General Question

crazyguy's avatar

Is your confidence in CNN shaken after their silence on the Hunter story for several weeks?

Asked by crazyguy (1943points) 1 month ago

The NY Post story about Hunter Biden was published on Oct 16. CNN (and others) refused to cover it for whatever reason. We do not know if the efforts of the different news outlets were co-ordinated or not. What we do know is that the lack of coverage probably helped Biden in the election.

With the announcement this week of a criminal investigation into the activities of both Hunter and Joe’s brother, James Biden, it is becoming clear that the NY Post story was more accurate than much of Russiagate.

So my questions is: is your confidence in CNN shaken just a bit?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

96 Answers

stanleybmanly's avatar

Nope. My opinion of the reputable news outlets is not one bit diminished or my distrust and disregard for the New York Post improved. Following the conservative scam jobs of conservatives in previous years elections, the major outlets have learned not to swallow alt right bait, just as the internet outlets are now forced to delete right wing crackpot disinformation.

zenvelo's avatar

Those aren’t criminal investigations, those are tax audits.

Announcement of an investigation proves nothing, demonstrates nothing.

crazyguy's avatar

@zenvelo Here is a statement that disproves your statement:

“It has focused on Hunter’s business dealings in China and began as a money laundering probe, but is now focusing on potential violations of tax law.”

I am not an accountant but do see the difference between an audit and “potential violations of tax laws”.

The statement is taken from:

https://www.vox.com/2020/12/10/22167443/hunter-biden-investigation-tax-china

dabbler's avatar

Silence is appropriate when there is no story.

elbanditoroso's avatar

Not at all. Unlike certain right wing news outlets that bombastically shout out every unproven rumor in the name of ideological purity, CNN usually investigates the story before publishing it.

Some right wing news outlets air reports just in order to swing opinion in one direction – the republican party. CNN, in contrast, objectively reports things.

So your question is nothing more than a dying gasp of anti-Bidenism and another example of how craven the right wing has turned out to be.

canidmajor's avatar

But…but…what does Batboy say about it? Or did he keep his exclusives for The Weekly World News?

crazyguy's avatar

“CNN usually investigates….” LOL

stanleybmanly's avatar

And the New York Post is credible journalism LOL, and those who read it worthy of respect?

elbanditoroso's avatar

And just a few minutes ago, it was reported that Attorney General Barr withheld information about Hunter Biden in order to not sway the election.

So @crazyguy – you own chief lawman of the US was the one who kept it secret.

Hamb's avatar

CNN is a corporation and reflects corporate interests. If you have “confidence” in CNN that can be shaken by some boring – and inconsequential – Hunter Biden story, you’ve lost the plot a long time ago.

crazyguy's avatar

@Hamb As you know perfectly well, I am referring not to the corporation but the news channel.

Response moderated (Personal Attack)
Hamb's avatar

@Hamb: “As you know perfectly well, I am referring not to the corporation but the news channel.”

Can you provide me a link to this CNN “new channel” that’s not a corporation? I’m confused.

LadyMarissa's avatar

I pay about as much attention to CNN as I do FOX!!! I developed the ability a long time ago to IGNORE what is currently being said & WAIT for the REAL facts to emerge. I know WHY CNN chose to sit on the story & I agree with their reason. This is another government investigation that NO one has all the facts & much like the Mueller investigation, I reserve the right to have my own beliefs UNTIL the facts prove otherwise!!!

Response moderated (Personal Attack)
gorillapaws's avatar

@crazyguy ”...not to the corporation but the news channel.”

CNN is AT&T. There is no news on CNN that isn’t consistent with AT&T’s goals, and ultimately their advertiser’s goals. The median age for CNN’s viewership is 60 years old. That’s why the Boomer generation went to the mat for Biden despite his likelihood of losing in a general vs. Trump (pre-COVID). They still think cable news is real because it LOOKS like the real news from when they were younger.

catcaptain99's avatar

What thinking person would have any confidence in CNN?
Their opinions (not news) are pure Democrat propoganda and totally predictable.

LadyMarissa's avatar

I have NO confidence in CNN & I’m NOT a Democrat!!! I did NOT vote FOR Biden…I voted AGAINST 45!!! There’s a good chance that I’ll be just as critical of Biden; but one thing that I feel whole hartedly,there is NO threat from that Biden has plans to become our Emperor with no clothes!!!

crazyguy's avatar

@LadyMarissa Like you, I do not believe anything I hear either on CNN or FOX. However, I do like to be informed about what they think is going on so I can research it myself.

The only reason, CNN’s lack of coverage of the Hunter story was important to me was that it probably caused Trump’s loss.

crazyguy's avatar

@gorillapaws I do not think any tech company can be as biassed as CNN, so I am almost certain that CNN has been allowed to go its own way for now. AT&T will realize that they are losing viewership and advertising revenue soon, then we’ll see some changes made.

crazyguy's avatar

@catcaptain99 I agree with your post and would not give a damn normally. However, in this particular case, I think CNN and their liberal cohorts cost Trump the election.

catcaptain99's avatar

If CNN is so reliable, why do they continue to portray Florida
& Ron DeSantis in such a negative way?

Florida is & has been open for months & has better (no worse) infection rates than Calif. with twice the population!

crazyguy's avatar

@Demosthenes Barr did what he is supposed to do – not announce any investigations that may have a significant effect on an election. Remember the flak Comey took for releasing info on the Hillary investigation? If he had announced the investigations, the NY Post would have been vindicated and Trump would have won the election and all the liberals would be up in arms!

crazyguy's avatar

@catcaptain99 I am sure you know this: Florida’s population is not higher than California’s.

Call_Me_Jay's avatar

@catcaptain99 How does CNN “portray Florida & Ron DeSantis in such a negative way” and why is that different from their reporting on California?

janbb's avatar

And there are stories about Hunter Biden and the investigations on CNN now so the premise seems fallacious at best.

Hamb's avatar

@crazyguy: “As you know perfectly well, I am referring not to the corporation but the news channel.”

Can you provide me a link to this CNN “new channel” that’s not a corporation? I’m confused.

jca2's avatar

@crazyguy: ”is now focusing on potential violations of tax law.” I am not an accountant but do see the difference between an audit and “potential violations of tax laws.

Isn’t the point of an audit to see if there are any violations of tax law? Anybody who is audited, or any corporation or organization that is audited, knows the IRS or whoever is conducting the audit is looking for violations.

If police come to your house with a search warrant, they’re looking for something but that doesn’t make you guilty.

si3tech's avatar

No. But then I had no confidence in CNN to report he truth.

dabbler's avatar

@crazyguy So, is your confidence in CNN shaken ?
You can’t be serious that a story in the NY Post would make anyone (but you apparently) think twice about the integrity of a news organization like CNN.

AlaskaTundrea's avatar

First a disclaimer: I haven’t read all the comments above so this may be repetitious but…. Isn’t this the story that Trump’s Attorney General Bill Barr sat on and shut down until after the election? As for my confidence in CNN, about the same, tending to believe but not take their (or any organization’s word) statement’s at face value.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Let’s all pause for a minute and consider the implications of a mind so distorted that it might believe CNN’s coverage rather than Trump’s catastrophic behavior responsible for the fool’s defeat.

LadyMarissa's avatar

@crazyguy The only reason, CNN’s lack of coverage of the Hunter story was important to me was that it probably caused Trump’s loss. That’s BS & you know it…

45 caused 45’s loss!!! Hunter NEVER crossed my mind when I voted for Biden. Seeing the troops going into Portland & watching the reaction of 45 to the George Floyd murder showed me what 45 had in store for this country & there was NO way that I was going to cast my vote for him!!! My dad almost died fighting during WWII so we would have FREEDOMS to walk down our own streets without having a dick-tater. There was NO way that I was going to dishonor mt dad by voting for a man who was plainly telling us what he was planning for our future. His refusal to denounce White Supremacy & the Proud Boys weighed a LOT heavier on my mind that what Hunter MIGHT have done. I saw 45 target Hunter without cause to deflect reports that his own 2 sons were sleeping with Russia. So, I felt it was an election ploy just to get people off his sons’ backs!!! I can pretty well guarantee you that Biden won’t be giving Hunter a pardon on his way out of office nor will he be giving himself one!!! That PLUS the fact that 45 REFUSED to admit that covid was a REAL thing even as thousands upon thousands were dying alone & then their families weren’t allowed to give them a proper funeral!!!

seawulf575's avatar

I haven’t had confidence that CNN was a reputable “news” agency for a long time. Their silence is just one more confirmation that they are nothing but propagandists. I strongly suspect that since it was Axios (Leftists) broke this story now and all the other leftist “news” agencies are starting to cover it, you are seeing the beginning of the impeachment process for Joe Biden. The plan has been to get rid of him and put Kammie in his place anyway. We all thought it might be for incompetence…dementia…but this would be quicker in the end.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@crazyguy “The only reason, CNN’s lack of coverage of the Hunter story was important to me was that it probably caused Trump’s loss.”

Yeah, that must be exactly it. I’m sure it had nothing to do with Trump’s abysmal performance as president, his slack-ass attitude towards the job or his malignant narcissism.

Hamb's avatar

@crazyguy: “The only reason, CNN’s lack of coverage of the Hunter story was important to me was that it probably caused Trump’s loss.”

The public: “Anyone but Trump!”

CNN: “And now, the Hunter Biden story….”

The public: “Holy mother of god. I’m voting for Trump!”

@crazyguy – Is this what you are imagining?

seawulf575's avatar

@crazyguy There is an idea that if CNN and MSNBC had actually been real news agencies, they would have covered the Hunter Biden story. That, back in October, would have painted Biden in a very dim light, exposing corruption in his and his family’s history…possibly ongoing. That very well could have turned the tide of the election. But let’s be serious…Biden’s “win” is tainted anyways. There was so much corruption and apparent fraud going on that it doesn’t matter if he won or not…basically won through cheating, not through a great campaign or huge numbers of people voting for him. That is why the Hunter Biden story now will be used to bury him and put Kammie Harris in as POTUS if Biden is actually confirmed as the winner.

jca2's avatar

@seawulf575: Would you like to see Kamala Harris as President? (just asking – there’s no right or wrong answer).

stanleybmanly's avatar

Why don’t you 2 clowns @answer @jca2 ‘s rather excellent question? Where’s her family corruption story for you to read in the NY Post? Wanna start a thread on her dottering senility? And by the way (getting back to Trump), you want to know the difference between Trump and Biden regarding senility? Despite @seawulf575 ‘s insistence on Biden’s cognitive deterioration, the problem with Trump is that when or whether he is to experience cognitive diminishment, there will be no possibility of detecting the change. In fact, there can be no change to detect. The man was cognitively dysfunctional before taking his oath of office.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@seawulf575 “Biden’s “win” is tainted anyways. There was so much corruption and apparent fraud going on that it doesn’t matter if he won or not…basically won through cheating”

Where is the evidence? Why has none of it been presented in the 50 or so court cases Trump has lost over this?

seawulf575's avatar

@jca2 No, I don’t want Harris as POTUS. She’s worse than Biden. Loonier anyway.

seawulf575's avatar

@Darth_Algar The evidence is the 80 million or more Americans that feel the Dems cheated. Those that don’t believe President Trump can be up by hundreds of thousands of votes in 4 specific states only to have those states suddenly all stop counting at about the same time, only to “start” up again hours later only to find Biden is now in the lead. Those that see the illogic in believing the statistical impossibilities surrounding those votes. Those that fail to see how Biden can do worse than Obama and Hillary in most areas that traditionally vote Democrat, only to beat them significantly in a couple…the couple that had the mysterious spike in votes. Those Americans that can’t easily dismiss the hundreds of poll workers that have come forward at great risk to themselves and their families to say they saw tremendous fraud, especially in those suspicious states. The ones that see the test that Ware County GA did on the sequestered Dominion software machines by sending an equal number of votes for Biden and Trump through the machine only to have the machines spit out an answer that Biden wins by 26%. Those Americans that see the GA sect of state demand all counties use those same machines to tally the votes, even after being told of the inconsistency and then to reset the machines to wipe out all results so they can’t be reviewed. In other words, all those things and hundreds more are all the evidence those 80 million+ Americans need to see Biden’s win as being tainted. Here’s the problem with fools like you: You want to believe it is only a couple people believing these things. It is more than half the country. And when more than half the country says the election is bogus, the results in favor of Biden are tainted.

Demosthenes's avatar

@seawulf575 In other words: believing that something is true makes it true. Even if it’s not true, if enough people believe that it is, it becomes true. Truth is a result of belief.

That has been the argument all along, it’s a fallacy, and its fallciousness explains the dismissive attitude of others.

elbanditoroso's avatar

And what about the 80+ million of us who voted for Biden – why should Republican thuggery steal our votes?

crazyguy's avatar

@Demosthenes I totally agree. We should all check any story we read or hear. At least google the gist of it.

I did just that with @seawulf575 story about 26% error in Dominion machines.

Here is what I found:

1. It is very hard to find anything on Google other than the party-line story that there were no errors.
2. @seawulf575 is probably incorrect, and guilty of repeating something he read on Facebook.
3. One of Trump’s many lawsuits did result in a small win: A Federal judge has ordered that Dominion machines not be wiped clean before a forensic exam – see
https://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/us-politics/us-election-georgia-court-issues-then-reverses-order-to-prevent-dominion-voting-machines-being-wiped/news-story/46d1c8e86c8745859b0b5ca814495c91

4. As far as I can determine no results of the forensic exam, if one were conducted, have been published.

I would welcome your and @seawulf575 responses.

crazyguy's avatar

@seawulf575 A new survey showed that over 45% of all voters had not even heard of the allegations against Hunter Biden. Interestingly, almost 10% of these voters said that they would have switched their votes if they knew.

So, it appears, that deliberate ignoring of negative news about the Bidens paid off.

crazyguy's avatar

@jca2 I think Harris would be much worse than Joe. I think the DNC calculation was that the only way to get Harris to be POTUS was to go in as VP to Joe, and then have Joe resign. I do not know if Joe can resign before being sworn in; but, he can the day after!

crazyguy's avatar

@Hamb According to
https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/opinion/freepress/story/2020/nov/26/cooper-biden-voters/536784/?bcsubid=dfccc2b6-0b6f-4708-87fc-ad7ae53312d6&pbdialog=reg-wall-login-created-tfp

about 1 in 6 Biden voters would have changed their minds if they knew the full story about Hunter’s and Joe’s transgressions.

How about you?

Hamb's avatar

^ I didn’t vote for Biden.

crazyguy's avatar

@LadyMarissa

You will be glad to know that you were not alone in saying that Hunter never even crossed your mind when you voted for Biden. Why would he? Stories about him were systemically crushed by mainstream media and Big Tech. If you knew then what you hopefully know today, would it have affected your vote?

According to
https://www.timesfreepress.com/news/opinion/freepress/story/2020/nov/26/cooper-biden-voters/536784/?bcsubid=dfccc2b6-0b6f-4708-87fc-ad7ae53312d6&pbdialog=reg-wall-login-created-tfp

one in six Biden voters would have voted differently if only they knew! Score one for the mainstream media and Big Tech!

Hamb's avatar

@crazyguy – Besides the fact that I didn’t vote for him, your link is questionable for a couple of reasons:

1. Please use correct link syntax, which is to use quotes around the link text, followed by colon and link URL. “link”: http:linkurl <- without the space between the colon and URL.

2. Your study is from Media Research Center, which isn’t a polling organization – it’s a conservative corporate-funded propaganda organization with a very specific agenda. And the “study” is reflected in an opinion piece by Clint Cooper, whose job is “representing the conservative side of the newspaper’s opinion section”.

3. While CNN is garbage, like Fox News and all corporate media, I find it difficult to believe that something as pedestrian and boring as the Hunter Biden story would have swayed voters.

4. Everyone I know knew about the Hunter Biden story.

5. There are plenty of reasons to reject a monster like Biden. If the Hunter “story” has any influence on your vote, you’re completely lost.

6. You need to do some more golfing. Your side won. You get a corporate mouthpiece (in Biden), so you’ll get to have your good things and worry about the stock market and Tesla.

7. You’re not likely to convince anyone here that they made a mistake in not voting for Trump. Why not just wait until January and start critiquing Biden policy, which – again – should be quite soothing to you and the rest of the privileged in this country.

crazyguy's avatar

@Hamb 1. WHY?
2. So the source is bad. What about the content?
3. Pedestrian? Boring? More so than Russiagate?
4. How did you know? Unless you visited rightwing sites.
5. You mean monster like “Trump”?
6. Thanks for your advice.
7. I am not even trying to convince anybody.

Hamb's avatar

@crazyguy….

“1. WHY?”

It’s annoying that you still can’t get the syntax right. It’s an easy thing and makes reading your posts easier. Why not do it right?

“2. So the source is bad. What about the content?”

The source is the content. I don’t buy that 1 in 6 Biden voters would have voted Trump had they known about Hunter. And who the hell didn’t know about Hunter? You might as well have linked to an image of your Fluther avatar as your source.

“3. Pedestrian? Boring? More so than Russiagate?”

Inconsequential and boring in the context of the shit Biden has done. Christ, it’s what politicians are expected to do.
And Russiagate? That’s the liberal Qanon.

“4. How did you know? Unless you visited rightwing sites.”

The left has been all over that shit.

“5. You mean monster like “Trump”?”

Monster like Biden.

“6. Thanks for your advice.”

No problem.

“7. I am not even trying to convince anybody.”

Why not? You feel that an extreme injustice happened. If you’re not trying to convince anyone, why bring it up?

Darth_Algar's avatar

@seawulf575

“Many people believe this, so it must be true.”

It’s a logical fallacy. Appeal to popularity. Might as well argue that McDonald’s has the best hamburgers in the world because they have the most consumed hamburgers in the world.

seawulf575's avatar

@Demosthenes When there are hundreds of witnesses, who have given sworn testimonies, does that mean it shouldn’t be believed? Or because it is inconvenient for you own belief system is that what means it shouldn’t be believed? Because CNN didn’t tell you it was true? Because the Democrats say it’s a hoax?
Let me give you the perfect example of what YOU are saying: Russia Collusion. Not a solid piece of evidence in the whole thing showing Trump had anything to do with Russia. Nothing. Yet you all on the left believed it. And because enough people believed it, it became true, right? There are still people ranting about how it will come out that he was in cahoots with Russia. And CNN and MSNBC and every other leftist news agency treated it like it was gospel. Forget their mantra now…we can’t report on that since there is no evidence!
So which is it? If people say something enough it is true or when witnesses come forward we shouldn’t believe it?

seawulf575's avatar

@Darth_Algar Or you could argue that Donald Trump colluded with Russia to rig the 2016 election. Oh wait! You did argue that. So where was the proof on that? Oh yeah…everyone just knew it!

Darth_Algar's avatar

@seawulf575 “Oh wait! You did argue that.”

I did?

misfit's avatar

No.

I peed my pants a little after laughing so hard when I read the question.

stanleybmanly's avatar

This is just ridiculous, and I do hope everyone here is paying attention. These 2 are like a pair of dogs shaking an old slipper to destruction. They’re complaining because the media (even FOX) is finally catching on to right wing “swift boat” baiting. This thing appears in the New York Post ALONE—a notoriously disreputable and DISHONEST right wing propaganda rag; and yet we are again asked to focus on CNN, as though they alone refused to swallow the bait. Instead of recognizing that the media will no longer cater to their disinformation, mill because they have cried “WOLF!”, once too often they are now good and pissed that not only are journalists NOW acting responsibly—the internet platforms are joining them in the effort BRAVO, and it’s about time!

stanleybmanly's avatar

And once again, I hope everyone reading through this thread will recognize how the behavior of our 2 right wingers so splendidly reflects the disruptive misinformation slant that just so happens to coincide with the agenda of a certain authoritarian regime around sewing dissension in this country. These 2 are so implacable in this effort HERE, that it is difficult to believe they are not employed to keep repeating over and over the same questions and tiresome arguments.

Lonelyheart807's avatar

It doesn’t bother me. It’s Joe Biden that is our president-elect, not his sons. And unlike trump, Biden is obviously not going to fill his cabinet with family members. whatever his son and or brother may have done, they should be subject to the law as much as any of us. But that no way decides Biden’s being fit for president. Honestly, I kind of get why they withheld the story, because it would have been used against Biden for the election and wrongfully so if the story had broken earlier.

stanleybmanly's avatar

But constantly ragging on this topic is apparently driving the questioner crazy that the subject gains no traction whatsoever. And the reason? Once again, it is simply that the public has by now so adapted to right wing sensationalism and phony nonsense that mere utterance of the words “New York Post” generates instant yawns and dismissal on the spot.

Darth_Algar's avatar

The New York Post has long been the nation’s #1 source for Quality journalism…

…and still is.

crazyguy's avatar

@Lonelyheart807 You can keep your head buried in the sand; the whole truth will come out soon.

stanleybmanly's avatar

That’s the other thing regarding our 2 strident yet strangely clueless conservatives which further convinces me that they aren’t actually products of this country. Wherever they are from, it is a land missing a dynamic and vibrant free press. And here’s why I believe this. Clearly they both spend hours devoting their acquired facility with English in devouring American content, but not having lived here, these 2 actually believe that everything they pick up has equal weight. There’s no discernment whatsoever between anything they can find online. And they are both constantly puzzled and frustrated when told that their sources lack the credibility WE expect from a comic book. Both of them fall back on the mantra stereotypical to right wing mysticism in order to shade their alien grasp of all things Americana—“the liberal bias of the mainstream media”, and assume it gives them cover to quote any rag or podcast convenient to their cause. And the most telling thing around this they both push is a constant insistence that we consider the story and neglect the source—a concept so alien to anyone here, that even the staunchest dyed in the wool AMERICAN conservative would never dream of suggesting it.

stanleybmanly's avatar

And another clue involving this is the rather peculiar notion that we here somehow regard CNN as the “gold standard” for journalism. This is the sort of mistake that only someone consuming American news abroad could possibly make. This curious idea that CNN specifically should be devalued for failing to jump on the latest scandal fabricated by the New York Post is so ludicrous and bizarre a proposition that I cannot believe anyone left or right here would propose it.

crazyguy's avatar

This guy is so full of shit, he is actually amusing!

Demosthenes's avatar

@seawulf575 Saying something is true doesn’t make it true. Believing something is true doesn’t make it a reality. The rest of your post has no relevance to me as I do not watch CNN, I am not a Democrat, and I always thought “Russiagate” was BS. If there is a case to be made, then make it. But this was always a conclusion in search of evidence to prove it, not a sound conclusion drawn from the available evidence.

seawulf575's avatar

@Demosthenes And that seems to be where we disagree. I don’t see the claims of election fraud as a conclusion in search of evidence to prove it, though that same claim could be made about any investigation. What I see is a series of very questionable events that bring up concerns. Those are confirmed and expanded upon by witnesses. So what we really have is a potential crime that needs a thorough investigation. To say “we’ll count the ballots again!” is idiocy. If the ballots are invalid, counting them again will not prove a thing. There needs to be in depth investigation into this event. To discount that is to say that half the population doesn’t matter. So here’s my thought…the same thought those on the left have thrown at me a number of times on a number of issues: If there is really nothing wrong, why is there such push back on doing actual honest investigations? Why not open up all the books and all the machines and do the investigations that need to be done? If it shows that all the votes were legal, were not questionable, were not tampered with, and that the software actually counted everything correctly, then the issue is finally put to rest. Until that is done, it will always remain tainted.
But you are wrong on your point about saying something is true doesn’t make it true and believing something is true doesn’t make it a reality. Trump said that White Supremacists and Neo-Nazis are very fine people, right? There are millions of people that believe that. They use that as a claim that he is a racist and a white supremacist. They even say he won’t denounce them. So it is a truth and it is a reality for many, many people. Except it isn’t true in reality. When he made the infamous “very fine people” comment, he specifically excluded the WS and N-Ns. He denounced them several times, quite strongly. But because “news” agencies like CNN spread the lie, it became the truth for many people. There are some of our fellow jellies that still believe it, even though I have posted the links to the actual transcript of the meeting with the press where it came from.

stanleybmanly's avatar

The problem for the right (and it is a HUGE problem) is that Trump’s reputation and record are so profoundly tainted that anything reputable said by or about him will be regarded with the greatest suspicion. It isn’t the news outlets but rather the fool himself who has generated THIS state of affairs. You keep faulting the press as having created the Trump persona, and that is preposterous. When it comes to the fool, there is no more accurate explanation than “res ipsa loquitur”.

stanleybmanly's avatar

@crazyguy Be grateful that I fault your peculiar traits to mere ignorance and unfamiliarity with what passes here as American norms. The alternative explanation for the 2 of you is that you are too stupid to roll out of bed.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@seawulf575

Because we don’t investigate based on hearsay. Solid evidence is needed. Let’s say that make the claim that seawulf575 has committed a potential crime. Let’s say I even have a witness or two, but I have nothing to present that would pass evidentiary muster. If there’s really nothing wrong then there’s no reason not to investigate, right?

But let’s take it one further – say I’m the prosecutor and decide to take it to court, despite having nothing to present that would pass evidentiary muster. The judge tosses the case out for lack of a compelling argument or evidence. I try again, it gets tossed again. And again and again and again. Should there be an investigation then to try to find some evidence? Should this keep going one and one and on? At what point do we accept that there’s just nothing there?

stanleybmanly's avatar

That’s what I mean about not understanding the process where you are supposedly living. The courts ARE allowed to refuse to entertain ideas that are on their face too absurd for consideration. Poor @seawulf575 fails to appreciate this and therefore unknowingly debases himself through repeating the crackpot assertion he picks up from some whackadoodle nut job website that these are “kangaroo courts”.

seawulf575's avatar

@Darth_Algar Sworn affidavits are often used for starting investigations. They might be considered hearsay in a court of law if they were to stand by themselves, but as a source of reason for investigation? sure…they are made just for that. And even in a courtroom setting, the affidavit can be used if the person is willing to come in and testify, it no longer becomes hearsay. The person can testify in open court and afford the opposition the chance for cross examination. But it is interesting that you say we don’t investigate based on hearsay. Isn’t that what the entire impeachment inquiry was based on? Hearsay evidence? In fact that was all the testimony they had and they (the Dems) considered it better than factual evidence.

Darth_Algar's avatar

@seawulf575

Learn the difference between a Congressional process and a court of law. For fuck’s sake…

crazyguy's avatar

@seawulf575 Whistling in the wind again…

Darth_Algar's avatar

More like pissing in the wind and believing it’s a warm rain.

Response moderated (Personal Attack)
Response moderated
seawulf575's avatar

@darth_alger, maybe if you did some research you would actually learn something for fuck’s sake. And then you could actually stop trying to make excuses for bullshit.

Call_Me_Jay's avatar

The people who should have done research are Trump’s lawyers who lost 59 cases trying to throw out millions of votes.

jca2's avatar

@seawulf575: Taken from your link: “Sometimes courts may have local rules that will state whether an affidavit is considered hearsay or not. ” Which is what I linked to you on another thread, that affidavits are considered hearsay (which was a Wiki link if I’m not mistaken).

seawulf575's avatar

@jca2 Did you actually read your own answer in the link you provided? Please go back and re-read your answer and then see how it compares with what I have written. And my answers have remained constant from thread to thread. Oh, and take a moment to look at the link I have provided. The key here is that it is really up to the court. Even your own link confirms that.

jca2's avatar

@seawulf575: From my link: “Read under “United States.” “Under the rules of hearsay, admission of an unsupported affidavit does not count as evidence.”

jca2's avatar

@seawulf575: As I said to you on the other thread, and I’ll repeat here, “I’m not arguing with you about whether or not affidavits are evidence. I provided the Wiki link. If you don’t like what it says, I can’t help you.”

seawulf575's avatar

@jca2 You have said it twice now. Unsupported affidavits. Now go back and read the link I provided and see what I have said. I’m not going to argue with you either. I have given you the link, even though you don’t want to read it. And you have quoted your own link twice now and have no clue what you were saying either time. I can’t help you.

stanleybmanly's avatar

What’s your theory on why no court in the land, and not a single jurisdiction or law enforcement official in this big country sees fit to agree with you.

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly if you look at every single case President Trump has presented in court, not a single piece of evidence was even looked at or considered. So it isn’t because the evidence wasn’t good.

Call_Me_Jay's avatar

@seawulf575 Feel free to quote from the judge’s decisions to show they refused to see evidence.

To back up you claim that it is “every single case” you need to show us all 59. But I’ll be kind and say ten or so would suffice.

If they turned down the case because of lack of standing, evidence is moot. They are pointing out they can’t even address the suit.

seawulf575's avatar

@Call_Me_Jay would it really matter? I have cited many, many things on these pages as proof of what I say and all that happens is you folks change the topic or attack the source or do something other than actually dealing with the facts.
As for turning down the suit because of lack of standing, that only makes my case even stronger. To turn it down because you are saying you aren’t the right court, but haven’t really looked at the evidence says it is over your head, or possibly beneath you. But it doesn’t invalidate the evidence. The evidence is still there and IS evidence. It is far more evidence than anything the left has thrown at Trump for the past 4 years.

Call_Me_Jay's avatar

To turn it down because you are saying you aren’t the right court, but haven’t really looked at the evidence says it is over your head, or possibly beneath you.

You have no idea how courts work.

Suffice to say 59 judges know more about the law than you do.

crazyguy's avatar

@Call_Me_Jay I think we have the classic chicken-or-egg scenario. Gathering of evidence requires access to the ballots; courts cannot give access unless they have the evidence.

stanleybmanly's avatar

The 2 of you can be forgiven for not understanding the judicial system here. After all, regardless of what I might garner from research on jurisprudence in YOUR country, I would almost certainly get parts of it wrong. The appalling fact here isn’t that a pair of foreign disinformation provocateurs don’t know the law, the shocking revelation is that the conservative top legal officials from18 states have to be told FIFTY NINE TIMES that they not only are ignorant of the law. FIFTY NINE TIMES is all but an open admission that they are unfit to practice law!!! They should be disbarred and deported to your country for you to “educate” them.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther