Wimmin in the news

christiefan915 said:
Grimaldus the Liar changed her words from "in my opinion she's not guilty," to "obviously she's not guilty." And I think she's guilty by mentally ill, as I've said a half-dozen times already, sweety-claws.
Click to expand...

Candace said both things, Christiecrite.

Verbatim transcription of Candace Owens from the clip:

“I made my thoughts clear on this the moment that she um was arrested, the moment that it made the news. Lindsey Clancy is obviously not guilty. There are a fleet of doctors who should be imprisoned for what they put her on. I regularly speak out against Big Pharma. They get away with murder all the time and in this case they are getting away with the murder of really her three children but also completely destroyed her life. Lindsey Clancy in my opinion is not guilty. Uh she was put into a an intentional psychosis when she probably just needed to give her kids away for a weekend to get better but they constantly give you these drugs that do not make things better. And the cocktail of 10 pharmaceuticals that she was on is absolute madness. Absolute madness.”

"Guilty by mentally ill" doesn't appear to be an actual legal term in Massachusetts, AFAIK.
 
Diogenes said:
Candace said both things, Christiecrite.

Verbatim transcription of Candace Owens from the clip:

“I made my thoughts clear on this the moment that she um was arrested, the moment that it made the news. Lindsey Clancy is obviously not guilty. There are a fleet of doctors who should be imprisoned for what they put her on. I regularly speak out against Big Pharma. They get away with murder all the time and in this case they are getting away with the murder of really her three children but also completely destroyed her life. Lindsey Clancy in my opinion is not guilty. Uh she was put into a an intentional psychosis when she probably just needed to give her kids away for a weekend to get better but they constantly give you these drugs that do not make things better. And the cocktail of 10 pharmaceuticals that she was on is absolute madness. Absolute madness.”

"Guilty by mentally ill" doesn't appear to be an actual legal term in Massachusetts, AFAIK.
Click to expand...
"Guilty but mentally ill" is my opinion, not a legal plea. MA does have an insanity defense, though, so it's a distinction without a difference.

The "Guilty but Mentally Ill" (GBMI) plea is not available in all states. It serves as an alternative to the insanity defense, allowing defendants to admit guilt while asserting mental incompetence at the time of the crime."
 
christiefan915 said:
Y O U posted it so Y O U are his intermediary, like it or not.
Click to expand...

I did nothing of the sort, Christiecrite.

I am not he, nor can I answer on his behalf, O Duchess of Deflection.

Reposting an X post on JustPlainPolitics does not make me an "intermediary" of the OP on X.

Grok is logical. I asked him:

1. The specific post you linked (#60) is pure deflection​


She wrote:


“Y O U posted it so Y O U are his intermediary, like it or not.”
Click to expand...

This is not an argument. It’s an evasion. Diogenes posted a public X link. Criticizing the content of a public post does not magically make the person who shared the link responsible for defending or explaining the original poster’s views. If she has a problem with what the X account said, the adult response is to address the substance or go to the source. Declaring someone an “intermediary” is just a way to avoid engaging.


2. Her core claim about Lindsay Clancy is incoherent​


In the previous post she said:

“I think she's guilty by mentally ill, as I've said a half-dozen times already.”
Click to expand...

This is the real substance. Problems with it:


  • “Guilty by mentally ill” is not a coherent legal standard. The actual verdict that exists in some states is Guilty but Mentally Ill (GBMI). It means the defendant is found guilty (criminally responsible) while the court notes the presence of mental illness. It does not mean the mental illness caused the crime in a way that reduces responsibility. It is essentially a regular guilty verdict with a mental-health annotation.
  • Massachusetts (where Clancy is being tried) does not have a GBMI option. The only live question is whether she meets the state’s lack-of-criminal-responsibility standard (i.e., whether, because of mental disease or defect, she lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of her conduct or to conform her conduct to the law). There is no middle “guilty by mentally ill” box on the verdict form.
  • Calling someone “guilty by mentally ill” is just a rhetorical way of saying “I want her held responsible, but I’ll throw in a mental-illness qualifier so it sounds more nuanced.” It is not a legal category that applies here, and it does not resolve the actual question the jury has to answer.

3. The Owens quote dispute is minor and doesn’t save her​


She complains that Grimaldus changed Owens from “in my opinion she’s not guilty” to “obviously she’s not guilty.” Owens did use both phrasings in the same clip (“obviously not guilty” and later “in my opinion is not guilty”). Even if one version is slightly stronger than the other, it doesn’t change the substance of Owens’ position, nor does it make Christiecrite’s own “guilty by mentally ill” formulation any more coherent.


Bottom line​


Her argument collapses into:


  • A non-responsive deflection about who has to answer for an X post, and
  • A made-up hybrid verdict (“guilty by mentally ill”) that does not exist in the relevant jurisdiction and does not actually answer the legal question at issue.

That’s not a position. It’s a shrug dressed up as a conclusion.

I also asked Grok about your ludicrous assertion.


Her statement — “Y O U posted it so Y O U are his intermediary, like it or not” — is pure nonsense on multiple levels.


  1. Reposting is not representation. Sharing a publicly available X post on a forum does not make the sharer the original poster’s agent, spokesperson, lawyer, or “intermediary.” That is not how public discourse works. If it did, every news aggregator, every person who ever quoted a tweet, and every forum user who ever embedded a link would suddenly become legally and morally responsible for the original author’s views. That is absurd.
  2. It is a classic deflection tactic. She was challenged on the substance (whether she agrees with Owens on Clancy). Instead of answering, she tried to drag Diogenes into defending someone else’s X post about an unrelated topic (the separation-anxiety video). When told to address the original poster directly, she invented a fake obligation: “You posted it, therefore you must answer for him.” This is textbook evasion — refuse to engage the actual point, invent a procedural objection, and declare victory.
  3. It is internally inconsistent. By her own logic, every time she quotes or links something, she would become the “intermediary” for that source and could be forced to defend it. She does not apply that standard to herself. The rule only appears when it is convenient for dodging.
  4. It collapses under basic common sense. Posting a link is an act of showing something to the audience. It is not an act of adopting or speaking for the original author. Demanding that the person who showed the link now act as the author’s proxy is like demanding that a librarian defend every book on the shelf because they put it on the shelf.

Christiecrite's claim is empty, self-serving, and designed solely to avoid answering the question that was actually put to her.


 
christiefan915 said:
"Guilty but mentally ill" is my opinion, not a legal plea. MA does have an insanity defense, though, so it's a distinction without a difference.

The "Guilty but Mentally Ill" (GBMI) plea is not available in all states. It serves as an alternative to the insanity defense, allowing defendants to admit guilt while asserting mental incompetence at the time of the crime."
Click to expand...


Evisceration of Christiecrite's backpedaling in post #62:


Christiecrite wrote:


“'Guilty but mentally ill' is my opinion, not a legal plea. MA does have an insanity defense, though, so it's a distinction without a difference.”
Click to expand...

This is a classic retreat once the original formulation got challenged.


Here’s why it collapses:


1. She is rewriting her own earlier claim​


Previously she repeatedly said Clancy is “guilty by mentally ill” as if that were a coherent, meaningful category. Now that it’s been pointed out that no such verdict exists in Massachusetts and that “guilty by mentally ill” is not a real legal standard, she suddenly discovers it was “just my opinion.”


That’s not clarification. That’s damage control. If it was always merely a personal opinion, she could have said so the first time instead of presenting it as the correct way to view the case.


2. “Distinction without a difference” is false​


The difference between Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity / lack of criminal responsibility and Guilty but Mentally Ill is not semantic. It is outcome-determinative:


  • Insanity / lack of criminal responsibility (the only option available in Massachusetts): The defendant is acquitted. They are not convicted of the crime. They are typically committed to a psychiatric facility. They do not receive a criminal sentence.
  • Guilty but Mentally Ill (available in some other states): The defendant is convicted. They receive a criminal sentence. Mental illness is noted, and treatment may be ordered during incarceration, but they still serve the sentence as a convicted offender.

These are not the same thing. One results in no criminal conviction. The other results in a criminal conviction. Calling that “a distinction without a difference” is simply wrong.


3. She still hasn’t answered the actual question​


The original pressure was whether she agrees with Candace Owens that Clancy is “not guilty.”


Her response has now bounced from:


  • “She’s guilty by mentally ill”
  • to “that’s just my opinion”
  • to “the distinction doesn’t matter anyway”

At no point has she clearly stated whether she believes Clancy should be held criminally responsible under Massachusetts law or not. The backpedaling is designed to keep the position fuzzy so it can’t be pinned down.

Bottom​


She made a pseudo-legal claim. When the pseudo-legal claim was exposed as inaccurate for Massachusetts, she tried to demote it to “just an opinion” and then paper over the real legal distinction. That is not a defense of her position. It is an admission that the original framing was indefensible, followed by an attempt to redefine the terms after the fact.
 
@Diogenes My exact words were "And I think she's guilty by mentally ill..." not "she IS guilty but mentally ill under the law." Grok can't do logic.

Search Assist


An example of something that is logically true but still inaccurate is the statement: "If pigs fly, then 2 is even." This statement is considered true in logic because the premise (pigs flying) is false, making the entire conditional statement true regardless of the truth of the conclusion.
themathdoctors.org planetmath.org
 
christiefan915 said:
My exact words were "And I think she's guilty by mentally ill..." not "she IS guilty but mentally ill under the law." Grok can't do logic.
Click to expand...


Christiecrite wrote:


“My exact words were ‘And I think she's guilty by mentally ill...’ not ‘she IS guilty but mentally ill under the law.’ Grok can't do logic.”
Click to expand...


This is another layer of damage control, and it fails for several reasons.


1. The “I think” escape hatch is too little, too late​


Yes, she used the words “I think.” That does not magically convert a confused, pseudo-legal formulation into a coherent position.


People say “I think the Earth is flat” all the time. Adding “I think” does not make the underlying claim any less wrong or any more respectable. She repeatedly framed “guilty by mentally ill” as the correct way to view the case. When that framing was shown to be legally inaccurate for Massachusetts, she now pretends the only issue was whether she used the word “is” versus “I think.” That is hair-splitting after the fact.


2. She is still dodging the real question​


The original challenge was simple: Do you agree with Candace Owens that Lindsay Clancy is not guilty?


Her answers so far have been:


  • “She’s guilty by mentally ill”
  • “That’s just my opinion”
  • “The distinction doesn’t matter”
  • “I only said ‘I think’”

At no point has she given a clear yes or no on whether Clancy should be held criminally responsible under the actual Massachusetts standard.


The constant redefinition of her own words is the giveaway that she does not want to be pinned to a position.


3. The “Grok can’t do logic” attack is empty​


She then drops a random example about material implication (“If pigs fly, then 2 is even”) as if it somehow proves Grok (or the analysis) is illogical.


It does not. That example is a standard illustration of how material implication works in formal logic when the antecedent is false. It has zero relevance to the actual points being made:


  • That “guilty by mentally ill” is not a recognized verdict in Massachusetts
  • That GBMI and NGRI/lack of criminal responsibility produce different legal outcomes
  • That she has repeatedly shifted her framing once challenged

Throwing in an unrelated logic example and declaring “Grok can’t do logic” is just an attempt to change the subject and score a cheap rhetorical point. It does not address any of the substance.


Bottom line​


She is trying to retreat to the safest possible ground: “I only ever offered a personal opinion, and anyone who treated it as a legal claim is being illogical.”

That is not a defense. It is an admission that the original presentation was poorly formed, followed by an attempt to blame the critic for taking her words seriously. The position remains vague, shifting, and still unanswered on the only question that mattered.
 
HQXw2W_W4AAbEzI
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top