While most of us are "passionate" about the topic, there is a clear mix of misinformation, partial facts, and strong sentiment in the interview. Both speakers are well respected. I'd suspect if some of us dive into the actual evidence from the indictment, and fact-check, particularly from Trump's own words under oath and his attorney's notes, we may render a different perspective. The truth is likely to be somewhere between two extremes.
@TZeroZeroOne Жыл бұрын
What "two extremes" are you talking about? I can see 龔 representing one, but who/what is the other "extreme" ? Does truth always lie somewhere between two polar opposites? (Think flat earth vs round earth.)
@jonathanlau7681 Жыл бұрын
Very objective observation!👍👍💪💪
@dleung8938 Жыл бұрын
Could you please tell us what misinformation was delivered in the interview? I think your narration is kind of disinformation. I agree there are polarized views. Better figure out the cause. A corrupt Biden's family with strong evidence of accepting bribery is at large. Judicial actions against Trump go on and go on, with an intent to cleanse him away from the political arena. What is the true intent behind? For the national interests? It is what a facist government tends to do for political persecution against opponents.
@macaufan Жыл бұрын
反共华人也很支持trump 但沒有站美國本地人角度及缺乏了解
@junkyt6109 Жыл бұрын
@@TZeroZeroOneExactly!! She is entitled to her opinions, not to her own facts. However, she was proven to be a blind cult follower of Trump and his total made-up spur of the moment words. Fox was fined US$787 millions. She should be fined too. Just like T, she is an enemy of true democracy.
Admittedly I only listened to the first few minutes and couldn't continue listening. If the fact that those top secret doc were highly sensitive as the prosecutor alleged, the fact that it's an oversight of the accused only goes to matters of mitigation.
@user-hs5cm1jj5l Жыл бұрын
How do you know those documents are highly sensitive? they are not supposed to disclose the public nor reporters for now. thats the augment i see so far ppl loves to manipulate attacking the guest if they are righteous. pathetic
@HKBBNAofArt Жыл бұрын
@@user-hs5cm1jj5l just like any criminal matters, the prosecutor will allege, facts will be provided to the accused and the defence (lawyers) will negate and the court will decide.
@brucel7430 Жыл бұрын
@@user-hs5cm1jj5l Accord to the court document, some of the documents founded are marked as "TS/SCI", i.e Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information, which is one of the highest levels of security clearance, what can be more highly sensitive than that?
@user-hs5cm1jj5l Жыл бұрын
@@brucel7430 “Just because something is classified - even Top Secret, SCI, NOFORN, FISA, pick your alphabet soup - does not mean it is National Defense Information within the meaning of the Espionage Act. NDI, for the purposes of an Espionage Act prosecution, is defined as one of a long list of items “relating to the national defense which information the possessor had reason to believe could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation.””” It is tough to say because we cannot see the documents”” Anyone who has worked around government knows that overclassification is a huge problem. A ton of documents end up being classified because of arcane technical rules that may not reflect the real world. If the president were to ask the Navy what’s for lunch for the next week at Coronado, for example, there is a good chance the answer comes back with a classification marker on it.”. find the article yourself ‘6 Reasons DOJ’s ‘Get Trump’ Documents Case Is Seriously Flawed” if you want argue with the legal insider in the US, not me. Hate all you want.
@brucel7430 Жыл бұрын
@@user-hs5cm1jj5l "How do you know those documents are highly sensitive?" This was the question you asked, and this is the question I answered. No one outside of the court knows what's inside those documents exactly, so one could argue either way, but arguing over something we don't know is meaningless. However, those classification were made under the Trump administration, it's clear that they thought , at the time, those information were important enough. As for if those documents contain NDI, I think the experts in DOJ/DOD would be more qualified to judge than someone, such as Will Scharf, who doesn't even know what's inside those document. The article is nothing more than opinion based on assumption of unknown information, not facts.
@vh7227 Жыл бұрын
多謝龔博士分享
@waikwantse5709 Жыл бұрын
謝謝龔博士非常公平分析很清晰那種事件擺明不公平是迫害
@vivredanslaverite8799 Жыл бұрын
又係呢位親俄學者龔教授
@kwongdebbie1505 Жыл бұрын
Sasha博士,晚上好。
@nine7295 Жыл бұрын
Always a long time supporter, always gave like, until this episode. I am unsubscribing. Sorry, Dr. Sum , thanks for all your other excellent videos.
@carson3448 Жыл бұрын
democrat allow different voice?😂
@nine7295 Жыл бұрын
@@carson3448 sorry I don't belong to any American political parties. And I don't understand what you are talking about. Are we not free to subscribe or unsubscribe? Free to comment? Have I offended you or anyone?
@ant1536 Жыл бұрын
為什麼這節目那麼匆忙? WHY? ? 有後續嗎?
@ericso9843 Жыл бұрын
支持小夏姐的立場-保衞自由民主!
@cybercatcat Жыл бұрын
啡伯心血之作, 看完令人反思!唱衰容易唱好難! 香港以往的美好故事, 大家心照!😂🤔😘
@myapplechannel2622 Жыл бұрын
一直支持,不過今次覺得有點過咗頭!I live in US, and regularly follow news. I think Trump is raco
@Avacado721 Жыл бұрын
Raco咩意思
@wahgoh18 Жыл бұрын
政治就是如此天呀烏鴉一樣黑
@GatorWinup Жыл бұрын
Dr of what?
@charlespork23 Жыл бұрын
In Bullshiting? She probably gets her doctoral degree from Trump University.
@carson3448 Жыл бұрын
Philosophy Havard
@GatorWinup Жыл бұрын
@@carson3448 Great, thanks. No wonder, not a Juris Doctor, no law degrees. She did not, at the very least, cite any inaccuracies in the indictment. She failed to discuss the any legal or factual issues. All she said was regurgitation from Trump's own propaganda. I could not sense any independent or critical thinking in her words. Philosophy, isn't that the subject that has no bounds? How far is that from Theology? Sure, next time, invite someone that uses belief to win an argument. I wonder how many people would hire a priest to represent them in a trial. (oh, you mentioned Harvard too, why does that even matter? Your tendency to subject to authority?)
@brucel7430 Жыл бұрын
@@GatorWinup Actually, according to wiki, she have a Ph.d in sociology from Havard. Her thesis was about cultural revolution, so the main focus of her Ph.D study was about China. If she talks about China, I may listen. but if she is talking about US issue, I would take it with a huge grain of salt, too much partisan talking points.
@carson3448 Жыл бұрын
@@GatorWinup thanks for followup/correction fm @brucel7430. there's no English page for her and I prob made some mistake. its a good question hence I did some check up to fulfil my personal interest. she also got PhD History fm Beijing uni and I think we shouldn't expect too much on both of them.. its more for countries of the uni, not to mention wiki is more for convenience... my 2cp sharing.
With guest like this, are you planning to turn your channel into Fox or one america? I can respect different views but I will not tolerate any misinformation. There's not a thread of truth from her.
@@70-860 啱呀,華文KOL持續5、6年一講起美國,就有95%嘅留言都係支持特朗普,係宜家好少少,得80-90%留言係咁。所以我覺得華人社會除咗台灣之外都冇民主唔係冇原因,因為大部分人嘅民主素養同民主商數低落,冇民主心態,明明就係輸打贏要嘅民粹撚,根本就未ready for 民主
@sangtsang7936 Жыл бұрын
這是極左與極右之爭,當然只有民主自由的國度才會發生。
@dleung8938 Жыл бұрын
如何極右,亞侵係法西斯?
@jamestay6840 Жыл бұрын
Seriously!! Doctorate. Again the same hypocrisy, “In the name of democracy……”
@mingtsang3594 Жыл бұрын
Totala false ACCUSATIO N FROM AN EDUCATED TRUMPTARD
@nelsonccwoo Жыл бұрын
OMG!
@hawkins55 Жыл бұрын
The country is so divided. People are taking in only the info that they want to see that they agree with. Some people see Trump a saint and savior of the countr and he can't do anything wrong. They excused any infraction that he has done. Others see him as evil and everything he does is wrong. They see that everything he says or does has evil motive. Thing is I don't think there is one person in the world that falls into either category.
@dleung8938 Жыл бұрын
It is the political situation pushing us to take side. Neutral? A myth unlesw you are extremely apolitcal.
@j.d.salinger2317 Жыл бұрын
But Trump is really the worst, just listen to the way he speaks at the rally. Nothing but lies....
@BloomRec Жыл бұрын
No one is above the law. Our law applies to everyone. Please, give me a break. She is totally biased and even spreading misinformation. Letting her talk is ok but Simon, please do your fact check for your audiences sake , please..
@user-hs5cm1jj5l Жыл бұрын
she is the most unbiased one with explanation while you creepy folk never listen
@NAMVANC Жыл бұрын
Yes, agree, Simon. I respect you and your program, but please dont let your guests spread misinformation without fact-checking. Oponion is one thing, misinformation is another.
@user-hs5cm1jj5l Жыл бұрын
@@NAMVANC she might be wrong over the numbers but NOT THE ACT. those she named in the video DID the similar thing as Trump but was NEVER EVEN questioned. this is where the argument starts whether or not this is political prosecution. I shouldnt waste time over you or others but i keep seeing arrogant main mainstream supporters under the comment section as if they are justice.
@brucel7430 Жыл бұрын
@@user-hs5cm1jj5l She was wrong about the facts too, or maybe she believes in alternative facts. The BS about Obama and Bush, NARA put out a press release just to clarify it, she was pushing fake news. If both NARA and the person who had the document were not aware of the missing document, then no one should be blamed for. If NARA knows and asks to get it back, the person should do so. If the person finds the document, he/she should return. That's quite simple. "NEVER EVEN questioned"? Pence found document, and willingly returned them, FBI looked into it, and case closed. Biden found some documents, and willingly return them, he even asked the FBI to search his home, so he has been cooperating, and there is a special counsel appointed to look into his case. It's still an ongoing case. Both were being questioned.
@@fgsentg 佢以前是否支持民主黨, 無可考證. 但佢一早就係共和黨員, 09年就已經代表共和黨參選議員. 1. 你有證據拜登向司法部或特別調查官施壓? 更唔好講, 建議起訴既係FL既大陪審團, 定係你認為拜登可以影響到大陪審團既決定或timetable? 至於話拜登收咗錢, 等有事實證據先講啦. 2.拜登案情是否嚴重目前並唔清楚, 既唔知文件係咩性質, 亦唔知特別調查官是否相信當中係有意圖. 刑事實最緊要係要控方可以證實到intention. 3.你明顯無睇起訴書, 起訴書指出, 佢連自己律師都隱瞞, 而唔交出全部文件. 如果佢唔係前總統, 政府一早就告, 唔會慢慢傾, 連法庭傳訴都唔全部交還, 要搞到出搜查令, 根本就唔衰攞嚟衰. 4.你呢個根本就係大話. 呢個係NARA press relase 原文. "When President Obama left office in 2017, NARA took physical and legal custody of the records of his administration in accordance with the Presidential Records Act. NARA made arrangements to move the roughly 30 million pages of paper Presidential records of the Obama administration to a federally acquired, modified, and secured temporary facility that NARA leased in Hoffman Estates, IL, which meets NARA’s requirements for records storage and security. NARA moved the records to Hoffman Estates because of the intention of President Obama to build a Presidential Library in the Chicago area." 咩兩年, 根本就係講大話. 5. 人地睇咩媒體又如何? 起訴書係法庭文件, 根本就唔使睇媒體.
Agreed with Dr. Kung. What I know is : Not everyone is able to discern what has been going on without the knowledge/experience of the past in order to have critical thinking. And I understand is : those who grew up watching TV and getting everything from smart phone are programmed to what to think, they don't know how to think. Hope for light & bright so we all see clearly in common ground! Blessings of love & Peace to everyone!
@willialuke Жыл бұрын
You are trying to divert the facts with a generic saying. I am in doubt your ability to discern between fact and opinion.
@dgntitgt8114 Жыл бұрын
@@willialuke Not sure how to differntiate the fact from opinion any more. What I understand about 'Fact" , from the past decades, is based on imagery and how many people keep talk about it. When in doubt, seek within, it helps think clearly. Always, blessings of love & peace to all!
以下引用曾是香港的新聞工作者,現居住在美國的[Nikki Miu 國際新聞台]的一編報導: 美國總統有《總統檔案法》上的權利,此法允許總統決定在他離任前自行決定那些檔案需要歸還,那些他想保存,而國家檔案管理局無權過問。 總統的職位處於對文件物品分類層次結構的最頂端,由於Trump是離任前已決定解密或分類那些檔案,所以並不存在「不適用」於機密文件中。根據《總統檔案法》以及司法觀察訴國家檔案局一案例的判決,總統只需要把他想保留的文件分離即可,簡單而言,是總統選擇離任時帶走的任何東西,就已經自動變成不是機密,而條件只是把檔案放在盒子裡就已經合法帶出白宮。此外,任何人都無權審查或辯論總統的決定。歷任總統都是這樣操作。 保守派非牟利法律組織司法觀察曾就前總統克林頓帶走任內的錄音帶而控告國家檔案管理局,最終法官援引《總統檔案法》,裁定克林頓有權帶走那些錄音帶,幾日前,在[華爾街日報]撰寫評論的Michael Bekesha正是該案件的原告,是司法觀察的一員。所以許多美國法律界人士都認為今次起訴Trump跟上次克林頓的案件一樣,從一開始就不成案。 “Mr. Clinton took the tapes, and no one could do anything about it” “That was the position of the Justice Department in 2010 and the ruling by Judge Jackson in 2012”