The Case For We The People & “The Preponderance Of The Evidence”…

I’m throwing down a radical notion here — a way for We The People to get back what was STOLEN from us — the outcome of Election 2016 that we voted for.

If the Rule Of Law is a “thing” then Donald Trump cannot be POTUS — not the legitimate POTUS. The Rule Of Law says very clearly that you cannot CHEAT and “become POTUS”. If you CHEAT, it DISQUALIFIES your run. You cannot therefore, by definition, “WIN”.

Cheaters cannot “win” — not if the Rule Of Law is operating at full 100% functionality. Therefore, if we accept that 1) Donald Trump & the GOP CHEATED — in ways profoundly ILLEGAL — in order to win election 2016, then 2) Donald Trump & the GOP did not “WIN” election 2016. Their “win” never happened. They STOLE the actual outcome — not in some abstract way — but LITERALLY — from us — from WE THE PEOPLE.

The result we voted for — a more progressive America — was not only denied us, but it’s diametric opposite was, instead, forced down our throats by the very people WHO’D STOLEN THE TRUE RESULT. When someone steals your car — and they catch him — they make him GIVE THE CAR BACK. Because it’s not his — and never was his.

The results of an election can be no different. Just as you cannot reward a car thief with the thing he stole, you cannot reward ELECTION THIEVES with the thing THEY stole — the election’s actual outcome. Even voting them out doesn’t solve the problem because the results of the previous stolen election continue to bear the stolen election’s fruit: legislation the electorate DID NOT WANT and JUDGES the electorate would NEVER have approved of. The will of the people is being violated willfully and repeatedly.

We The People have skin in this game and a dog in the hunt. Legally speaking, we have “standing” to sue Donald Trump & the Republican Party in a CIVIL COURT for damages because they violated our electoral will and STOLE the desired outcome of an American election.

This description of “preponderance of evidence” comes from the Cornell University Law School’s web site: “Preponderance of the evidence is one type of evidentiary standard used in a burden of proof¬†analysis. Under the preponderance standard, the burden of proof is met when the party with the burden convinces the fact finder that there is a greater than 50% chance that the claim is true.¬†This is the burden of proof in a civil trial.

That’s my radical idea. We The People sue Trump & the GOP in civil court. We sue em for a buck cos it ain’t about the money. It’s about getting to the Truth about what they’ve done and what they’ve done TO us. In a civil trial, our burden would be 50% — get past 50% and we win our point and win our case.

Even our gun shy press might catch on (finally) that the smoking gun needed to prove (in a court of civil law) that Trump and the GOP are corrupt to their marrow and traitors on top of it is actually a smoking preponderance of evidence.

Again — the point isn’t money (hell, we’ll go after Trump & every stinking, corrupt Republican separately) — it’s getting back our stolen car. In our case, our stolen election results.

We could use the civil process to leverage our way into the criminal process — by using the civil process (and its discovery) to reveal the full extent of the crime. Having brought vital evidence out into the open, We The People can turn it all over to the criminal courts for prosecution and disposal. Think we the people can’t clear the 50% preponderance hurdle?

Have you read ANY of the evidence we already have? Imagine how easy this will be when we start getting ahold of all the stuff Trump & the Republicans have been clutching to their chests so fearfully.

President Obama was absolutely right when he said — as he left office — that no one would come to save us from this shitshow except us. We The People need to step up right now. We need to see the evidence we already have — understand what it means — and react. Even before the trial gets up to speed, the preponderance of the evidence buries Trump and the Republicans in tons of criminal behavior.

We need to step up and pull the trigger on prosecuting them all. We owe it to ourselves.

Dear American News Media — If You’re Covering Jeffrey Dahmer, You’re Allowed To Call Him “A Cannibal”; If You’re Covering Donald J Trump…

Rules are funny things, aren’t they? Journalism has no “laws” guiding its practices, it has “rules”. Ideals of how journalism is best practiced, its ultimate goal the fair, unbiased reporting of what’s happened, what’s happening — and what’s likely to happen next.

Somewhere along the way, American journalism took that desire for “unbiased” reporting to mean “neutral no matter what”. As in “no matter what that reporting uncovers or reveals”. As in — even if we knew the worst about someone — as we reported their story — we’d still report on them as if they weren’t as horrible as we KNEW them to be.

That’s a strange approach for a storyteller to take. Stories work by building new information upon older information. Learning things is ideally what causes characters in a story to react — and drive the story forward. And yet, our news media — when reporting the story of Donald Trump — seems determined to never begin its reporting with what we know NOW. They keep starting the story with what we knew A WHILE AGO — back before we had hard evidence that took us to what we know NOW.

Trying to tell Trump’s story without STARTING from the very beginning (he’s a corrupt-to-his-core narcissist who’s been in bed with Russia from the beginning and whose criminality isn’t just conjecture, it’s verifiable) makes no sense. Yet that’s what our press does every day. They tell Trump’s story without telling it’s core truth. It’d be like telling the Jeffrey Dahmer story without mentioning “Hey, by the way — Jeff’s a cannibal”.

But, “strangely” (meaning NOT strangely), the press didn’t worry about not being able to “smoking gun” their evidence, without finding his victims’ DNA in Jeffrey Dahmer’s shit, the press was willing to go full cannibal in their reporting on Jeff — well before those were legally verifiable facts…

It wasn’t hard to figure out what was happening at Jeff’s house. The evidence was all over the place. Just like it’s not hard to figure out what’s happening at Donald’s house (formerly The Peoples’ House).

Would our press get squeamish suddenly and refuse to call Jeffrey a cannibal? Would they refer to his “unusual diet” instead — his “keto-on-steroids” choice of animal protein? No — the media went full cannibal the moment they had a whisper of cannibalism. They couldn’t get enough “cannibalism”. They got so obsessed with cannibalism you’d almost think IT was “eating” THEM.

You’d think they’d be equally hungry at the thought of treason. Treason FFS!

There’s a legal term: “the preponderance of the evidence”. It’s a smoking gun’s “get out of jail free” card. Even a smoking gun can get away without a smoking gun if it brings the preponderance of the evidence into play. Yet, our media has it in their heads that either 1) no such “preponderance of the evidence” standard exists (they’re wrong) or 2) their neutrality prohibits them from calling things what they are because calling them what they are would undermine their neutrality. Or something like that…

Jeffrey Dahmer was a cannibal as soon as the press could call him one. Donald Trump might never be a traitor, a money-launderer, a rapist, a con man, a liar, a thief or a traitor because no one the press gives credence to will call him any of those words directly. No smoking gun despite smoke so thick you can’t even see through it.

Maybe THAT’S the problem. Our press doesn’t know that it’s hair is on fire. They don’t know the whole house is aflame all around them either.

Shame… as assuredly as Jeff Dahmer chowed down on the people he lured into his apartment for comfort — to keep him company, Donald Trump will gobble up the news media (as he always does). The media won’t know it’s happened until well after Trump starts farting and shitting them out.

Our new media… they’re always the last to know anything.

Why Our Main Stream News Media Sucks – “Benefit Of The Doubt” Edition

The most frustrating words to tumble from any reporter’s mouth is “Yeah, but what if…?” because what always follows is that reporter giving someone or something the benefit of the doubt it almost assuredly doesn’t deserve.

MSNBC’s Stephanie Ruhl is a talented financial reporter. But her great still set constantly gets compromised by an incessant compulsion to ask “But,, what if…?” questions — the kind that ask “But, what if Hitler had liked Jews instead of hating them?” Great abstract question. Who gives a shit – it’s never going to happen! Ever. To even think of it would be a profound waste of time.

Every single day, Donald Trump does something that an American president should never do. He says something that a grown up should never say. He commits crimes, violates long-standing norms, openly betrays the country — hell, part of the running joke we’re all in on is the idea that Donald Trump does something bad, wrong or illegal every day. In a courtroom, this would be called “Preponderance Of Evidence”.

Think of it as a connect the dots picture like this one…

The preponderance of the available evidence says “It’s an elephant”. But, as the dots aren’t actually connected — and the elephant completely revealed — I guess one could think the picture could be something else but considering the preponderance of the evidence, you’d have to be a moron to go there. Seriously — a moron. It’s not a picture of anything else and was never going to be a picture of anything else. To ask “But, what if it’s a picture of a whale?” would be stupid. If we were to engage with you and your question, we’d have to point out how all the evidence points to the picture being an elephant.

Wasted time, wasted energy, wasted everything. That’s what happens when you give the benefit of the doubt to things that do not deserve any such benefit. And yet — every day, as you report on Donald Trump — you give him the benefit of the doubt. As if maybe he isn’t a racist… or a misogynist… or a corrupt criminal… or a traitor.

No, no, no, you surely think — “I’m just being objective”. Fair enough. Objectivity is essential to good journalism. Objectivity is perspective. But having perspective means you DON’T have to entertain things that your perspective deems unworthy. And having perspective means you KNOW there are plenty of things unworthy — of your time, your energy, your “but, what if…?” questions.

“But, what if…?” is not journalism. It’s you (or a journalist like you) being foolish and credulous. It’s you trading in your skepticism for a steno pad.

But, what if our country really isn’t facing an existential crisis because the president and his political party sold us out for money, power and permanent minority rule?

Connect the dots, damn it. Even simpler — Connect THE dot…