Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
I would have thought that a lawyer would have had a bit more reading comprehension skills that that. I specifically said, that the various WSJ pieces bring together the various lines of argument and that it is a good place to start. If you are actually interested in seeing the evidence, then you need to go back through the multitude of articles and follow the links in those articles. Some articles are pure opinion pieces and other articles include links to other original stories. If you aren't interested, then why in the world would I ever waste my time doing your work for you?
As far as pure evidence goes, I doubt one will find much evidence one way or the other on the internet, just various people's opinion. I've seen some evidence, such as Job's email to Murdoch (which turned out not to be the smoking gun that some claimed before it came out) or Judge Cote's endorsement letter for Bromwich's confirmation hearing, but not much else. There is evidence that Judge Cote tends to decide winners and losers early in a case, but that evidence is simply lawyers posting reviews of her. There is evidence that it is likely that she wrote much of her opinion before the actual trial actually started. Pass that, what evidence do you expect me to produce and what evidence are you willing/able to produce? After all, it is a two way street.
|
So...you claim to have a ton of evidence, but when specifically challenged you say I should review a citation free WSJ opinion piece and do the research myself? I am interested, or would be if you could present pieces that weren't pure opinion (which are the only two articles you've linked to in this thread from what I can tell).
And I don't know what evidence I would need to produce beyond the court's decision (which I have linked to). I've said that I agree, and you've said you disagree and suggested that Amazon bought the decision somehow and that the court applied some novel theory of law. I can't prove a negative (that there is no shadowy conspiracy, since that's logically impossible).
I've asked for evidence of that, and you've just gotten flustered, linked to more opinion pieces, and then peppered your response with a few comments about how well I perform in my profession. I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate that: (i) the actions of the DOJ were politically motivated; (ii) the court's decision was politically motivated; or (iii) the court's decision was a misapplication of the current state of the law.
It's funny, but whenever directly challenged I notice you seem to go for the misdirection approach. You throw some smoke in the air by citing an opinion piece or intimating some conspiracy, go for an insult, and then use a strawman argument to minimize the argument's of anyone who's disagreeing with you.
Can you just send me the one link you think that has the best piece of evidence (i.e., not an evidence-free, citation-free, opinion piece) that the court's decision was wrong or politically motivated or that Cote wrote the opinion before the trial? If there is no such evidence, that's fine, but don't suggest that you have tons or that it must surely exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwalker8
...To paraphrase Napoleon, the[re] is no need to imply malice when simple incompetence will suffice...
|
I can't tell you how many times I've had that same thought throughout this thread.