Due Process is Good, he said controversially.

[ciaban2.0]

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/due-pr..._source=reddit

Some of the highlights, because too many of you dorks won't read anything beyond a headline and decide your opinion based on that alone.

The first time I knew something changed on my side of the political aisle in the attitude toward accused people was the Maria Butina case. The New York Times ran a headline, “Maria Butina, Suspected Secret Agent, Used Sex in Covert Plan,” that was wrong in one place, and misleading in another. Butina hadn’t traded sex for information, just joked to a friend that that was all she could pay for his help in getting her car inspected. As for being a “Suspected Secret Agent,” that was only true if you were going by the definition of “agent” as per the “Agents of Foreign Governments” act, something south of genuine espionage, which most readers probably didn’t understand.

Even after the “mistake” about using sex was corrected, brethren in the press gleefully ran “Red Sparrow” stories, even though there was never much evidence, not that she traded sex, was a spy, or was knowingly anything. Her sentencing memo — this is her accusers speaking now — described her as “not a trained intelligence officer” but an “access agent” of a type that “may or may not be witting.” She may very well have been guilty. Still, reporters and political liberals both were once more squeamish about accusing people of serious crimes, particularly sex crimes. The calculus in Butina’s case was that she was Russian who dated a Republican operative and mixed up somehow in the 2016 election scandal, making her a Trump person, so to hell with her.

One of the first things that caused Greenwald to run afoul of conventional wisdom was the observation with regard to Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Russia investigation that indictments are not proof. He was slammed, but what do you know, the government ended up dropping at least one of the cases Mueller filed against a Russian defendant, once the issue of having to publicly disclose evidence was raised. This was after the defendant called the government’s bluff and showed up in court — demonstrating, prosecutors later said bitterly, the defense’s “intent to reap the benefits of the Court’s jurisdiction.”

That argument — that the defendant’s intent to actually exercise legal rights shows guilt in itself — is the kind of thing liberals used to decry all the time, coming from “tough on crime” Republicans. Opinions like that occur when you’ve fallen too far into the habit of judging people rather than evidence. Suddenly process becomes a canard, and you even get lawyers saying that hiring a lawyer is evidence of guilt:

Whether it was unconcern with attorney-client privilege after the raid of Michael Cohen’s office, disinterest in the implications of the case of despised Julian Assange, or the embrace of concepts like “not exonerated” (the opposite of presumed innocence), people who probably once described themselves as progressives seem to have lost touch with core ideas in recent years.

The paper cites “three people with knowledge of the encounters” in claiming Gaetz “had sex” with “multiple women,” while also claiming officials are examining “whether” he had sex with a 17-year-old and “whether” she was compensated for it. That means the possibilities run from Gaetz having consensual encounters with adults to consensual encounters with sex workers to, possibly, an encounter with a 17-year-old.
I don’t like stories like this because the Times gets to use a report of one kind of encounter to sell the possibility of another kind, for which they have less evidence.

That hasn’t stopped outlets from taking indulgences like “Gaetz’s allies now fear that Greenberg is preparing to strike a deal with prosecutors to deliver Gaet.” Such speculations were a regular feature in Clinton-era scandals like Whitewater, and also in recent years, when stories like “Anxiety Grows for Trump After Raid On His Personal Lawyer” were common. Propping up a prostitution scandal using those grasping techniques looks particularly bad when a memoir written by the president’s son that includes scenes of hanging in motels with pimps and sex workers is being hailed all over as a “singular memoir of grief and addiction,” or “a gritty, self-realized, and honest account of addiction and grief” (do Vanity Fair and The Washington Post have the same headline writer?).

So the question I ask you guys, is the presumption of innocence and due process still important, or is the need to crucify our enemies and for MSM to get eyeballs the most important thing?

[spliff(TONE)]

Your threads are really top notch!

[MRSpock]

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/due-pr..._source=reddit

Some of the highlights, because too many of you dorks won't read anything beyond a headline and decide your opinion based on that alone.




So the question I ask you guys, is the presumption of innocence and due process still important, or is the need to crucify our enemies and for MSM to get eyeballs the most important thing?

You realize the whole innocent till proven guilty is for actual court right?

[MRSpock]

So what's the point of this. People shouldn't trash people till they get prosecuted?

Lol. No. I don't need a conviction to trash Cosby. I don't need a conviction to know Gaetz is an immoral douch bag.

No one in real life actually believes this.

[ciaban2.0]

You realize the whole innocent till proven guilty is for actual court right?

So then it's ok for the Media to wrongly paint people as whores, and insinuate guilt of serious crimes (such as pedophilia) without evidence, or EVEN FORMAL CHARGES?

[ewing]

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/due-pr..._source=reddit

Some of the highlights, because too many of you dorks won't read anything beyond a headline and decide your opinion based on that alone.




So the question I ask you guys, is the presumption of innocence and due process still important, or is the need to crucify our enemies and for MSM to get eyeballs the most important thing?

I’m a MSM/crucifixion guy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ciaban2.0]

So what's the point of this. People shouldn't trash people till they get prosecuted?

Lol. No. I don't need a conviction to trash Cosby. I don't need a conviction to know Gaetz is an immoral douch bag.

No one in real life actually believes this.

1) Cosby DID get a conviction.
2)What are you basing your presumption of Gaetz being an immoral d-bag on? Since it's not evidence or even criminal charges. (He certainly could be, but there has been no evidence brought forward)

3)You clearly believe this stuff.

[ciaban2.0]

I’m a MSM/crucifixion guy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I respect the rush dopamine hit gives. Fair enough.

[valade16]

1) Cosby DID get a conviction.
2)What are you basing your presumption of Gaetz being an immoral d-bag on? Since it's not evidence or even criminal charges. (He certainly could be, but there has been no evidence brought forward)

3)You clearly believe this stuff.

1) Jeffrey Epstein did not get a conviction. Do you think innocent until proven guilty should apply to his case as well?

2) What do you mean there's been no evidence of him being a d-bag?

He stated to other representatives he was against revenge porn laws because he believed he should be able to do whatever he wanted with a naked picture of a significant other after they'd broken up.

He was the only representative to vote against an anti-human trafficking bill.

There's actually evidence of him giving $900 to his friend Greenblatt who then immediately transferred that $900 to three women.


No evidence he's a D-bag? Have you been living under a rock?

[ciaban2.0]

1) Jeffrey Epstein did not get a conviction. Do you think innocent until proven guilty should apply to his case as well?

2) What do you mean there's been no evidence of him being a d-bag?

He stated to other representatives he was against revenge porn laws because he believed he should be able to do whatever he wanted with a naked picture of a significant other after they'd broken up.

He was the only representative to vote against an anti-human trafficking bill.

There's actually evidence of him giving $900 to his friend Greenblatt who then immediately transferred that $900 to three women.


No evidence he's a D-bag? Have you been living under a rock?

1) Jeffery Epstien WAS convicted back in like 2004 I think it was, he got a sweetheart deal too.

2) Evidence regarding the criminal accusations against him. He very well could be a jerk, but that's nothing new or controversial given his line of work.

How do you prove that's what that $900 is for. As I said, he very well may be guilty, but when should we toss out due process and the presumption of innocence.

[browski234]

2)What are you basing your presumption of Gaetz being an immoral d-bag on? Since it's not evidence or even criminal charges. (He certainly could be, but there has been no evidence brought forward)

As stated above, his extensive history of being a gigantic immoral d-bag lol. This isn't new.

Maybe the Young Turks need to lie and misquote a government document for you to believe that instead of just looking at his easily accessible history though lol

[ManRam]

Once you think about what Glenn Greenwald was doing when he took a two month solo trip to Rio De Janeiro without knowing a single word of Portuguese -- like the thousands of well-off middle aged men before him -- it helps explain a little bit about Glenn Greenwald and his eagerness to fall over himself to defend the honor of the Matt Gaetzesies of the world. That and the fact he's like the one guy who makes me think: "maybe the Horseshoe Theory isn't insane?".


Anyways, I like Taibbi. But this is boring. Who cares? I'll admit I skimmed and didn't read more than a few paragraphs. But yeah.

None of this means Gaetz won’t eventually be found guilty. But there’s not even enough to know of what yet, and it can’t become a problem to say so in public.

We know! Glenn received criticism for his public comments. He's thin-skinned and had another mini-meltdown over said criticism. Who the **** cares? No one is "cancelling" Glenn Greenwald (in any sense of that word) because he pointed out that Matt Gaetz hasn't been convicted in a court of law A lot of these grievances are over things that feel intangible or almost abstract to me. There's so much real **** going on, ya know?

Taibbi intentionally and however subtly trying to conflate the actual law with the court of public opinion which feels all too common with "freedom of speech" arguments. Seeing "due process" in the title and then ctrl+f'ing and not seeing any use of that actual legal phrase or really any mention of law before reading this also put me in a pessimistic mood. The law and how the public talks about people are wildly different and it's totally fine if they are.

[valade16]

1) Jeffery Epstien WAS convicted back in like 2004 I think it was, he got a sweetheart deal too.

2) Evidence regarding the criminal accusations against him. He very well could be a jerk, but that's nothing new or controversial given his line of work.

How do you prove that's what that $900 is for. As I said, he very well may be guilty, but when should we toss out due process and the presumption of innocence.

1) Epstein was only convicted of soliciting underage girls for prostitution. Do you think that is all he is guilty of?

2) you asked for evidence he was a D-bag and claimed there was none.

3) Sounds like you don’t believe the charges against him.

[MRSpock]

1) Cosby DID get a conviction.
2)What are you basing your presumption of Gaetz being an immoral d-bag on? Since it's not evidence or even criminal charges. (He certainly could be, but there has been no evidence brought forward)

3)You clearly believe this stuff.

1. Yeah but I was trashing him for the 50 something accusations well before the conviction. Nor do I think the media is wrong for dragging him through the mud beforehand.

2. Disingenuous lying about ANTIFA and the insurrection. Multiple house ethics violations. Ridiculous expenditures using donor money and tax dollars. Political theater in regards to covid.

There's like 20 other things I can list before even touching on the sex trafficking.

3. I believe what stuff exactly?

I just love the GOPs voters method of picking and choosing when to be the "by the book law party" then doing a complete 180 the next minute and claiming everyone is corrupt. It's a thing of beauty.

[MRSpock]

Oh and for the record yes the media dies go too hard on people sometimes before the facts are there.

This is not one of those times.