woodguru

The popular BELIEF (I emphasize that word because beliefs by definition have little to do with facts) pertaining to bias is that because someone has an opinion about someone, their actions cannot be trusted. That is dead wrong except for people who believe this to be true.

The biased person believes that people who don't support a position or law must be biased the other way. They cannot see that there are positions of justice that have to remove their personal feelings about an issue and rule in favor of fairness and the law.

So what does the biased person see as the fair thing if they happen to think that because a prosecutor h**es and despises someone they can't get a fair shake? They of course want someone who supports the person in question, who will go the other way.

Now what if the person is guilty as charged, evidence supports that, but the judge or investigation likes the person so they choose to ignore the evidence?

It's actually easier to see bias than people think, it's easier to see obstruction than people think. Flynn getting persecuted by a biased and r****d system? Bulls**t, he was communicating with Russia and helping facilitate lifting sanctions. Was Trump involved with money laundering? Of course he was, it doesn't take prosecutors and investigators planting evidence and making f**e news when the facts are what they are.

Common sense says that if Trump buys a dog of a mansion that needs tens of millions in renovation for $45 million (where did the money come from when no US bank would touch him?), sits on it (not good real estate strategy), and a Russian who is known to be stealing billions of dollars from Russia buys it for over twice what Trump paid only to tear it down, and 100% of the proceeds go directly to the foreign offshore bank that made the loan in the first place, that fits the profile of how money laundering works.

Only the biased mind could possibly go to thinking this was a setup, it was r****d, these people have it in for Trump, it's the deep state who h**e him. Facts are facts, and when there isn't any alternative set of paper trail facts you are left with calling this duck money laundering.

Add to that dozens of things that fit the pattern and it's impossibly weird to defend a crook against the facts and evidence.

Unfortunately there is a biased side, nothing means anything except winning, and the other side is at a disadvantage by playing by the rules, as evidenced by Obama's supreme court nomination being refused for a year. A good judge can have right or left personal views, but when a case sits before them they will rule against a conservative case if that's where the law takes them, they will go for it only if the law supports it. There is no "I know that person't guilty" so they swing the case in favor of the prosecution. If the prosecution can't make their case the criminal goes free. If a cop made a mistake and shoots an unarmed person he gets charged for wh**ever applies. Cops don't get free passes, criminals don't get prosecuted if there is no case. Presidents do not get free passes if they have broken the law, and those who put them in office don't get to say they don't care what the president has done.

Biased defenses start with the attitude that there's nothing there, it's f**e news, and when the evidence comes out it becomes "well who cares?"