USA 2020 Elections: Thread

[grarpamp]

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palmer_Report
>
> The Palmer Report is an American liberal[2] fake news website,[3]
> founded in 2016 by Bill Palmer.[4] It is known for making
> unsubstantiated or false claims,[5] producing hyperpartisan
> content,[6] and publishing conspiracy theories,[7][8] especially on
> matters relating to Donald Trump and Russia.[14] Fact-checkers have
> debunked numerous Palmer Report stories, and organizations including
> the Columbia Journalism Review and the German Marshall Fund have
> listed the site among biased websites or false content
> producers.[15][16]

Along with Bill Palmer, two more longtime frauds and residents on
the list of fake newsies... Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe,
and disgraced CNN host Brian Stelter.

https://jonathanturley.org/2022/08/19/tribe-the-criminal-case-against-trump-is-another-slam-bunk/
https://jonathanturley.org/2022/01/06/what-ever-happened-to-the-prosecution-of-donald-trump-for-incitement/

We have discussed the litany of “slam dunk” crimes that Harvard Law
professor Laurence Tribe has declared as established against former
President Donald Trump, none of which have been actually charged.

While some of us have suggested that we wait to see the actual
evidence before evaluating the risk in the case, Tribe again is
confident that the still uncharged case has already been made.

Just last month, Tribe declared Trump clearly guilty of the attempted
murder of Vice President Mike Pence on January 6, 2021.

It is a curious thing that none of these prior “proven” crimes have
been charged.

Now, without an indictment or the public disclosure of actual evidence
beyond the inventory list, Tribe sees no reason to wait for proof.

Tribe argues against the release of any of the affidavit.

Tribe also insisted that any release would “violate important rules on
grand jury secrecy.”

Tribe added that ” this man  . . . I was going to call him ‘traitor’
but that is not quite right it is not treason.”

It has been the signature of much of the legal analysis in the last
six years. Yet, it would be useful. . .  just once . . . if only for
appearances . . . to start with the release of actual evidence before
discussing slam dunk convictions.