ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 5th October 2019, 03:05 PM   #81
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 13,499
In a world where Trump's actions in Ukraine are deemed unworthy of impeachment, you better get used to...

China, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find Donald Trump's tax return. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.
... an invitation to the world, the buffet is open.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2019, 03:17 PM   #82
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 39,125
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
In a world where Trump's actions in Ukraine are deemed unworthy of impeachment, you better get used to...



China, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find Donald Trump's tax return. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.


... an invitation to the world, the buffet is open.
One hopes that the American press would resist the temptation to interfere in a presidential election.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2019, 03:28 PM   #83
Cainkane1
Philosopher
 
Cainkane1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: The great American southeast
Posts: 8,776
Before you vote, Innocent.
__________________
If at first you don't succeed try try again. Then if you fail to succeed to Hell with that. Try something else.
Cainkane1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2019, 03:36 PM   #84
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 76,685
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
The Donald J.Trump Foundation under the leader- and ownership of Donald Trump and his children, committed many many cases of tax fraud, poor governance, campaign finance violations and obvious cases of bribery.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald...ump_Foundation
It is still being dissolved in a civil lawsuit, but criminal investigation is ongoing.
They should investigate spending in his campaign donation fund as well. Surely as Trump loses his Foundation piggy bank, he replaced it with campaign donations. That's one reason he started campaigning on day one.
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2019, 03:50 PM   #85
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,049
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
We internet legal beagles can fantasize all we want. To me, one thing stands out about the Mueller Report. Some 1,000 (one thousand) current and former prosecutors signed a letter stating that they would try anyone based on the evidence Mueller amassed. I give no small weight to those whose career it is to prosecute crime. If so many experts agree on the obstruction of justice spelled out by Mueller, I'll take it as given that these are indeed crimes worthy to try.

If not for that OLC memo, Trump would quite possibly (maybe likely) have been charged--or at least be liable to such in the absence of other considerations of the Office.

All this mental masturbation here is nothing more than navel gazing. Trump's a crook, and in a just world he would face a judge some day. But not here.
Well, it's looking like Trump will face trial in the Senate, and if so, the issue of corrupt intent will come up again -- specifically, I think, in how laughably weak Trump's "fighting corruption in Ukraine" defense will be. Not that that will affect the Republican side of the jury, of course, because they're not required to judge Trump's credibility or to decide legal technicalities. When they vote on the removal question, they are much more likely to be swayed by which way the wind is blowing.
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2019, 04:43 PM   #86
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 10,113
Look, replace 'Trump' with 'Obama' and then 'Biden' with 'Trump', and no one, starting with Trump and Barr, would consider that phone call ok and perfect.
Trump to this day claims that Obama used US and foreign intelligence and law enforcement to spy on him.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2019, 05:38 PM   #87
Frank Newgent
Philosopher
 
Frank Newgent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 6,606
Originally Posted by theprestige
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
In a world where Trump's actions in Ukraine are deemed unworthy of impeachment, you better get used to...



China, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find Donald Trump's tax return. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.


... an invitation to the world, the buffet is open.
One hopes that the American press would resist the temptation to interfere in a presidential election.
What have you done with Cain?
__________________
Disturbances of the semantic reactions in connection with faulty education and ignorance must be considered as sub-microscopic colloidal lesions - Alfred O. Korzybski
Frank Newgent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2019, 05:59 PM   #88
EHocking
Philosopher
 
EHocking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 7,116
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
I guess there is an argument to be made that any future jury pool will be tainted ...
Of course it will be.
imagine 12 of Trump’s peers all in one room.


And remember what a tint is closest to
__________________
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
"It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite
You can't make up anything anymore. The world itself is a satire. All you're doing is recording it. Art Buchwald
EHocking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2019, 06:02 PM   #89
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,610
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
I believe that you are misunderstanding Mueller's reasoning, and that your interpretation of "corrupt intent" is definitely wrong. The definition that Mueller is using is that the intent was corrupt if it was to get personal advantage inconsistent with his duties to faithfully execute the laws of the country, and/or to deprive others or their rights. There isn't really any serious question if Trump tried to impede the investigation "on purpose" but the question is, whose interests was he serving: his or ours?
Very interesting. You see, in fact, your post is absolutely correct. I believe that is exactly the reasoning Mueller used. Apparently your understanding of Mueller's reasoning is very similar to my understanding of Mueller's reasoning.

Self interest isn't corrupt intent.

I'll have more to say on it when I make my next in depth post.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2019, 06:10 PM   #90
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,904
I don't feel obligated to care about corrupt intent for purposes of impeachment. Corrupt behavior absent intent seems to absolutely qualify as a high crime worthy of impeachment.

Plus, frankly, we probably have an inefficiently low level of removal from office. That means
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2019, 06:13 PM   #91
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,830
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Very interesting. You see, in fact, your post is absolutely correct. I believe that is exactly the reasoning Mueller used. Apparently your understanding of Mueller's reasoning is very similar to my understanding of Mueller's reasoning.

Self interest isn't corrupt intent.
When you are abusing the power of your public office for personal benefit, it absolutely is the same thing. This is not some private citizen going about his private business we're talking about here.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2019, 06:15 PM   #92
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,610
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I don't feel obligated to care about corrupt intent for purposes of impeachment. Corrupt behavior absent intent seems to absolutely qualify as a high crime worthy of impeachment.

Plus, frankly, we probably have an inefficiently low level of removal from office. That means
The discussion of corrupt intent is specifically as it pertains to the Mueller Report, and the question of whether Trump committed the crime of Obstruction of Justice. Corrupt intent is one of the three required elements for that crime.

ETA: I would say the same thing to this post:

Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
When you are abusing the power of your public office for personal benefit, it absolutely is the same thing. This is not some private citizen going about his private business we're talking about here.
For the question of abuse of power, which would fall under "high crimes and misdemeanors", corrupt intent isn't important. However, in order to charge someone with the crime of Obstruction of Justice, corrupt intent needs to be established. Merely acting in your own best interest is not enough for any citizen, including the President, to establish corrupt intent under the law.

Last edited by Meadmaker; 5th October 2019 at 06:24 PM.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2019, 06:19 PM   #93
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,904
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
The discussion of corrupt intent is specifically as it pertains to the Mueller Report, and the question of whether Trump committed the crime of Obstruction of Justice. Corrupt intent is one of the three required elements for that crime.
And I'm saying for purposes of impeachment we can and should ignore that criterion. To the extent we are discussing impeachment, your condition is misguided.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2019, 06:30 PM   #94
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,049
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Very interesting. You see, in fact, your post is absolutely correct. I believe that is exactly the reasoning Mueller used. Apparently your understanding of Mueller's reasoning is very similar to my understanding of Mueller's reasoning.

Self interest isn't corrupt intent.

I'll have more to say on it when I make my next in depth post.
You said that you thought Mueller's reasoning was that is was corrupt intent if it was on purpose, regardless of the motivation. That's not correct. If Trump could somehow make a credible case that he was acting in the best interests of the nation, or at least that he sincerely thought he was, then Mueller's definition of corrupt intent would not fit. But the chance of him being able to do that is about the same as successfully arguing that self interest isn't corrupt intent, and I'd put that chance somewhere near 0% -- in a court of law, that is.

Last edited by WilliamSeger; 5th October 2019 at 06:31 PM.
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2019, 06:36 PM   #95
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,830
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
For the question of abuse of power, which would fall under "high crimes and misdemeanors", corrupt intent isn't important. However, in order to charge someone with the crime of Obstruction of Justice, corrupt intent needs to be established. Merely acting in your own best interest is not enough for any citizen, including the President, to establish corrupt intent under the law.
How can you possibly support that claim? Using public power for your personal benefit isn't corruption?
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2019, 06:56 PM   #96
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,049
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
The discussion of corrupt intent is specifically as it pertains to the Mueller Report, and the question of whether Trump committed the crime of Obstruction of Justice. Corrupt intent is one of the three required elements for that crime.

ETA: I would say the same thing to this post:



For the question of abuse of power, which would fall under "high crimes and misdemeanors", corrupt intent isn't important. However, in order to charge someone with the crime of Obstruction of Justice, corrupt intent needs to be established. Merely acting in your own best interest is not enough for any citizen, including the President, to establish corrupt intent under the law.
Huh? I'd say that corrupt intent is implicit in a charge of abuse of power, or it wouldn't be an abuse. And using the power of a public office for ones own benefit is (A) not a charge that just "any citizen" will face; and (B) pretty much the stereotype of malfeasance in office.
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2019, 06:59 PM   #97
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,830
What on Earth do you think corruption is if not using public power for personal benefit?
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2019, 07:28 PM   #98
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,610
We're getting into a whole lot of equivocation here.

We have a general idea of what corruption means, and we might be able to look it up in dictionaries, and we can look and see whether any of that might apply to anything Donald Trump did.


We also have a question of whether Donald Trump committed the crime of Obstruction of Justice, as specified in 18 USC Chapter 73. Part of the definition of that crime includes the word "corruptly". When determining whether Donald Trump committed that crime, we can't use any of the many definitions of "corruptly" that are found in any dictionary anywhere. We have to use a definition that is generally used in that specific context.

My next in depth post will explain why I don't think the analysis provided in the Mueller Report is adequate to secure a conviction on the crime of Obstruction of Justice.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2019, 07:37 PM   #99
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,830
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
My next in depth post will explain why I don't think the analysis provided in the Mueller Report is adequate to secure a conviction on the crime of Obstruction of Justice.
You have quite a job ahead of you. You are essentially arguing against an expert in the field, so not only do you have to refute Mueller's argument, you'll have to do it in a way that you can convincingly assert that Mueller, et al, never considered in drawing their conclusions.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2019, 08:02 PM   #100
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,957
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
My next in depth post will explain why I don't think the analysis provided in the Mueller Report is adequate to secure a conviction on the crime of Obstruction of Justice.
This is the "He was too stupid to know that what he was doing was illegal" defense. I don't buy it. He claims to be a genius that knows more about everything than the experts in the fields. He also attempted to get then AG Sessions to shut down the Muller investigation by asking a non-governmental person to pass on the message. If he didn't know that it was wrong, then why the cloak and dagger? Corey Lewandowski figured out that it was wrong, which is why he didn't do it, why he didn't want to have a record of him going to the DoJ, but Trump didn't know? If you honestly believe that Trump went out of his way to hide what he was doing, but wasn't aware that he was doing something wrong, then I have bridge on some Florida swampland to sell you.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2019, 09:37 PM   #101
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 10,113
If anyone has access to lawyers who know what is and what isn't legal, it's the White House.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2019, 09:55 PM   #102
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,610
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
You have quite a job ahead of you. You are essentially arguing against an expert in the field, so not only do you have to refute Mueller's argument, you'll have to do it in a way that you can convincingly assert that Mueller, et al, never considered in drawing their conclusions.
Seems to me that there are a lot of experts in the field giving their opinions, and those experts seem to disagree.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2019, 09:55 PM   #103
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,049
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
We're getting into a whole lot of equivocation here.

Yes, and I don't see why you want to do that when the issue is pretty clear.

Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
We have a general idea of what corruption means, and we might be able to look it up in dictionaries, and we can look and see whether any of that might apply to anything Donald Trump did.


We also have a question of whether Donald Trump committed the crime of Obstruction of Justice, as specified in 18 USC Chapter 73. Part of the definition of that crime includes the word "corruptly". When determining whether Donald Trump committed that crime, we can't use any of the many definitions of "corruptly" that are found in any dictionary anywhere. We have to use a definition that is generally used in that specific context.

That's what Mueller did. In fact, his definition of corrupt intent is taken from a Supreme Court decision written by Justice Antonin Scalia.

Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
My next in depth post will explain why I don't think the analysis provided in the Mueller Report is adequate to secure a conviction on the crime of Obstruction of Justice.

Well, I hope it's not just your opinion versus professional prosecutors. If what you've posted so far is an outline of your argument, I'm not very optimistic.
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2019, 10:19 PM   #104
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 41,226
Originally Posted by Matthew Best View Post
Before you get any further, I vote guilty.
He's got a guilty look on his face.
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes
a_unique_person is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2019, 10:44 PM   #105
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,583
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Seems to me that there are a lot of experts in the field giving their opinions, and those experts seem to disagree.
I'm not actually seeing much in the way of expert disagreement out there. There's Barr (and I guess Giuliani?) vs "every other person who could be considered an expert".
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2019, 10:51 PM   #106
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,583
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
One could make the case that it’s understood that if a foreign dignitary wants to influence Trump, a good way to do that would be to stay in his hotels. But if that understanding violates the emoluments clause, one could also make the case that Hillary Clinton violated the clause because one way to gain influence with her was to donate to her family’s foundation which many foreign governments did. Indeed, such an argument has been made. Newt Gingrich made that argument but really mangled it by saying it covered spouses and other distortions . But, in its analysis of Gingrich’s claims, Politifact says that it’s possible that the broad language of the clause would indeed cover donations to the Clinton Foundation:



My own take? Trump is violating the clause. I mean there’s no doubt he directly profits from foreign governments renting his rooms. And some governments are renting out whole blocks of rooms and not even using them...
Yes.

Clinton's defense (I'm guessing from the same article?) was:
https://www.politifact.com/punditfac...ns-clearly-vi/

Quote:
A spokesman for the Clinton Foundation certainly disagreed, calling Gingrich’s accusation "a baseless leap" because Clinton was not part of her husband’s foundation while serving as a senator or secretary of state. We did not hear from Gingrich by our deadline.
Even the Clinton Foundation people seemed to agree that if she'd still personally been a member of the foundation, it would have been a violation.

The question of if her defense was valid there is an interesting question (I personally find it weaksauce) but it's not really relevant to the question of Trump's guilt.
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th October 2019, 10:54 PM   #107
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 10,113
There is certainly no disagreement from the White House lawyers, or they wouldn't have hidden this info through overclassification.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2019, 05:32 AM   #108
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,830
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Seems to me that there are a lot of experts in the field giving their opinions, and those experts seem to disagree.
About the Mueller Report’s decision off corrupt intent with regards to obstruction of justice? It seems to me there was a ”Project Steve” type list going around that says you are largely wrong.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2019, 05:36 AM   #109
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,610
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
I'm not actually seeing much in the way of expert disagreement out there. There's Barr (and I guess Giuliani?) vs "every other person who could be considered an expert".
You might need to expand your media content a bit.

It's the news island phenomenon at work.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2019, 05:40 AM   #110
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,610
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
There is certainly no disagreement from the White House lawyers, or they wouldn't have hidden this info through overclassification.
You're bopping all around from one topic to another.

The discussion to which you were responding was about Obstruction of Justice as detailed in the Mueller Report. You've jumped back to Ukraine and whistleblowers.


Aside: Talking about my reasons for not thinking that the Mueller Report contains sufficient grounds for impeachment is proving fairly complicated, so it might take a while to get to. It's tempting to just link to an article, but that seems like cheating to me.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2019, 05:51 AM   #111
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 10,113
I was talking about Ukraine, and it is established law that attempts at obstructing speak to criminal intend.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2019, 07:17 AM   #112
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,049
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
You're bopping all around from one topic to another.

The discussion to which you were responding was about Obstruction of Justice as detailed in the Mueller Report. You've jumped back to Ukraine and whistleblowers.


Aside: Talking about my reasons for not thinking that the Mueller Report contains sufficient grounds for impeachment is proving fairly complicated, so it might take a while to get to. It's tempting to just link to an article, but that seems like cheating to me.
Corrupt intent is important in an obstruction of justice charge because the obstructive act in question is not necessarily a crime, e.g. firing Comey. If Trump is charged with a direct crime such as bribery, extortion, or soliciting an illegal campaign contribution, the standard that must be met is criminal intent. That's actually easier because it doesn't really mean "intent to commit a crime" per se, but rather that there was deliberate intent to commit an act that is defined by statute as a crime.
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2019, 12:26 PM   #113
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 24,375
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
One hopes that the American press would resist the temptation to interfere in a presidential election.

Two points.

One: It would be very difficult for them to avoid. The very act of reporting on the words and actions of a candidate will affect the public's view of a candidate. And whether that affect is "interference" or not depends largely on the viewer, as we see daily.

Two: The American press has been based on affecting the course of politics since its inception. A 'neutral' press was a a comparatively short lived anomaly which resulted from the need of various wire services to offer content which they could market to media outlets of all political allegiances.

Even then, those outlets would each try and engineer as much of the slant they were intent upon into the pieces they released which used content from those wire feeds.

As the exclusivity and ubiquity of wire services fell in the face of improving communications so did the interest in 'neutral' reporting. When everybody can have their own correspondent on scene reporting in real time the need for neutrality became less of a financial concern.

The press interfering with politics in general and elections in particular is a long and time-honored American tradition. It seems a little bit moot to worry about it at this juncture.
__________________
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."

"Ninety percent of the politicians give the other ten percent a bad reputation."

Last edited by quadraginta; 6th October 2019 at 12:31 PM.
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2019, 07:28 PM   #114
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,610
Here’s my take on why the Mueller Report does not provide reason to believe that Trump has committed the crime of Corruption of Justice, (as defined in 18 USC Chapter 73) As noted earlier, I believe the flaw is that the evidence and analysis does not establish a corrupt intent, certainly not to a standard of beyond reasonable doubt.

Mueller had ten sections where he discussed the possibility that Obstruction of Justice has occurred. I’m going to only look at one, and that one will be the firing of James Comey. That one is chosen because a poster singled it out earlier.

It’s hard to say where to start, but I’m going to do so by responding to a previous post:

Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
You said that you thought Mueller's reasoning was that is was corrupt intent if it was on purpose, regardless of the motivation.
That's not exactly what I said, although I can understand why you thought it was. The difference between what you said and what I said is subtle, but significant. My exact words were

Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
In my opinion, in every case, his "corrupt intent" boils down to having any reason at all to want to impede or obstruct the investigation.
The significant. element missing from your characterization is “boils down to”.

Now, at this point, what we have is me saying, “You said that I said that he said X, but actually I said that he said something which was equivalent to Y.” In other words, trying to parse out exactly what was meant in the posts will be an exercise in frustration, so I’m going to back up and start over.

The key is that there are three elements required to establish obstruction of justice. They are 1) an obstructive act 2) a nexus to an investigation and 3) a corrupt intent. If this ever goes to a real jury, the prosecutors will have to establish 1 and 2, and Trump’s lawyers will have something to say about that, but I’m willing to just say that 1 and 2 are accepted. It’s 3, the corrupt intent, that is the problem.

It is my position that if we follow Mueller’s path, then every attempt to impede or obstruct the investigation would be deemed corrupt. If that were a legitimate interpretation of the law, then there would be no need to include the word “corruptly” in the law. This is a legitimate instance of applying the idea of “the exception that proves the rule.” If it is a crime to impede an investigation when that impedance is corrupt, then clearly it must be possible to impede an investigation in some manner that is not corrupt.

So, what does “corruptly” mean? That must be kind of tricky, because Mueller starts his description by saying referring to United States v. Richardson, and saying that the definition used in that case was acting “knowingly or dishonestly”. I have a problem with that, actually, because a slightly longer quote from U.S v. Richardson would be "That the defendant's act was done `corruptly,' that is, that the defendant acted knowingly and dishonestly, with the specific intent to subvert or undermine the due administration of justice."

Mueller cites a lot more, ending with “acting with an intent to obtain an improper advantage for himself or someone else, inconsistent with official duty and the rights of others.”

It’s tempting to try and hash out the correct definition, but due to length of post considerations, I’m not going to do that. At least for the moment, I’m going to say that either one of those works. The really important thing is that we not ignore the word altogether and that we actually have some sort of definition for what it means to act “corruptly”. What I’m afraid of is people throwing around the word as if it means, “Something I don’t think Presidents ought to do” or “Something kind of like something that Richard Nixon did”, or “It must be corrupt because Trump did it.” I’ll go with either the definition Mueller cited at the beginning of his paragraph on the subject, or the end of the paragraph.

Finally, let’s get to what Mueller said about the firing of Comey, specifically in the “analysis” section and specifically about “corrupt intent”?

Mueller discusses possible motives for firing Comey and the events surrounding the firing. I found it kind of hard to follow, but after attempting to glean possible motives from the text of the Mueller Report, here are some I came up with.

-Unwillingness to state that the President was not personally under investigation.
-Didn’t like the way Comey handled the Hillary email investigation. Mueller dismisses this because Trump retained Comey at the beginning of his term, but I don’t know how Mueller can conclude such a thing. Can Presidents not reconsider things? I’m leaving it on the list of possible motives.
-The investigation was hurting the President’s ability to conduct foreign affairs.
-Viewed Comey as insubordinate
-Wanted to avoid an investigation into his campaign
----Because it might uncover personal data
----Because it might hurt him politically
----Because it might uncover crimes

I look at that list and, when I try to apply either of the above definitions of “corruptly” to anything on that list, I come up empty except for the very last item. It’s not corrupt to try to win reelection, or to oppose something you think might harm your popularity. That doesn’t “obtain an advantage inconsistent with his office”. It isn’t “a specific intent to obstruct the administration of justice. As a politician, that popularity is both how you keep your job, and the single biggest influence on whether your agenda for the country can be achieved. It’s not corrupt to want the people who work for you to have some sense of loyalty. The first one on the list is a little bit odd, because Trump very much wanted Comey to say that Trump wasn’t under investigation, but the problem with that is that Trump was under investigation. So what you have, then, is the President believing that he is not under investigation, but in fact there's somebody who knows about the investigation, but won't tell Trump about it. That's the kind of thing that just might make an ordinary person pretty angry.

Of course, that last item on the list would be absolutely corrupt, but there’s no reason to believe that it was any actual motivation for Trump. The investigation didn’t uncover evidence of crimes by Trump, or any evidence that Trump had, as of yet, concealed anyone else’s crimes. In short, there is no reason to believe that his intent was corrupt.

You may disagree. So, tell us why. Here’s where that definition of “corruptly” comes to the fore. What people will want to do is argue by bare assertion that a specific act is corrupt, because they don’t think the President ought to do that sort of thing, but that’s not good enough. The various legal definitions that have been used all have one thing in common. They put out specific requirements that must be present to say that an act was performed “corruptly”. So, tell us why one of those definitions is satisfied by one of Trump’s acts.

I don’t think you can do it unless you either assume facts that are not actually in evidence, or declare that any attempt to impede the investigation is, automatically, inherently corrupt, regardless of motive, or use some definition of “corruptly” that is not found in any lawbook or court precedent.

ETA: And, of course, there's more that could be said on the subject, but my posts are too long for a lot of people anyway. I'll come back to it if challenged.

Last edited by Meadmaker; 6th October 2019 at 07:38 PM.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2019, 07:31 PM   #115
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,610
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
Corrupt intent is important in an obstruction of justice charge because the obstructive act in question is not necessarily a crime, e.g. firing Comey.
Corrupt intent is important in an Obstruction of Justice charge because 18 USC Chapter 73 Section 1503 includes the word "corruptly", as do several other sections in Chapter 73.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2019, 08:32 PM   #116
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,957
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Corrupt intent is important in an Obstruction of Justice charge because 18 USC Chapter 73 Section 1503 includes the word "corruptly", as do several other sections in Chapter 73.
Here's the thing. "Corrupt Intent" merely means, "knowing that your actions are illegal." That's the legal definition according to the Law Dictionary.

So we can be pretty sure that if there is an attempt to hide or cover up the actions taken, then that is an admission that the person taking those actions knows that they are wrong.

So if you want to know if there was corrupt intent, just ask yourself this. Did Trump, or those directly around him, try to hide, obfuscate, or cover up the actions from the Public. Did he give different, sometimes conflicting, reasons for an action when found out?

If so, these are signs of corrupt intent.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2019, 08:38 PM   #117
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 10,113
Seems to me that only an open trial could clear this up to the satisfaction of Meadmaker.
I suggest Trump hands the reigns to Pence while this gets sorted out - he can return after he is completely exonorated.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th October 2019, 08:46 PM   #118
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,957
BTW, when you get the likes of Tucker Carlson admitting that the phone call was really bad and inappropriate and saying...

Originally Posted by Tucker Carlson
"Donald Trump should not have been on the phone with a foreign head of state encouraging another country to investigate his political opponent, Joe Biden. Some Republicans are trying, but there's no way to spin this as a good idea."

"Like a lot of things Trump does, it was pretty over-the-top. Our leaders' official actions should not be about politics. Those two things need to remain separate. Once those in control of our government use it to advance their political goals, we become just another of the world's many corrupt countries. America is better than that."
And this is what his avid supporters are starting to say, you know it's really much, much worse.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)


Last edited by PhantomWolf; 6th October 2019 at 08:49 PM.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2019, 03:53 AM   #119
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,610
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Here's the thing. "Corrupt Intent" merely means, "knowing that your actions are illegal." That's the legal definition according to the Law Dictionary.

So we can be pretty sure that if there is an attempt to hide or cover up the actions taken, then that is an admission that the person taking those actions knows that they are wrong.
"Wrong" and "illegal" are not synonyms. Furthermore, there are many reasons why someone might hide something other than being wrong. One of Trump's primary opponents for the coming election had a famous incident where he said he was hiking on the Appalachian Trail, when in fact he was nowhere near the Appalachian Trail. I don't think that's evidence that he was committing a crime.

Quote:
So if you want to know if there was corrupt intent, just ask yourself this. Did Trump, or those directly around him, try to hide, obfuscate, or cover up the actions from the Public. Did he give different, sometimes conflicting, reasons for an action when found out?

If so, these are signs of corrupt intent.
That's kind of a scary standard in the hands of a prosecutor. "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the defendant is obviously a shifty bloke who is hiding something. We don't have any evidence of a specific crime, but there must be one otherwise he wouldn't be acting so guilty." I think it would be a tough sell.

If that's all you've got, I wouldn't go to trial with it.

Perhaps it would make a bit more sense to me if you could make it a bit more concrete with a more specific example of Trump's behavior that is clear evidence of a crime.

Last edited by Meadmaker; 7th October 2019 at 03:56 AM.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th October 2019, 04:04 AM   #120
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,610
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
BTW, when you get the likes of Tucker Carlson admitting that the phone call was really bad and inappropriate and saying...



And this is what his avid supporters are starting to say, you know it's really much, much worse.
I certainly agree that what he did was bad, but I started the thread to discuss legalities, not badness.

Sufficiently bad for impeachment? As stated earlier, my opinion is not. Perhaps I will give a more detailed justification of that position in the near future, but I want to see if people are interested in the Obstruction charges from the Mueller Report, or perhaps some other alleged crimes, first.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:54 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.