is there any evidence for Mayor Adams being corrupt?

Author: WyIted
corrupt
evidence
Adams
mayor

Posts

Total: 25
Topic's author
#1
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 6,881
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
I started digging into the Mayor Adams case to see if the extremely suspicious timing of his prosecution was politically motivated 

Let's just say that officials should not just avoid politically motivated prosecutions but avoid any appearance of such a thing given the importance of institutional trust. However I decided to dig in, to see if the prosecutors offered any evidence to show the public. Other prosecutors do. We know for a fact Bryan Kohlberger has evidence tying him to his crimes. We know for a fact that Luigi Mangione (PBUH) has evidence tying him to the crimes he is accused of. 

So it isn't the policy of prosecutors to hold back evidence. So why have we seen zero evidence tying Adams to his supposed crimes.

Well we know the following syllogism is true 

P1 prosecutors show evidence to the public of a crime when they are confident it is true 

p2- we have seen zero evidence of Mayor Adams guilt (suspiciously)

C1- Mayor Adams is innocent


Topic's author
#2
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 6,881
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
Also if you know any lawyers in real life please try to get them to comment on this because I want to understand why the prosecution would hide evidence when other high profile cases they trip over themselves to provide it.
#3
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@WyIted
He was against illegal invasions, so they weaponized the justice dept to get him.

All it takes is an indictment for the Governor to remove him, and evidence isn't necessary.

We are talking about New York where it's normal to convict someone of a felony for an unspecified crime.
#4
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,156
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@WyIted
Trump ordered the Justice Department to drop charges because he believes fellow corrupt grifters belong in his administration, not in jail.


Topic's author
#5
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 6,881
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Sidewalker
That's fair but he was only charged with corrupt after criticizing Biden and zero proof was given. 

If you are on a jury would you convict with zero evidence?
#6
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,156
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@WyIted
That's fair but he was only charged with corrupt after criticizing Biden and zero proof was given. 

If you are on a jury would you convict with zero evidence?
Nonsense, there is a truckload of evidence, coconspirators have plead guilty, and Trump is probably implicated in some of the crimes.  He ordered the Justice Department to drop the charges as a trade for help with his deportation plans, and they reserved the right to reindict him if he doesn't do what he's told.

You don't even think he's clean, you just see this as an opportunity to slam the opposition again, blah blah blah.

You MAGA guys have no credibility whatsoever, and you are just boring the shit out of everyone with your contrived conspiracy BS.
#7
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Sidewalker
Lol, zero people will believe your far-left media outlets sat on incriminating evidence against Adams or Trump.

That would be an unbelievable conspiracy theory.
#8
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,498
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@WyIted
Well we know the following syllogism is true 

P1 prosecutors show evidence to the public of a crime when they are confident it is true 

p2- we have seen zero evidence of Mayor Adams guilt (suspiciously)

C1- Mayor Adams is innocent
P1 is false. Prosecutors have no obligation to provide evidence to the public until the trial. This is just one big argument from ignorance.

I think from the standpoint of any reasonable person not entrenched in politics, we know that prosecutors do not like to bring charges unless they believe they can prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, so the idea that they would being charges without *any* evidence is pretty damn weak. We also know that numerous prosecutors, including some pretty hardcore right wing prosecutors resigned in protest over this so it is again, inconceivable that they did so over having no evidence.

We also know that the Trump administration is refusing to dismiss the case entirely so they could always bring it up later, as in, if Adams does not comply with Trump's immigration initiatives. So the motive for all of this is clear.

How anyone could conclude that the prosecutors who resigned in protest are the bad guys is beyond rational comprehension.
#9
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
How anyone could conclude that the prosecutors who resigned in protest are the bad guys is beyond rational comprehension.

Because the fake news industry doesn't have the evidence either. Resigning ensures these people will have jobs in the fake news industry.
#10
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,156
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol, zero people will believe your far-left media outlets sat on incriminating evidence against Adams or Trump.

That would be an unbelievable conspiracy theory.
LOL, oh yeah, I forgot that what prosecutors do is publish all their evidence on the internet as soon as the indictment is opened, 

I mean, they must follow internet conspiracy etiquette if they are serious, if they don't make sure all the conspiracy websites can publish, why even bring charges, what's the point?

They haven't even provided the names, addresses, and phone numbers of all the informants and witnesses, obviously they must not really even have a case.

Clearly, it's the deep state, witch hunt, and everything.
#11
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,156
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Double_R
beyond rational comprehension.
Is that supposed to be a joke?

You are talking with Wylted and Greyparrot, you'd have a better chance of "rational comprehension" if you debate my dog.
#12
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Sidewalker
 I forgot that what prosecutors do is publish all their evidence on the internet as soon as the indictment is opened, 


Now you can remember like Pepperidge Farms.
#13
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,248
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
Trump ordered the Justice Department to drop charges because he believes fellow corrupt grifters belong in his administration, not in jail.
Trump can pardon Mayor Adam’s.
Topic's author
#14
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 6,881
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Sidewalker
You don't even think he's clean, you just see this as an opportunity to slam the opposition again, blah blah blah.
I literally haven't seen them show the evidence. 

Nonsense, there is a truckload of evidence, coconspirators have plead guilty
That's not evidence and why testimony from jail house snitches is so common. Typical prosecutorial tactic to get a witness is to offer somebody some time off of their sentence if they overheard anything their cellmate said and this incentivize the jailhouse snitch testimony
Topic's author
#15
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 6,881
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
P1 is false. Prosecutors have no obligation to provide evidence to the public until the trial. This is just one big argument from ignorance.
They have done so in other high profile crimes though. Just from a cost benefit analysis, why would they hold back evidence?

Shouldn't the public be able to trust the process and shouldn't there be transparency in government?

I think from the standpoint of any reasonable person not entrenched in politics, we know that prosecutors do not like to bring charges unless they believe they can prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, 
Yet outside of politics we see cases where people get railroaded. In those cases we see some common elements. Look at the Steven Avery false rape case. We have prosecutors who knew of Avery and hated im personally prior to when he got railroaded.

This is why prosecutors should never ever do anything that has any chance whatsoever of looking like malfeasance. We want to keep public trust high.

How anyone could conclude that the prosecutors who resigned in protest are the bad guys is beyond rational comprehension.
Oh because they lack transparency. Good guys never need to keep what they are doing secret unless they are private citizens in which case privacy Trump's every other right.
#16
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,156
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
FAKE NEWS
#17
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Sidewalker
Turns out it was fake news. All that leaked prosecutorial evidence got thoroughly debunked. Unlike the non-existent leaked evidence on the Mayor.



#18
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,156
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@WyIted
You don't even think he's clean, you just see this as an opportunity to slam the opposition again, blah blah blah.
I literally haven't seen them show the evidence. 
The people Trump is deporting, where have they posted the evidence that they are here illegally? 

I literally haven't seen them show the evidence. 


#19
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 26,993
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Sidewalker
Fake news doesn't leak that kind of evidence. Unless Trump was deporting American citizens. 

But there's no evidence of that either.
#20
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 3,156
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Fake news doesn't leak that kind of evidence. Unless Trump was deporting American citizens. 

But there's no evidence of that either.
The Democrats probably destroyed it with their Jewish Space Lasers.
Topic's author
#21
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 6,881
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Sidewalker
The people Trump is deporting, where have they posted the evidence that they are here illegally?
They literally have and they showed they were also convicted of things like rape, murder and pedophilia.

Why exactly do you want pedophiles in the country? Honestly what could possibly compel somebody to take the side of pedophiles even if they are American citizens who were "wrongly" deported?

It seems very unusual that you would be so supportive of people who rape, murder and commit acts of pedophilia.
#22
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,498
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@WyIted
P1 is false. Prosecutors have no obligation to provide evidence to the public until the trial. This is just one big argument from ignorance.
They have done so in other high profile crimes though. Just from a cost benefit analysis, why would they hold back evidence?

Shouldn't the public be able to trust the process and shouldn't there be transparency in government?
You've made my point.  You're offering this as a premise towards a conclusion, but it's based on nothing more than a lack of knowledge as to why they would have proceeded in this fashion. That's by definition, an argument from ignorance. You're essentially saying "I can't explain their actions, therefore I can explain their actions".

We want to keep public trust high.
lol right. That's why you guys spent 4 years claiming the justice department was weaponized by Biden despite having no evidence what so ever. That's why Trump picked a guy to lead the FBI who literally published an enemies list and publicly stated he will use the justice department to go after Trump's enemies. 

You guys don't give a damn about public trust.

How anyone could conclude that the prosecutors who resigned in protest are the bad guys is beyond rational comprehension.
Oh because they lack transparency.
That isn't an answer. Lacking transparency is itself a problem broadly speaking, but for that to apply the party in question would need to have some obligation to be transparent with you. They don't. The only obligation federal prosecutors have to be transparent is to the court and the defendant.

Second and far more importantly, you're ignoring everything else we know about this case. Again... The prosecutors who all resigned in protest over this went into detail laying out the overtly political nature of this request. Do you think they are all lying? And if so, to what end? Why would they throw away their career with the most coveted prosecutorial office in the country?

Meanwhile, we know exactly why the Trump administration would do this. We know Trump rewards those who curry favor with him. We know Trump is set on enforcing his mass deportations and needs the help of big city mayors to accomplish his goals. We know that the manner in which they stopped the prosecution leaves the door open to bring them back up later if Adams doesn't comply. And we know that Adams struck some sort of deal with the administration as Tom Homan made clear publicly. 

No serious person would disregard all of that in favor of some contrived notion of transparency. Occam's razor makes this very clear, the only way to conclude otherwise is to ignore it.
Topic's author
#23
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 6,881
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
You've made my point.  You're offering this as a premise towards a conclusion, but it's based on nothing more than a lack of knowledge as to why they would have proceeded in this fashion. That's by definition, an argument from ignorance. You're essentially saying "I can't explain their actions, therefore I can explain their actions".
If they refuse to provide reasoning than it's fair to assume the worst. Remember good guys have no reason to not expose their reasoning.  Because their reasoning is good.

lol right. That's why you guys spent 4 years claiming the justice department was weaponized by Biden despite having no evidence what so ever.
The J6ers locked up, the 75% who didn't commit police brutality ut literally in for trespassing charges at worst along with such unique prosecutorial angles on Trump. 

Remember when Biden took office and everyone was demanding he put Bush on trial for war crimes? Well back then Democrats weren't evil so he refused to go after his political opponent 


That's why Trump picked a guy to lead the FBI who literally published an enemies list and publicly stated he will use the justice department to go after Trump's enemies. 
People that have supported going after political opponents having political opponents going after them? Jesus Christ man, who could have foreseeable that weaponizing the justice system would cause it to be weaponized against you?

Honestly don't weaponize the justice system. Remember how Bill Clinton literally raped people and we let that slide because you just aren't supposed to go after political opponents that way, because that's literally what happens in banana republics. 

I will say, once the door is opened you made your bed though. 

We know that the manner in which they stopped the prosecution leaves the door open to bring them back up later if Adams doesn't comply. And we know that Adams struck some sort of deal with the administration as Tom Homan made clear publicly. 
That's not really evidence of his guilt.

Since posting this not a single person has pointed out literal any piece of evidence just FYI.
#24
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,498
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@WyIted
If they refuse to provide reasoning than it's fair to assume the worst.
Again, this is literally an argument from ignorance fallacy.

The most basic principal of applying logic to explain something is that you go with the explanation that requires the fewest amount of assumptions. What you don't do is concoct an excuse that allows you to make the biggest assumption possible.

If you can't tell what's wrong with this your brain is broken.

We know that the manner in which they stopped the prosecution leaves the door open to bring them back up later if Adams doesn't comply. And we know that Adams struck some sort of deal with the administration as Tom Homan made clear publicly. 
That's not really evidence of his guilt.
I didn't say it was. What it does is provide us insight into what they're doing and why. This is something any rational person would consider before leaping to accusing the prosecutors of some grand conspiracy from which Trump is saving him from.

What you're engaging in is confirmation bias on steroids.

The J6ers locked up, the 75% who didn't commit police brutality ut literally in for trespassing charges at worst 
Because they were trespassing

Jesus Christ man, who could have foreseeable that weaponizing the justice system would cause it to be weaponized against you?

Honestly don't weaponize the justice system.
We didn't genius. Trump was prosecuted because he committed obvious and serious crimes. That's called the rule of law. That's how it works. Only in MAGAville is it weaponization to prosecute someone for committing crimes.

Let me guess, Brazil also weaponized their justice system by going after Jair Bulsonaro right?
#25
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,248
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Double_R
We also know that the Trump administration is refusing to dismiss the case entirely so they could always bring it up later, as in, if Adams does not comply with Trump's immigration initiatives. So the motive for all of this is clear.
Typical Trump strategy.