain.   This is not like the quaint notion of an information system reading a bad data file.   Not even remotely close.

An AI can and does make mistakes (for other reasons), but, so do human sources.

You ignored my answer and that of Claude and pretend none was given.   Dishonest!

You also ignored the fact that both Claude and ChatGPT gave rather consistent analysis of your article.

Ignoring inconvenient truths does not make them disappear.  

That old computer truism breaks down

Wrong again:

According to Gemini

Yes, Artificial Intelligence is profoundly subject to the "Garbage In, Garbage Out" (GIGO) principle

. AI models rely entirely on the quality, accuracy, and completeness of the data they are trained on; poor, biased, or inaccurate data inevitably produces flawed, misleading, or illogical outputs.  

Physics World  +2

Key Aspects of AI and Data Quality:

• Data Quality is Paramount:   Low-quality data leads to inaccurate conclusions and "AI-enhanced garbage".
• Bias and Misinformation:   AI models trained on public forums or social media often inherit human biases, producing unfair or inaccurate results.
• The "AI Garbage" Cycle:   As AI trains on more AI-generated content (synthetic data), there is a risk of models over-focusing on common, yet inaccurate patterns, potentially leading to a degradation in future AI outputs.
• Human Oversight Necessary:   Because AI lacks genuine understanding—functioning as a sophisticated, algorithmic follower of instructions rather than a conscious thinker—human oversight is essential to verify, clean, and validate inputs to avoid garbage outputs.  

In essence, AI is only as intelligent as the data it consumes.

Pay attention to what I wrote:

TiG @5.2.20 ☞ That old computer truism breaks down when you understand that the corpora for AI are carefully controlled to mitigate garbage and that the net knowledge is based on an incredibly vast domain .

You stop at the simplest level of understanding and conclude that I am wrong.   The quaint notion of GIGO ("old computer truism") from the pre-AI days is actively addressed by modern AI systems.   What some call GIGO nowadays is at a much higher level (e.g. bias) and that is actively addressed by modern systems.   So your claim that these systems are poor sources because it is possible for them to make mistakes is entirely misguided.

Here is Gemini responding to an intelligent question based upon what I just quoted:

Yes, conventional Large Language Models (LLMs) employ several sophisticated mechanisms to mitigate GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out) . While they cannot perfectly eliminate "garbage," modern AI development has shifted from raw data ingestion to a highly filtered and structured pipeline.

These mechanisms operate at three distinct stages: Data Curation (Pre-training), Alignment (Post-training), and Inference (User Interaction).

1. Data Curation: Filtering the "In"

Unlike early models, modern LLMs are not trained on a "raw" internet dump. Developers use intensive filtering to ensure the initial training set (the "In") is of high quality:

• Heuristic & Statistical Filters: Algorithms remove low-quality text, such as gibberish, boilerplate code, or repetitive "lorem ipsum" style content.
• Deduplication: Repeated data can cause a model to "overfit" or become obsessed with certain phrases. Models are trained on deduplicated datasets to ensure a broader, more balanced understanding.
• Toxicity & Safety Classifiers: Models like GPT-4 or Claude use secondary "classifier" AI to scan the training corpus and remove hate speech, PII (Personally Identifiable Information), or dangerous instructions before the main training begins.

1. Alignment: Refining the "Out"

Even with clean data, a model might "hallucinate" or provide unhelpful answers. To fix this, developers use Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) :

• Preference Ranking: Humans rank multiple AI responses from best to worst. This creates a "Reward Model" that teaches the AI to prioritize helpfulness and accuracy over merely predicting the next likely word.
• Supervised Fine-Tuning (SFT): The model is trained on a smaller, manually curated dataset of "gold standard" answers written by experts to set a baseline for high-quality output.

1. Inference-Time Mitigation: Real-Time Cleaning

Once the model is built, several technical layers act as a final "trash filter" for both user prompts and model responses:

• Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG): Instead of relying solely on its memory, the model fetches facts from a trusted external database . This replaces potential "garbage" memory with verified "clean" data.
• Chain-of-Thought (CoT) Prompting: By forcing the model to "think step-by-step," the AI can often catch its own logical errors before giving a final answer.
• System Prompts & Guardrails: Developers embed hidden "system instructions" that tell the model to reject harmful inputs or admit when it doesn't know an answer, effectively refusing to process "garbage" prompts .

Summary of GIGO Mitigation

Mechanism	Focus Area	How it works
Deduplication	Training Data	Removes repetitive/low-value data to prevent "echo chambers."
RLHF	Model Behavior	Uses human feedback to reward "good" answers and punish "garbage."
RAG	Factuality	Connects the AI to a verified knowledge base to prevent hallucinations.
Classifiers	Safety	Scans both input and output for toxic or nonsensical content.

Note: Despite these mitigations, a phenomenon called "Model Collapse" remains a threat. This occurs when AI models are trained on AI-generated content (the "new garbage"), causing their performance to degrade over time.

Would you like me to explain how "Model Collapse" specifically happens when AI starts eating its own data?

 

As I noted, AI systems can make mistakes and they are indeed influenced by their data, but your quaint GIGO notion in reality is not at all how AI works.   It pretends that AI systems are replete with errors merely due to bad input data like conventional IT systems and that is a misunderstanding of the paradigm.

Here's Claude AI's analysis of your link

A lot of those sorts of results coming from AI change-- if you phrase your question differently. 

it appears you have no answer for the absolute proof that the SPLC helped incite violence by calling an organization a hate group and then providing the address.

In order to make the assertion of proof of inciting violence one would have to infer that the SPLC meant for someone to use the data in an attack, not just publish the data. Since I see absolutely no proof that this was the case, I am more than comfortable in calling the assertion of "absolute proof" that the SPLC published it with that specific intent a big-ol' sloppy cow-pie of a non-sequitur. As they say in certain locals, "You can't get there from here."

I do find it ironic that some of the same people who bend over backwards to assert that Trump had little to nothing to do with the insurgent attack on the Capitol after harping on it for months and haranguing his supporters with hate-filled rhetoric, can also make the claim that by the mere publishing of information the SPLC has caused people to act violently. 

Since I see absolutely no proof that this was the case,

You don't want to see it. The perpetrator of the violence admitted that he targeted the organization because it was listed on the SPLC's hate map.

Citing House Democrats and the Guardian

Good non partisan sources.

Good non partisan sources.

Are Republicans or MAGAites ever 'non-partisan'? I haven't seen it yet. So why all the bitching about Democrats not being 'non-partisan'?

I guess none of the conservatives here are brave enough to answer such a simple question. With how angry they get every time they perceive Democrat partisanship, are they really all so blind as to not see their own?

They do see their partisanship and they know for sure that we see it too. The thing is MAGA supporters (once again) have deluded themselves into thinking that liberals have 'tails' and hidden bright horns that we display in private. That is, MAGA supporters do not respect liberals (and democrats) enough - after demonizing us for so long. It's sad, and yet that is how delusions work!  You can lie so long that a new generation comes along and believes it. Marjorie Taylor Green comes to mind. . . she's one of the lucky ones, because she literally walked off the 'job' once her children pointed out the error in her thinking. . .I wish her well to returning to trekking the path to love for (all) people—inclusively.

Today we have a system which allows certain criminals to go unpunished

Exhibit A:

Perfect example. A politicized DA campaigns on "getting Trump" assembles a team to figure out a crime they can charge him with, settle on a theory requiring a misdemeanor no one has ever been convicted of before and that Hillary Clinton violated at the exact same time and convict him with the complicity  of an activist judge who should have recused himself for obvious bias issues. 

And Democrats being democrats, the net result of this obvious political witch hunt was to hand the nomination to Trump and cement his status as an outsider being persecuted by the swamp that no doubt helped in the general. 

Trump is the most corrupt president we have ever had. I have to question the motives of anyone who says otherwise or tries to paint him as some sort of victim. 

I have to question the motives of anyone who says otherwise or tries to paint him as some sort of victim. 

I question the motives of anyone who calls Trump corrupt who spent years defending the Biden/Clinton operations to use government to make their families tens of millions of dollars. 

Look at the way you twist and squirm to excuse 34 felony convictions. How embarrassing.

The DA’s campaign promises are irrelevant. The DA is not the grand jury. The DA is not the judge. The DA is not the jury. Trump’s lawyers did everything they could to derail and delay his trial, milking our system of due process for all it’s worth, and he was still convicted. In a court of law. By a jury. 

Meanwhile, the Trump DOJ under Pam Bondi is directly trying to prosecute several of Trump’s political rivals, and has failed repeatedly to even get a grand jury to indict. They say the grand jury process is so one-sided (because it is) that a prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. But you have to start with some evidence of a crime, and they have none.

You want to see politically motivated lawfare in action? Look no further than the current administration. Their continual failures to establish probable cause - never mind actual guilt at trial - is the perfect evidence.

It is pointless to talk to you. You have gone off the deep end. 

he way you twist and squirm to excuse 34 felony convictions. How embarrassing.

I'm not twisting and squirming whatsoever. I simply stated facts.

What's embarrassing is pretending the Trump trial wasn't  completely  political.  

Deep end is the default for several contributors here.  Seriously, when is the last time one of them exercised independent thinking that was anything but supportive for some of the most blatantly egregious behavior from the right?  They are coded to degrade the left over every circumstance, using any form of whataboutism they can dream up.  It is literally pointless to exchange with something programmed to reflexively tell you are wrong 100% of the time, no matter how ridiculous it makes itself out to be.  This place is infested with it.

but Biden............

Given the mountains of evidence that Trump is the corrupt president of all time, as well as the most unintelligent and most psychologically disturbed, it makes you wonder what the hell is going on in this country. 

but Biden.

You are a chicago democrat. Trump acts no different than the politicians you've pulled the lever for your entire life. You think he's more corrupt than Mike Madigan?[✘]

[ ✘ ]

Which PotUS was more corrupt, dishonest, irresponsible, irrational, unpresidential, incompetent, or vindictive than Trump?

Nixon, Harding, Johnson, Jackson, ... ?

Face it, Trump is at the bottom or at least in the bottom few out of 45 human beings who have held the presidency.   There is no spinning that and deflecting to other politicians is a loser since no other politician is as distinguished and powerful as the PotUS.

Which party did the jury belong to?

The same whose members found the murderers of Emmett till not guilty.

Do you imagine juries can’t be motivated by politics?

I "imagine" that God, the righteous judge,  is 'political' when ruling not in favor of Trump and MAGA supporters!

and that Hillary Clinton violated at the exact same time

AHA!

I see that you are now playing The Hillary Clinton card!

Tch, tch, tch....! 

Do you imagine juries can’t be motivated by politics?

Good 'ole Winston Churchill weighs in:

The American system is worst system in the world except for all the others.

You have evidence?

There was a time when the American system of justice and its protections were the envy of the world. Today we have a system which allows certain criminals to go unpunished while others are not even charged for crimes. The police in many blue districts have been completely emasculated and/or underfunded.

Obsessive and astounding partisan bulls--- is being widely shared (yet) again by an abundance of irreconcilable and vindictive 'spirits'! And, one day I hope we all can grow beyond petty (useless and inferior) rhetoric which affects nothing and offends (everybody) greatly. It's a dream of mine.

Another extremist group is the Southern Poverty Law Center which maintains a list of what it calls "hate" groups and places them on maps from which such groups can be violently attacked. Many on the list are simply groups that it opposes such as Turning Point USA and The Family Research Council. It may be hard to believe, but the FBI once used the SPLC to identify hate groups. The current FBI Director finally put an end to that insane practice. IMO the SPLC is a hate group.

God damns those that call speak evil of good.

God damns those that call speak evil of good.

Isaiah 5:20...?

Then there are the Social Justice warriors who have become DAs. These are people who want to dispense justice or withhold it based upon the race or class of the accused. They are usually found in blue districts. How did it happen? Because we let those who hate the country influence the elections of DAs.

More and excessive demonization takes away any validity of the speaker. . . . What the hell is a "social justice warrior" anyway? We should debate it, and there is no chance that is going to happen!

That was the left's rally cry after the thug George Floyd died. It actually happened in certain blue districts. There was also a morale problem for police serving in those places which led to an understaffing of police.

So the unspoken implication is that a thug deserves to die at the hands of 'anybody' that can execute it and is "MAGA approved." Well, I guess that is fair . . . seeing that self-proclaimed "good" and "purposeful" citizens think that law enforcement is their personal tool to tame liberals of all stripes. Law enforcement can be as 'twisted' a category in need of CORRECTION as any other organization!

The most insidious corruption of our judicial system has been jurors not acting in good faith and deciding to toss out evidence (one way or the other) in order to deliver a verdict based upon any motivation other than justice. DC and NYC have been the most egregious examples.

Tone deaf. Now jurors, which are made up of "the people" are wrong. . . "Just because!"

Another rhetorical and virulent attack on states from liars  purporting (when its serves their group ideology) to support rights of states to govern themselves. . . apparently all states should just give up and cave in and appease the 'bloated head' president and his cadre of 'mean' justice 'warriors' seeking to control the nation (and the world) by force. 

Well, here is the good news. . . when people confront their oppressors. . . it can be costly to the oppressors. . . and that has a positive effect of compelling the oppressors to reconsider their 'push.' 

Another rhetorical and virulent attack on states from liars  purporting (when its serves their group ideology) to support rights of states to govern themselves. . . apparently all states should just give up and cave in and appease the 'bloated head' president and his cadre of 'mean' justice 'warriors' seeking to control the nation (and the world) by force

Hmmm...

CB you never struck me as such a strong "states rights" kinda guy.

(But I do see your point here . . .)

I am not a 'states rights' advocate when the cause is Unjust.

I actually was looking inward as I wrote the comment as I believe in 'all' relatively good people participating in our government / "COMMUNITY" with an eye toward unity (all accepted equally and when reasonable: equitably). Some states are 'exclusive' in their outlook, thus they seek to divide and separate and if given leeway would quarantine "others" inside their very borders!

Anyway, the history of my people in our mutually shared country explains how we suffered horribly and for hundreds of years when states (rights) 'rolled us up' and damned my antecedents to being less than human (we are fully human and it is not a 'modern' state of existence for us), sought to make us dumb through denial of 'services' like reading, writing, and arithmetic, and denied us proper rights to simply intermingle with other humans.