Posted on 02/08/2024 9:41:35 PM PST by SeekAndFind
sure. this podcast has verbatim reenactments from trial transcripts which are a public record. the professional voice actor(s) do a great job with the transcripts.
i believe the closing is at the end of the ‘Mann: Fly Me to the Moon’ episode. enjoy.
imho, you should go and look more closely at the trial transcripts or reenactments.
the DC jury just ignored the clear evidence presented, and the relevant civil law that favored the defendants. forget about mann himself who presented nothing but lies (impeached by other witnesses and his own contractions) and false evidence in court. surely you’ve encountered the leftist mindset. they simply issued the verdict they had decided on before the trial: all based on their pre-conditioned and pre-conceived political support for globull warming (aka climate ‘science’). the trial had little to do with the guilty verdict, which was expected.
i don’t know if Mark can do it given his health, but the real action and outcome here will be up the chain to the USSC. yes, not much hope against the left there either but it’s worth it to just document the wickedness of these lawfare thieves and charlatans.
:) contradictions not contractions.
"No. He used Sandusky as an ANALOGY. It is a bit like saying, “Biden is like Hitler in XXXXX”. It isn’t saying he IS Hitler, or that he does the exact same thing as Hitler, but that in some way there are similarities. As I understand it, that is what happened here."
Let's put aside your attempt to conflate my use of the word "compared" into something else, which was not at your disposal to begin with.
This is Simberg's post in question:
“Mann could be said to be the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except for instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data."
To your use of "ANALOGY" in, "He used Sandusky as an ANALOGY.", it could be easily argued after the verdict that the jury was persuaded to overcome Sullivan precisely because Simberg's assertion indeed made Mann to be analogous to Sandusky.
"They said “the Jerry Sandusky of climate science, except for instead of molesting children, he has molested and tortured data...”. So the ONLY thing they accused him of was torturing DATA. They did not in any way accuse him of being a child molester."
ANALOGously, that was the jury's verdict.
"It is COMMON for “scientists” to be accused of torturing data because so many DO torture the data. I read a lot of papers that should never have seen the light of day."
Do these papers include blog posts where the author worked at the same university as Sandusky?
"That doesn’t “defame” someone. It indicates strong disagreement. That is all."
You act as though I approve of the verdict; go peddle your "ANALOGY" to the appellate court.
I reiterate: There wasn't any 'winning' this case, his co-defendant compared Mann to Sandusky, and Mark re-attributed it, thus both overcame Sullivan insofar as the jury was concerned. Mark's goal was to put 'climate science' on trial, and that he did, impressively. The verdict won't be overturned, but the punitive damages will be reduced.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.