Current Events > Judge Says DOJ Appears to Have Violated Luigi Mangione's Right to a Fair Trial

(+) Yeah! (+)

LightSnake posted...

The DOJ is bringing the case!

And I said

The DoJ Nationally said he was guilty before the trial happened. Having a retrial doesn't reset this

You understand the judge's remedy has not, thus far, been "Dismissed with Prejudice," it's "Knock it off," right?

"Lol, we can troll bondi into provoking the judge!"

You really have an overinflated opinion of how much you can achieve things, especially as Bondi hasn't been personally overstepping many lines. She's malicious but she's not a total idiot.

Oh, and if prosecutors couldn't say someone was guilty before a trial happened? That would be a real problem for their jobs.

LightSnake posted...

Oh, and if prosecutors couldn't say someone was guilty before a trial happened?

Opening statements are gonna be fraught.

WingsOfGood posted...

And I said

The DoJ Nationally said he was guilty before the trial happened. Having a retrial doesn't reset this

Literally every criminal case that ever happens involves the prosecutor claiming someone is guilty before trial.

In most cases, they even get an opening argument to claim this! There are limits to this, and the current DOJ is crossing them. Please stop spreading misinformation

DrizztLink posted...

Opening statements are gonna be fraught.

"Your honor, sitting before us is a man guilty of cold blooded murder!"

"OBJECTION, he's making a comment about guilt before we've even had the trial!"

"I've warned you before, Mr. Prosecutor! This charging document clearly created undue prejudice. Case dismissed!"

This is how Wings thinks shit works, apparently. The issue isn't "they said he was guilty," it's that their endlessly tweeting shit in public far beyond the normal confines of the job.

EPR-radar posted...

I cannot believe that anyone could misunderstand something so badly. Surely this is willful.

Of course a Federal indictment is "the DOJ" asserting that the person charges is guilty.

And of course "the DOJ" is not allowed to make public statements in addition to the indictment that could taint the jury pool. Trump's DOJ under Bondi clown-shoes is busily fucking up on this point and pissing off the judge.

This shit is not difficult.

I think you are right here

I never argued they cannot bring Indictment I only argued the latter was done

Now I wasn't sure if it was Bondi who did it and that is why I asked and he ignored it. Seems I was partially right there as she spoke before the indictment

But I was clear on the attorney general part being muddy to me. Acting like me not completely grasping AG is a gotcha is hilarious. I literally stated that.

Which again I argued the judge not me the judge saw a violation, someone did it, who?

Well oddly it was also Bondi

Which is probably why he refused to answer

LightSnake posted...

You understand the judge's remedy has not, thus far, been "Dismissed with Prejudice," it's "Knock it off," right?

"Lol, we can troll bondi into provoking the judge!"

You really have an overinflated opinion of how much you can achieve things, especially as Bondi hasn't been personally overstepping many lines. She's malicious but she's not a total idiot.

Oh, and if prosecutors couldn't say someone was guilty before a trial happened? That would be a real problem for their jobs.

Ok?
That is an opinion

Noted

Alright, because Wings is apparently not fucking capable of reading a public order, I'll highlight the relevant portions for him:

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/3/3a264ad0.png
"Two high ranking staff members" is not "BONDI DID IT!"

Because I am extra tired of Wings' squealong that he thinks there's a point:

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/3/3ac68607.jpg

None of this is unclear. That you are only, TODAY, learning how an AG's office works, yet trying to speak with any sort of authority is absolutely embarrassing to you.

"LOL he won't respond with-"

Me: Read the order.

Wings: Constantly refuses to do so.

Yeah, apparently my mistake was expecting you to do a scintilla of actual research and read something at the source while I was at the doctor's. Even though the Judge answered very clearly who they were referring to without naming them. But you go on thinking you can bait the AG into, I dunno, getting herself sanctioned or whatever.

I figure I'd answer the question "who are they talking about"

On September 19, the deputy director of the Department of Justice Office of Public Affairs reposted a clip of President Donald Trump saying that Mangione shot someone in the back as clear as youre looking at mehe shot him right in the middle of the back instantly dead The DOJ staffer wrote, @POTUS is absolutely right. The chief of staff and associate deputy attorney general retweeted the same post. The original post was later deleted.

I am not sure who the deputy director is, but it's obviously not Pam Bondi.

The Deputy Attorney General is Todd Blanche but not sure which one of the associates is responsible here.

The chief of staff is Chad Mizelle

So maybe someone else can point it out to me but I don't think the judge is warning the DoJ over anything Pam Bondi has done. More specifically what she's not doing i.e. "keep your fucking employees from running their mouths on social media."

Tyranthraxus posted...

I figure I'd answer the question "who are they talking about"

I am not sure who the deputy director is, but it's obviously not Pam Bondi.

The Deputy Attorney General is Todd Blanche but not sure which one of the associates is responsible here.

The chief of staff is Chad Mizelle

So maybe someone else can point it out to me but I don't think the judge is warning the DoJ over anything Pam Bondi has done. More specifically what she's not doing i.e. "keep your fucking employees from running their mouths on social media."

it's literally this. The order is "get a fucking lid on it, and be ready to tell the Court how this happened and what you're doing to stop it from happening again."

I think you enjoy it LS.

Easy way to respond to me, let me show you.

WingsOfGood posted...

DoJ Nationally was Pam Bondi

is she the prosecutions lawyer in this case?

redoing the trial doesn't negate that literally Pam Bondi and others who aren't even involved in this case already said he is guilty when the trial has not found that to be so

this is NOT something people like her are legally able to say nor has there been in the past where the head of the DoJ speaks like that on active cases

and if I am wrong here in who the non-lawyers are then who was it?
who is the judge talking about

the judge says somebody at the DoJ is saying he is guilty and they legally cannot do that

is she the prosecutions lawyer in this case?

you just answer the question and explain why that is the answer, if I feel like it doesn't sound right I would go an look it up, if you are correct then my research would coincide

and again I was open at the VERY start of maybe it wasn't Pam Bondi as note in the quote block above

and if I am wrong here in who the non-lawyers are then who was it?
who is the judge talking about

the judge says somebody at the DoJ is saying he is guilty and they legally cannot do that

Here you go, no they were not talking about Pam Bondi, the non-lawyers were blah blah blah and so and so

yes, the judge says somebody at the DoJ did say that and they were blah blah blah

Instead you go

LightSnake posted...

Do you understand how this is different than what you initially said?

so then I ask again

WHO

at the DoJ

violated this?
-----------------------------

the above that line was my response but again not answered till now

now maybe it wasn't Bondi, I am not sure this is clearing her it is just saying at least two have but maybe it does clear her and then yes I was wrong to say it was her

but that still doesn't negate the initial statement where I said:
The DoJ Nationally said he was guilty before the trial happened

this statement is obviously fact, as if it were not fact the DoJ would not be warned to stop doing this

unless you would in that case argue the judge was wrong to give such a warning
so honestly not sure why we got into this argument as you yourself said the DoJ was warned and the DoJ is who brings the case

WingsOfGood posted...

I think you enjoy it LS.

Easy way to respond to me, let me show you.

you just answer the question and explain why that is the answer, if I feel like it doesn't sound right I would go an look it up, if you are correct then my research would coincide

You mean you'll use AI.

Which, now that I think about it, honestly explains a lot about how you process information and learn things.

and again I was open at the VERY start of maybe it wasn't Pam Bondi as note in the quote block above

Here you go, no they were not talking about Pam Bondi, the non-lawyers were blah blah blah and so and so

Why are you so obsessed with Pam Bondi in this?

yes, the judge says somebody at the DoJ did say that and they were blah blah blah

Instead you go

so then I ask again

WHO

at the DoJ

And I said "read the order, it's in there."

Something you repeatedly refused to do. Because the order says "two staffers at the DOJ."

violated this?
-----------------------------

the above that line was my response but again not answered till now

now maybe it wasn't Bondi, I am not sure this is clearing her it is just saying at least two have but maybe it does clear her and then yes I was wrong to say it was her

"MAYBE IT'S NOT BONDI!"

Bro, it says "two staffers," the Attorney General isn't a staffer, high ranking or otherwise

but that still doesn't negate the initial statement where I said:
The DoJ Nationally said he was guilty before the trial happened

Yeah, as every prosecutor says about every defendant.

this statement is obviously fact, as if it were not fact the DoJ would not be warned to stop doing this

unless you would in that case argue the judge was wrong to give such a warning
so honestly not sure why we got into this argument as you yourself said the DoJ was warned and the DoJ is who brings the case

You keep asking stupid shit like "IS SHE THE PROSECUTING LAWYER!?" and ignoring the answer: Yes she is, because she's the AG. The Attorney general is, by definition, the prosecuting lawyer and everything in the case is filed and done in her name. The reason the "office" exists is that her deputies are empowered to act in her name. She can step in and prosecute the case personally, or designate a subordinate (who can also designate a subordinate) to do it.

The judge said very clearly who they were warning and why. And what's happening and why. You refuse to accept it because....

I have no idea why this is so hard for you, tbh. DOJ attorneys/officials can, have, and are allowed to go on TV and claim a defendant is guilty, even before a trial. They can even discuss facts of the case within reasonable limits.

Those staffers' tweets were not within those reasonable limits, ergo the judge is mad and telling them to get their house in order. What about this is so difficult for you?

You have been so weirdly invested in the idea that the judge is warning Bondi personally, despite this not being reflected anywhere in the order, like it would mean literally anything. You are bizarrely invested in this for reasons not even you can adequately explain. It is, to put it mildly, making this come off as completely unhinged. Made all the moreso by your repeated and continued refusal to just read the order and your insistence a sitting Attorney General is not a prosecuting attorney on a case handled by her office.

WingsOfGood posted...

WHO

at the DoJ

violated this?

It appears that multiple employees at the Department of Justice may have violated Local Criminal Rule 23.1, and this Courts order of April 25, 2025

WHO?
WHO is the judge referring to

again if it is not BONDI then my mistake but please tell me who YOU think it is

Bondi's public comments were at the beginning of April. They may have violated the rule and seem to be part of the judge's reason for the order later that month, on the 25th.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/2/26bdc8b8.jpg

The judge mentioned Bondi again in her order from September, but focused more on the additional violations by her subordinates after her initial order.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/d/dbabbfed.jpg

Here are the links to the actual documents.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.640793/gov.uscourts.nysd.640793.27.0.pdf

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.640793/gov.uscourts.nysd.640793.53.0.pdf

Strand posted...

Bondi's public comments were at the beginning of April. They may have violated the rule and seem to be part of the judge's reason for the order later that month, on the 25th.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/2/26bdc8b8.jpg

The judge mentioned Bondi again in her order from September, but focused more on the additional violations after by her subordinates after her initial order.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/d/dbabbfed.jpg

Here are the links to the actual documents.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.640793/gov.uscourts.nysd.640793.27.0.pdf

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.640793/gov.uscourts.nysd.640793.53.0.pdf

thanks

LightSnake posted...

I have no idea why this is so hard for you, tbh. DOJ attorneys/officials can, have, and are allowed to go on TV and claim a defendant is guilty, even before a trial.

can you explain this line from the newsweek article?

It is not the first time a Manhattan federal judge has rebuked prosecutors for public statements. In 2015, Judge Valerie Caproni sharply criticized then-U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara for a press campaign surrounding the corruption case against former New York Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver. Caproni said Bharara came so close to the edge of the rules governing his own conduct that Silver had a legitimate claim the publicity was prejudicial.

old article about it

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/matthewzeitlin/judge-scolds-us-attorney-preet-bharara-over-speeches-and-twe

U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara was scolded by a federal judge today for his comments to the press and his office's tweets in the aftermath of the arrest of former New York state Assembly speaker Sheldon Silver. The embattled longtime Assembly leader had requested that his indictment be dismissed because of Bharara's comments, which his attorneys described as prejudicial, but the case will go on despite the judge's criticism.
"The U.S. Attorney ... strayed so close to the edge of the rules governing his own conduct that Defendant Sheldon Silver has a non-frivolous argument that he fell over the edge to the Defendant's prejudice," U.S. District Judge Valerie Caproni said in an opinion released Friday afternoon.
Caproni described Bharara's actions following the arrest including a press conference, a speech given at New York Law School, and an interview with MSNBC two weeks later as a "media blitz orchestrated by the U.S. Attorney's Office," and "brinksmanship relative to the Defendant's fair trial rights."
Caproni refused to throw the case out, saying there is "no evidence that the U.S. Attorney's comments 'substantial[ly] influenced' the grand jury's decision to indict." Bharara's public comments had, however, drawn criticism in the legal community.
The judge said that some of Bharara's comments at the press conference "could reasonably have been interpreted to reflect the U.S. Attorney's personal views as to Silver's character or guilt with respect to the charges filed against him," including when Bharara said "the greedy art of secret self-reward was practiced with particular cleverness and cynicism by the Speaker himself."

So the Attorney General cannot do this right?

The judge said that some of Bharara's comments at the press conference "could reasonably have been interpreted to reflect the U.S. Attorney's personal views as to Silver's character or guilt with respect to the charges filed against him

hmm this guy is a lawyer who teaches law

not sure, is he right?

Pace University law professor Bennett Gershman wrote in an article for Slate that Bharara had "vilified Silver's character and proclaimed his guilt" and that Bharara had "appear[ed] to violate" rules that limit comments prosecutors can make in public about a defendant. While prosecutors can explain the charges against someone, Gershman argued, "the rules prohibit a prosecutor from making subjective statements that assail the character of a defendant or from insinuating opinions about the defendant's guilt."

was wondering why this topic was blowing up but i see it's wing being wing again huh

Pace University law professor Bennett Gershman wrote in an article for Slate that Bharara had "vilified Silver's character and proclaimed his guilt" and that Bharara had "appear[ed] to violate" rules that limit comments prosecutors can make in public about a defendant. While prosecutors can explain the charges against someone, Gershman argued, "the rules prohibit a prosecutor from making subjective statements that assail the character of a defendant or from insinuating opinions about the defendant's guilt."

Read the bolded.

Now read the statement I had previously posted:

There are limits to this, and the current DOJ is crossing them

They can discuss certain facts. Impugning character and indicating personal views is a different story.

Oh, hey, and you mean Bharara gave a press conference to discuss a case? You think that was the only time he did it and that it was the first time he'd done so?

Also

While prosecutors can explain the charges against someone

you literally posted what I have been saying! They are completely allowed to explain charges and say they're justified and will prove them!

gikos posted...

was wondering why this topic was blowing up but i see it's wing being wing again huh

I have never met someone on this board who absolutely refuses to accept information the way Wing does.

LightSnake posted...

I have never met someone on this board who absolutely refuses to accept information the way Wing does.

reminds of different equations level of obtuse and how dug in he gets anytime people point out he is wrong

LightSnake posted...

I have never met someone on this board who absolutely refuses to accept information the way Wing does.

Na man, he just lives rent free in your head :)

gikos posted...

reminds of different equations level of obtuse and how dug in he gets anytime people point out he is wrong

The idea that prosecutors can comment on something within certain limits is something he literally simply cannot seem to understand. It's absolutely baffling to me as his investment in Bondi being personally responsible.

Sandalorn posted...

Na man, he just lives rent free in your head :)

The funny part is I had to take him off ignore because he kept tagging me and it was the only way I could keep it off my notifications

LightSnake posted...

Yeah, they are indeed sending out their personal opinions, which is beyond a professional capacity.

you are simply wrong and dont understand the order or the rule. There is a difference between personal opinion and what a prosecution office does as a matter of course.

the issue is you constantly spread misinformation. From no expertise. As you are doing here. You do not understand the difference between a prosecutors office declaring their case and employees acting in a personal capacity. A very important distinction.

prosecutors go on to discuss guilt literally all the time when they believe they have a case j a professional capacity.

I think the issue is you were stating she could hold a press conference and it would be ok

but she did do that and in said conference she stated personal opinions

she described as a premeditated, cold-blooded assassination that shocked America.

So I could not understand why you thought this was done before and why I asked for examples. When I looked up Barr he did not do this on that interview. He held a presumption of guilt back infact saying things like "if they were involved, then yes"

rather than THEY ARE AN ASSASSIN!!

or to be clear may I ask, are those words ok for Bondi to state? I would assume you think no as you said the DoJ overstepped the line here but one can never be sure or CEmen start foaming about putting words in their mouths

LightSnake posted...

The funny part is I had to take him off ignore because he kept tagging me and it was the only way I could keep it off my notifications

I literally only tagged you one time....

Me at the beginning of this topic thinking they couldnt argue about the same shit for 127 posts. What a silly bitch I am.

MotaroRIP619 posted...

Me at the beginning of this topic thinking they couldnt argue about the same shit for 127 posts. What a silly bitch I am.

In the absence of right wing nut jobs, other kinds of tire fire must evidently occur.

In fairness though, some of this nonsense is a lawyer and a non-lawyer using the same language in completely different ways.

WingsOfGood posted...

I think the issue is you were stating she could hold a press conference and it would be ok

but she did do that and in said conference she stated personal opinions

So I could not understand why you thought this was done before and why I asked for examples. When I looked up Barr he did not do this on that interview. He held a presumption of guilt back infact saying things like "if they were involved, then yes"

rather than THEY ARE AN ASSASSIN!!

or to be clear may I ask, are those words ok for Bondi to state? I would assume you think no as you said the DoJ overstepped the line here but one can never be sure or CEmen start foaming about putting words in their mouths

Yes, they are. She referred to the crime itself. She did not, in what you just cited, mention an opinion on the perpetrator. You can totally say "This murder was horrible!" Prosecutors do it all the time

This is not hard.

LightSnake posted...

Yes, they are. She referred to the crime itself. She did not, in what you just cited, mention an opinion on the perpetrator.

This is not hard.

She went beyond discussing the charges. The defense explicitly cited this, in addition to her comments on Instagram and on Fox, in their motion on April 11th, leading to the judge naming Bondi in her April 25th order about public commentary that could violate Rule 23.1.
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/d/dfe63260.jpg

LightSnake posted...

She referred to the crime itself

calling someone an assassin would imply they are highly trained and most likely paid or directed by someone or a group of people

I fail to see how this refers to the crime itself

it is not the same as saying he is clearly a killer and planned it all etc as an argument

but then if you think that is ok then what must have Bharara said that was concluded as his personal views and opinion? Would you happen to know that?

WingsOfGood posted...

calling someone an assassin would imply they are highly trained and most likely paid or directed by someone or a group of people

That is absolutely not the implication. People called that cluster fuck of a person who shot at Ronald Reagan an assassin.

No, dude, she's calling the crime "an assassination." She did not call Luigi "an assassin."

"Assassination" refers to an event. Nobody disputes there was a killing and it does not impy someone is highly trained. John Hinckley was an attempted assassin.

Bharara, btw, stated "politicians are supposed to be on the peoples payroll, not on secret retainer to wealthy special interests they do favors for." The judge refused to dismiss the case, still.

is Wing being Wing again

Much of the tire fire in this topic seems to follow from the all-too-common confusion between facts and opinions. Such confusion is easy to understand, since the legal system is one of the only US institutions that preserves this distinction, to its credit, while virtually every other institution in the country, especially in media and politics, does everything they can to erase this distinction.

So here's a hypothetical press release/press conference or the like from a prosecutor, with individual statements tagged.

A: "Our office has charged X with the murder of Y as detailed in the indictment."

B: "We intend to prove this case to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt in a fair trial."

C: "Of course, X really is guilty."

D: "In fact, their guilt is so obvious that this fair trial is a waste of time and money that could be better spent elsewhere, but we have to follow the rules".

E: "Let just take this guilty-as-hell SOB out back and shoot him."

A here is a fact. C, D, E are opinions, varying in how outrageous they are. B is a statement of intent that is almost surely permissible (but IANAL).

Because most people are stupid and easily led, the legal system seeks to prevent the jury pool being tainted by prejudicial statements of opinion from authority figures. So C, D, E here are all forbidden.

EPR-radar posted...

Much of the tire fire in this topic seems to follow from the all-too-common confusion between facts and opinions. Such confusion is easy to understand, since the legal system is one of the only US institutions that preserves this distinction, to its credit, while virtually every other institution in the country, especially in media and politics, does everything they can to erase this distinction.

So here's a hypothetical press release/press conference or the like from a prosecutor, with individual statements tagged.

A: "Our office has charged X with the murder of Y as detailed in the indictment."

B: "We intend to prove this case to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt in a fair trial."

C: "Of course, X really is guilty."

D: "In fact, their guilt is so obvious that this fair trial is a waste of time and money that could be better spent elsewhere, but we have to follow the rules".

E: "Let just take this guilty-as-hell SOB out back and shoot him."

A here is a fact. C, D, E are opinions, varying in how outrageous they are. B is a statement of intent that is almost surely permissible (but IANAL).

Because most people are stupid and easily led, the legal system seeks to prevent the jury pool being tainted by prejudicial statements of opinion from authority figures. So C, D, E here are all forbidden.

That is how I would understand it

which again goes back to the law professor statement:

Pace University law professor Bennett Gershman wrote in an article for Slate that Bharara had "vilified Silver's character and proclaimed his guilt" and that Bharara had "appear[ed] to violate" rules that limit comments prosecutors can make in public about a defendant. While prosecutors can explain the charges against someone, Gershman argued, "the rules prohibit a prosecutor from making subjective statements that assail the character of a defendant or from insinuatingopinions about the defendant's guilt."

So my assumption was claiming guilt is not something she could do

as you said in your example C "Of course, X really is guilty."

WingsOfGood posted...

The DoJ Nationally said he was guilty before the trial happened. Having a retrial doesn't reset this

LightSnake posted...

The DOJ always says they think someone is guilty before a trial happens.

perhaps the part here that was missed is think someone

I did not say think I said stated he was

WingsOfGood posted...

pretty sure she goes on Foxnews and says he is guilty etc, is that not personal opinion?

and btw I thought I was pretty clear about it too

if she didn't actually do that my bad, but the assumption is she isn't supposed to and can't do that which was the argument anyways

the argument was never an argument

it was you reading something that wasn't there to begin with and then going crazy about it

ConfusedTorchic posted...

the argument was never an argument

it was you reading something that wasn't there to begin with and then going crazy about it

sigh literally the a.i. aligns with what EPR said

if he is correct LS literally argued against it and said that was wrong

WingsOfGood posted...

As U.S. Attorney General, Pam Bondi is not permitted to declare individuals guilty of crimes before a conviction has been reached in court. Publicly stating a person's guilt is a violation of Department of Justice (DOJ) guidelines and ethical standards for federal law enforcement and is considered an abuse of power. Her comments have recently drawn significant public and legal scrutiny.

literal reply to this

LightSnake said

the DOJ is indeed allowed to declare someone is guilty. There would never be trials otherwise.

there are rules governing what they can say and how they proceed. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

Again what is: declaring someone guilty?

an indictment is NOT that

going on Foxnews and saying he is fucking guiilty IS that and I proposed that scenario

assuming EPR is correct

EPR-radar posted...

C: "Of course, X really is guilty."

like I think you guys get a sick enjoyment out of trying to gaslight me

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/9/9982fbd1.jpg

I LITERALLY said

do they (the Attorney General) state guilt or do they just say what they are seeking to charge

and he kept arguing with me

What was I asking here?
do they say:

A: "Our office has charged X with the murder of Y as detailed in the indictment."
B: "We intend to prove this case to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt in a fair trial."
or
C: "Of course, X really is guilty."

it was obvious

He will never stop folks. He doesn't have it in him. He will argue while being wrong until the sun burns out.

Sandalorn posted...

He will never stop folks. He doesn't have it in him. He will argue while being wrong until the sun burns out.

Literally using AI on this.

They are allowed to state they believe XYZ is guilty, that their facts allege, etc, that they will prove the indictment in court. It is a very simply concept and somehow Wings cannot grasp it.

And he's shrieking her saying "Brian Thompson's death was an assassination" is implying Luigi is like a trained killer. Just...there is no value in discussing anything with him

LightSnake posted...

Literally using AI on this.

They are allowed to state they believe XYZ is guilty, that their facts allege, etc, that they will prove the indictment in court. It is a very simply concept and somehow Wings cannot grasp it.

And he's shrieking her saying "Brian Thompson's death was an assassination" is implying Luigi is like a trained killer. Just...there is no value in discussing anything with him

Do you disagree with EPR?

LightSnake posted...

I have never met someone on this board who absolutely refuses to accept information the way Wing does.

Have you tried formatting your posts like an AI overview?

WingsOfGood posted...

sigh literally the a.i. aligns

stop using A.I they suck and most of the shit they spite out is garbage nonsense

Sandalorn posted...

He will never stop folks. He doesn't have it in him. He will argue while being wrong until the sun burns out.

pretty much
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/forum/4/4c806b3e.jpg
wing this advice is for you

WingsOfGood posted...

Do you disagree with EPR?

I can discuss things with EPR, who I believe is an intelligent poster.

I have a very hard time discussing things with you, because you combine a complete lack of knowledge with an aversion to education

LightSnake posted...

I can discuss things with EPR, who I believe is an intelligent poster.

I have a very hard time discussing things with you, because you combine a complete lack of knowledge with an aversion to education

no it is because you want me to be wrong so even though I said what EPR said you ignored it

even when I posted a.i. and a law professor who said the same you ignored it

which is what I figured

you do indeed understand what I been arguing which EPR stated

C: "Of course, X really is guilty."

Because most people are stupid and easily led, the legal system seeks to prevent the jury pool being tainted by prejudicial statements of opinion from authority figures. So C, D, E here are all forbidden.

yet despite you knowing this is true and it being very clear now you still try to weasel your way out of it

saying for example

LightSnake posted...

They are allowed to state they believe XYZ is guilty

but you don't actually mean that, you mean they can state
A: "Our office has charged X with the murder of Y as detailed in the indictment."

but not

C: "Of course, X really is guilty."

therefore you enjoy this

Wings, I'm not gonna engage you trying to rely on better informed protesters to make your argument for you. Use your own words, if AI hasn't robbed you of that capacity

Metal_Gear_Raxis posted...

They were so determined to make an example of him that they might genuinely botch what would have been a layup for the prosecution on procedural grounds.

Never underestimate the ability of Taco's administration to fuck up even the simplest of things.