It takes a special kind of stupid to make a post like yours without checking a dictionary first. Expand your vocabulary by checking the meaning of the word "misapprehend".
Dershowitz Received $120K From Anti-Muslim Gatestone Institute
- Thread starter bver_hunter
- Start date
You just have to be trolling to get these things wrong so consistently.
Let me simplify it for you. CNN brought a suit against various parties. That suit claims relief based on the 1st amendment and on the 5th amendment. CNN also asked for interim relief (relief before the trial can take place). This request for interim relief was what the court ruled on last week. A decision as to whether party is entitled to interim relief is not made on the same legal principles as the merits of the case. Interim decisions have more to do with which party will suffer irreparable harm if things aren't put their way pending the trial (even if they ultimately won the trial). The judge decided that CNN would suffer irreparable harm that couldn't be repaired by an award at trial (assuming they would succeed at trial), and made that decision based on their claim that they had not been provided any opportunity to defend Acosta's actions before the WH revoked his pass. However, quite interestingly, the court said that it would be prepared to revisit even this interim ruling if the WH "cured" its failure to provide due process before, again, revoking the pass.
Dershowitz was not asked to specifically comment on the request for interim relief. His opinion was about whether CNN would win their case at trial (which hasn't happened yet).
In short, you had it completely wrong. Now, it's been clearly explained to you, but I doubt you'll get it even now.
p.s Maybe you and Shack can share a dictionary when you look up the meaning of the word "misapprehend". As I said in my reply to Shack, it takes a special brand of stupid......
Here comes the conspiracy theorist who was trying to plead James Fields innocence. Now it is part 2.
Yes, the case is an interim relief based on Acosta's 1st and the 5th Amendment rights that were violated. But what was the outcome:
CNN Wins Court Order Restoring White House Reporter’s Access:
Judge rejects Trump claim he gets last word on press passes
"U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly’s decision is a rebuke to Trump as he tries to recover from losses in midterm congressional elections. It furthers a portrait of a president overstepping his authority to settle personal scores and carries extra sting because it was issued by a judge the president appointed."
The decision to revoke Acosta’s pass is so “shrouded in mystery” that the government couldn’t say who made it, Kelly said in court. “I will order defendants to immediately restore Mr. Acosta’s hard pass.”
CNN’s parent, AT&T, now has two legal wins over the president. Earlier this year, the company prevailed in court over Trump’s Justice Department to gain approval to buy CNN’s former owner, Time Warner Inc.
“We are gratified with this result and we look forward to a full resolution in the coming days,” CNN said in a statement. “Our sincere thanks to all who have supported not just CNN, but a free, strong and independent American press.”
"Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said in a statement that the White House will comply and reinstate Acosta’s pass." “We will also further develop rules and processes to ensure fair and orderly press conferences in the future,” Sanders said. “There must be decorum at the White House.”
Trump cut off Acosta as he tried to press a point over refugees marching through Mexico toward the U.S. border. The reporter refused to surrender a microphone to a White House aide who tried to take it away. Trump called Acosta a "rude, terrible person," and Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said the correspondent’s access had been revoked because he put his hands on the female aide.
In court on Friday, the judge recounted the events leading up to the revocation of Acosta’s pass, noting that the administration’s initial explanation to the public for taking that action was based on a video that critics have said was doctored. Kelly said the video’s accuracy was questionable.
“The government must provide Mr. Acosta with due process,” Kelly said.
The judge said Acosta and CNN had shown they were likely to prevail when the case is ultimately decided. The two sides will consult with one another before the judge holds further hearings.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...order-restoring-white-house-reporter-s-access
The above sentence makes no sense at all. Maybe you were having a party when you wrote this sentence. So try and comprehend what you are trying to say in the first place!!
But you should go and tell Bloomberg that they got it wrong and CNN did not win. Also go and tell Judge Kelly that he was wrong when he said that "Acosta and CNN had shown they were likely to prevail when the case is ultimately decided."
So are you saying that Acosta's Fifth Amendment Rights were "Not Violated"?? Why is big mouth Trump not even saying that he will win this case??
Where did Judge Kelly say that he would "revoke the pass"? Again the Judge said that that Acosta and CNN were likely to prevail when the case is ultimately decided. This is as good as a win for CNN, not Trump and the Whitehouse. By the way your innocent buddy James Fields' case starts on November 26th. So let us see where that conspiracy theory of yours ends up. Come back and start trolling again after that case!!
Well, I was right that no matter how clearly it was explained to you, you still wouldn't get it. Reading about legal decisions, for you, is like reading another language.
You're confused about everything. You're still confused about what I've had to say about Fields (because, if you're not, your continued misstatement of my position could be nothing other than trolling). You're confused about what CNN's counsel had to say following the interim ruling. You're confused about the difference between curable defects of process and incurable defects arising from substantive violations. You don't understand the different legal test applied to rulings on interim relief compared to the test applicable at trial. You don't understand that "winning" interim relief is just that, and not to be confused with winning a suit.
It's not Bloomberg's reporting that is to blame. You are just incapable of understanding what you read.
And the delicious irony of misapprending the meaning of the word "misapprehend" is also lost on you!
Ohh Boy!! Try to explain the stuff in basic English to you, and it is still beyond your comprehension. Again you did not understand what the "Temporary Restraining Order" was all about, and how Acosta's 5th Amendment Rights were violated!! Even Fox News is fully supportive of CNN's case against The Whitehouse!! You can be assured that if the Whitehouse continues with revoking this right after the Temporary time period expires, then no doubt they will be back in Court. So do not try and preach to me about curable and incurable defects as applied to this case. We know that Curable applies to defects of Regulatory and not Statutory requirements, and hence the time frame to repair it that has been implemented. You can go on with your yara, yara, yara about all this nonsense. The fact is you did not comprehend concisely what the Judge stated in Court. So once again:
"Acosta and CNN had shown they were likely to prevail when the case is ultimately decided".
That means even the First Amendment Rights would be ruled in his favour!! OR
Was the Judge Wrong with that "Misstatement" that applies in your Legal Books??
We know that you have conveniently moved the goal posts from Day 1 after your allegations that Fields was not responsible for Heather Heyer's Killing. It was her Heart Attack, no Body Trauma etc. etc., in spite of the Court upgrading the killing from "Second Degree Murder" to a "First Degree Murder" charges. Then you go on about all of us "not apprehending" your state of mind. Confused and More Confused, is all that it is!!
Even more that you don't understand! There's no bottom to your well of confusion!
1. The interim order was based on: a) the materials that the parties were able to put before the court (which are always more limited than what would be available to present at trial), b) the judge's summary assessment on the "likelihood" of success of the person seeking interim relief (in this case, that likelihood being based upon the 5th amendment claim - which has only to do with providing CNN/Acosta with some form of "due process" to address the WH's complaints prior to revoking his hard pass), and c) an assessment as to whether any "harm" suffered by CNN/Acosta could be fully remedied by an award at trial if they were successful. The Judge found a basis for granting interim relief, but made a point of stating that this "due process" defect could be cured by the WH, and that the interim order could be revisited with him if it were. Fundamentally, you don't appear to understand the court process, the ruling, or legal tests applicable.
2. The Judge made no ruling or even comment on the 1st amendment claim. If the 1st amendment were violated in substance, the violation couldn't be cured. THE COURT MADE NO ASSESSMENT AS TO THE LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS BASED ON THE 1ST AMENDMENT. YOUR UNDERSTANDING IS COMPLETELY WRONG.
3. As to your garbled word salad about Fields, you still haven't wrapped your mind around the fact that the prosecutor will have to prove the elements of Murder, which are quite exacting. It won't be enough to show that Fields drove his vehicle recklessly. That would only support a charge of manslaughter. Even assuming that Fields "caused" Heyer's death (which I've never seen any clear proof of), the correct charge might even be "misdemeanor death by vehicle" without proof of requisite pre-meditation to crash into and kill protesters. Even these charges require that the vehicle collision be the "proximate cause" of the death. These are all serious questions that any competent defense counsel will pursue, and that anyone objectively looking at the incident and resulting charges would be interested in. I guess you just don't fall into this latter category!
4. Please cut out the nonsense of misstating my positions on the Fields case. I have always said that the coroner found that she experienced blunt force trauma and that the proximate cause of death was heart failure. I've acknowledged that, at least in some circumstances, blunt force traumas, in some people, could trigger a heart attack and heart failure. What remains to be seen is what, exactly, caused the blunt force trauma she experienced, and how, exactly, did that trauma relate to her heart failure. There could be evidence that answers these questions. The public has never been provided with information about that evidence.
Your arguments just like Dershowitz's are garbage:
"Today the White House fully restored Jim Acosta's press pass. As a result, our lawsuit is no longer necessary," the network said in a statement. "We look forward to continuing to cover the White House."
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/19/media/cnn-acosta-emergency-hearing/index.html
Meaning that Acosta has been granted a FULL WHITEHOUSE PRESS PASS!! The Whitehouse knew that they had no chance of winning this lawsuit!!
You have lost the argument.
Hilarious, so maybe you should have been Trump's Lawyer. Case closed!!
I did not say that the judge MADE a ruling on the 1st Amendment Claim. If so show me, and just do not put words in my mouth. Maybe you were not too good at Mathematics in school. 1st and 5th was probably the same difference to you. The 5th Amendment was all I said that the Judge ruled in favour of Acosta. So you got that one wrong as well.
To summarize this right wing conspiracy nonsense, the allegations against Fields was upgraded in the Court from 2nd Degree Murder to 1st Degree Murder. So you are saying that no evidence was presented to the judge for his to elevate it?? Again, all the evidence has not been disclosed to the public. Wait for a few more days and then all the details of her death will be disclosed. Just get your popcorn warmed up on time.
How on earth is she going to receive a "blunt force trauma" by just walking on the street??? Did you not see bodies thrown in the air above the car. Thankfully, there were no multiples killings as a result of the "Root Cause" i.e. James Fields' motor acceleration and deliberate ploughing into the pedestrians. Anyway, there were other serious injuries, and no doubt they will be disclosed in court. We know that if this was an Antifa supporter doing what Fields' did, to the Extreme Right wing demonstrators and a woman died under similar circumstances, then there is no way you would be coming up with the same "Conspiracy Theory"!!
So many words to show how confused you are. Much shorter for you to have posted "I don't understand these court proceedings, and I never will". LOL!
As to the Fields case, you'll just never embrace the concept of only accepting facts as proven after you've been provided with conclusive evidence. As a small example, accepting that Field's car collided with some of the demonstrators, do you know EXACTLY how that collision relates to Heyer's blunt force trauma? According to the coroner's report, her blunt force trauma was to her chest. Do you know EXACTLY what struck her in the chest? No, you don't. But you're prepared to proceed as if you do. Your analysis lacks discipline. If you can't imagine the various ways she could have received blunt trauma to her chest, including just falling down onto a sidewalk, curb, or other object, or from contact with other protesters, that's just a a failure of reasoning on your part.
The problem again, is that the videos show that she is not one of the persons directly struck by Field's car. As a result, the prosecutor needs to be able to prove how her injuries result from the crash (and not just from the chaos surrounding the crash), and result directly enough that the crash is their "proximate" cause.
As to the preliminary hearing to upgrade the charges to murder 1, I've already explained to you numerous times why you can't draw conclusions about evidence from such hearings, so I'm not about to explain it to you again. You just don't seem to absorb this kind of information when it's given to you.
Just admit that you're trolling me. You can do it by pm if don't want to spoil the show for others.
Gotta love Bud's continuing defence of neo-nazi terrorism.
So now he thinks its not murder because he thinks Heyer might have been killed only by other protesters being thrown onto her, so therefore Fields didn't directly kill her.
Meanwhile, more online connections between neo-Nazi hate groups and the Pittsburgh massacre are coming out.
https://www.propublica.org/article/...hooting-suspect-had-ties-to-violent-neo-nazis
That includes direct links between neo-Nazi 'protesters' at Charlottesville and Vanguard America.
Now we've also got reports that another neo-Nazi group, Rise Above Movement, has been sending right wing racist zealots to Ukraine to train with real Nazis.
https://consortiumnews.com/2018/11/...raine-neo-nazis-mentor-us-white-supremacists/
Bud would no doubt tell us that there are some 'very fine people' involved.
Signs of desperation from you after you lost that whole Acosta case argument, now that he has a Permanent Pass after the Whitehouse capitulation, and the lawsuit being then subsequently dropped by CNN. Not surprising, but more to come!!
You are really going round in circles as we have discussed Heather's trauma before, and you then have refused to accept the facts. Well you cannot explain that if James Fields' car was not the root cause of her trauma, then how else did she get that trauma that caused her fatal heart attack. So you are saying that she tripped on the curb, fell and that caused the trauma or was beaten up by her fellow demonstrators... goodness knows what else is in that mind of yours??
But maybe you should read this official source, The Journal of Emergencies, Trauma and Shock regarding Blunt Chest trauma:
"Cardiac contusion, usually caused by blunt chest trauma, has been recognized with increased frequency over the past decades. Traffic accidents are the most frequent cause of cardiac contusions resulting from a direct blow to the chest. Other causes of blunt cardiac injury are numerous and include violent fall impacts, interpersonal aggression, explosions, and various types of high-risk sports. Myocardial contusion is difficult to diagnose; clinical presentation varies greatly, ranging from lack of symptoms to cardiogenic shock and arrhythmia. Although death is rare, cardiac contusion can be fatal. We present a case of cardiac contusion due to blunt chest trauma secondary to a fall impact, which manifested as cardiogenic shock."
Hopefully you now understand the whole "Chest Trauma during car accidents:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2966575/
Sad, as you seem to support all the right wing conspiracy websites that are mirroring your argument, although hilarious that you buy it!! But this article has garbaged all the alt right so called "evidence":
https://medium.com/@brandonjosephin...h-on-the-one-year-anniversary-of-b93c251889b3
So, if you cannot comprehend where this case is going, all I can say is that you are the one trolling me, not the other way round. I was not the first one to respond to your post, so go back and see how you tried to defend Dershowitz's ridiculous statements where he was proven to be WRONG. No one else on this board buys your views in this whole affair, so stop trying to be an expert on this case. Now you can stop trolling me!!
That's silly. If Fields rammed other people into Heyer with his car and she died as a result, that's still Murder.
If you fire a bullet at X, but hit Y instead and Y dies, it's still murder even if you intended to kill X.
That's leaving out of the discussion more complex legal ways to commit murder, like "felony murder".
That is why I cannot understand how anyone will come with the notion based on a Conspiracy Theory, that the car that clearly ploughed into all those pedestrians, was not the root cause of one of them who was killed.
No doubt it was intended, and the only case that the defendant's attorney can put up in court, is that the person in question is not mentally fit to stand trial. But little over a week before that case is heard in court!!
Anyone who states that Heyer did not die due to the car ploughing into her, as they believe that she was not in the path of that car, but yet have no explanation as to how she received that blunt chest trauma that caused her fatal heart attack, is living in denial. Apparently, it is very common for pedestrians being killed in traffic accidents from this blunt chest trauma. But useless explaining it to them as they just have those set minds.
That would be correct, if Y is hit by the bullet (covers drive by shooting indiscriminate murders). It is not correct if Y died nearby of other insufficiently proximate causes. Are you really relying on FF to accurately describe what I've been saying about this issue? LOL!
So far, no video shows the car striking Heyer (despite the reporting suggesting otherwise, which is problematic, since that reporting would have to based on the same videos I've seen), and there is no reporting of any account stating that debris or people directly impacted by the crash in turn struck Heyer.
B_H, what happened is that when she was able to see first-hand how many "very fine people" there were on the other side, her heart was filled not only with the joy of learning the amount of amazingly caring, loving and accepting neo-nazis there were, but also so much regret for having previously mischaracterized them. It was all just too much for her loonie libtard heart to deal with.
She'd probably want James Fields to be considered for sainthood.
Back to the heart attack theory.
Just a coincidence that she had a heart attack and it wasn't really a cardiac event triggered by massive trauma to the chest, no, just a coincidence.
Such an idiotic theory.
Speaking of white supremacists, the Proud Boys are now listed as dangerous extremists, like ISIS.
https://boingboing.net/2018/11/19/fbi-describes-proud-boys-a.html
