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.
Tags donald trump , impeachment , Michael Cohen , political speculation , Trump controversies

Reply
Old 21st May 2019, 11:03 AM   #161
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,741
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
He could be impeached and then prosecuted.

A similar situation might have arisen, with Republicans baying for the prosecution of President Clinton over her "obvious" crimes regarding her State Department emails. But the Clinton DOJ won't indict their own president, and a Democratic Congress refuses to impeach. As aggravating as such a situation would be to me, I'd find it equally as tolerable - and correct! - as the current situation.

I'd love to see Hillary locked up, but I have zero enthusiasm for applying english to due process until I get the desired result.
How is that even remotely analogous? There is no ďRepublican DoJĒ or ďDemocratic DoJĒ, at least there wasnít before Trump took office. The DoJ investigation into Clinton concluded that there was nothing criminal to prosecute. The DoJ investigation into Trump found significant evidence of criminal activity that is beyond itís power to prosecute at this time.

The main takeaway I have from your post is that even though the DoJ ruled that no criminal activity occurred and even basic understanding of record keeping laws/practices and security classifications is sufficient to understand that this was the correct ruling. Nonetheless you have still decided you want to see her locked up for strictly partisan reasons.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller 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 21st May 2019, 11:13 AM   #162
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,425
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
How about if we accept that both sides start from the premise that the crimes of the other side are heinous and the supposed "crimes" of our side are trivial technicalities.
Multiple counts of obstruction of justice is a trivial technicality?
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch 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 21st May 2019, 11:17 AM   #163
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,741
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
How about if we accept that both sides start from the premise that the crimes of the other side are heinous and the supposed "crimes" of our side are trivial technicalities.
How about we look at what actual crimes were committed before deciding there is some sort of equivalence. The DoJ rightly concluded that Clinton didnít commit any crime, the DoJ also reported significant evidence of Trump committing a crime.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller 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 21st May 2019, 11:18 AM   #164
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 16,513
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Multiple counts of obstruction of justice is a trivial technicality?
Way to miss the point. I said both sides do this and you all seem bent on proving it.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

Last edited by Brainster; 21st May 2019 at 11:20 AM.
Brainster 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 21st May 2019, 11:32 AM   #165
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,425
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Way to miss the point. I said both sides do this and you all seem bent on proving it.
No, I'm asking. Who sees multiple counts of obstruction of justice as a trivial technicality?

Do you?
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch 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 21st May 2019, 12:40 PM   #166
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 16,513
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
No, I'm asking. Who sees multiple counts of obstruction of justice as a trivial technicality?

Do you?
Who says there were multiple counts of obstruction of justice? Mueller didn't. Barr didn't.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster 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 21st May 2019, 12:46 PM   #167
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,425
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Who says there were multiple counts of obstruction of justice? Mueller didn't. Barr didn't.
Didja read the Mueller report?
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch 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 21st May 2019, 12:47 PM   #168
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 16,513
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Didja read the Mueller report?
Feel free to point out the parts where Mueller stated there were multiple counts of obstruction of justice. I will feel free to wait.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster 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 21st May 2019, 12:53 PM   #169
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,425
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Feel free to point out the parts where Mueller stated there were multiple counts of obstruction of justice. I will feel free to wait.
Pretty easy: Volume II outlines the criteria for obstruction of justice and all the evidence that supports the criteria in each case.

I'm sure you're counting on the fact that Mueller could not specifically charge Trump with these crimes due to his office. However, that would be ignoring that the office explicitly stated that it would declare he did not commit crimes if they could, but that they cannot do that, because of the heaps of outlined evidence documented in Volume II.

In short, Mueller outlined several potential crimes. He then proceeded to point out a few that are not crimes, pointedly looking at the rest in silence.

There is no way you could have read that report and not seen that Trump had committed obstruction of justice.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch 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 21st May 2019, 01:15 PM   #170
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 16,513
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Pretty easy: Volume II outlines the criteria for obstruction of justice and all the evidence that supports the criteria in each case.

I'm sure you're counting on the fact that Mueller could not specifically charge Trump with these crimes due to his office. However, that would be ignoring that the office explicitly stated that it would declare he did not commit crimes if they could, but that they cannot do that, because of the heaps of outlined evidence documented in Volume II.

In short, Mueller outlined several potential crimes. He then proceeded to point out a few that are not crimes, pointedly looking at the rest in silence
You admit that he did not say there were multiple counts of criminal obstruction of justice, and somehow you infer from that that there were.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster 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 21st May 2019, 01:18 PM   #171
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 5,036
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
You admit that he did not say there were multiple counts of criminal obstruction of justice, and somehow you infer from that that there were.
You're either being deliberately obtuse or you're trying for the same ******** "gotcha" moment the rest of you righties are. It's spelled out in the ******* report and everyone sees through this nonsense.

He said that he was leaving it up to Congress and he laid out the case for Obstruction, meaning he felt there were issues. Just like in the first Volume he didn't lay out the issues in detail and then cleared Trump of any connection. He did NOT do that in the second volume, and if you can't or won't apply Occam's Razor to that (combined with the actual words Mueller said where he blatantly laid out that he couldn't clear the president), then don't. I wouldn't expect too many to give a **** about such a weak argument.
__________________
"All acts performed in the world begin in the imagination."--Barbara Grizzuti Harrison

ďThere are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.Ē - Patrick Rothfuss

Last edited by plague311; 21st May 2019 at 01:19 PM.
plague311 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 21st May 2019, 01:25 PM   #172
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,425
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
I'm sure you're counting on the fact that Mueller could not specifically charge Trump with these crimes due to his office.
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
You admit that he did not say there were multiple counts of criminal obstruction of justice, and somehow you infer from that that there were.
Nailed it.

You didn't read the report, didja? Relying on the second- and third-hand accounts from the Trump-o-sphere?

Edit: To build off what plague311 colorfully stated, Mueller ends Volume II with a rather detailed list of justifications for how Trump's obstruction could be addressed, both by Congress and if Trump leaves office after only one term.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

Last edited by Upchurch; 21st May 2019 at 01:28 PM.
Upchurch 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 21st May 2019, 02:08 PM   #173
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 7,484
Even a Republican Congressman, J. Amash, has concluded after reading the Mueller report that Trump committed multiple counts of obstruction and has called for his impeachment:
Quote:
Mueller’s report identifies multiple examples of conduct satisfying all the elements of obstruction of justice, and undoubtedly any person who is not the president of the United States would be indicted based on such evidence
.
https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...ustice-837749/

Can anyone here seriously claim that, if Trump were a Democrat, that the very same Republicans now defending Trump would not be screaming for his impeachment on the same evidence?
Stacyhs 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 21st May 2019, 02:21 PM   #174
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 16,513
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Nailed it.

You didn't read the report, didja? Relying on the second- and third-hand accounts from the Trump-o-sphere?

Edit: To build off what plague311 colorfully stated, Mueller ends Volume II with a rather detailed list of justifications for how Trump's obstruction could be addressed, both by Congress and if Trump leaves office after only one term.
We are doing a rather delightful job of proving my original point, aren't we?

As for the obstruction of justice, if Congress impeaches him and he is subsequently convicted, I will accept that he was guilty. If he serves out his two terms and is subsequently convicted I will accept that he was guilty. Until then, innocent until proven guilty.

ETA: I do love that this is all part of a thread where the accusation in the OP has already been proven false. These threads live forever to humiliate the liberals who fell for it.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

Last edited by Brainster; 21st May 2019 at 02:23 PM.
Brainster 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 21st May 2019, 02:40 PM   #175
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 5,036
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
We are doing a rather delightful job of proving my original point, aren't we?

As for the obstruction of justice, if Congress impeaches him and he is subsequently convicted, I will accept that he was guilty. If he serves out his two terms and is subsequently convicted I will accept that he was guilty. Until then, innocent until proven guilty.

ETA: I do love that this is all part of a thread where the accusation in the OP has already been proven false. These threads live forever to humiliate the liberals who fell for it.
Is the OP not in reference to the John Oliver skit where he kept saying it fictitiously? Perhaps maybe you're missing the joke?

As to the rest, you saying "innocent until proven guilty" still doesn't mean no crimes have occurred. I don't know why this is so complicated to get. It means that he hasn't been charged and convicted. Being guilty of a crime, and being charged\convicted with a crime are different.
__________________
"All acts performed in the world begin in the imagination."--Barbara Grizzuti Harrison

ďThere are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.Ē - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 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 21st May 2019, 03:22 PM   #176
Cabbage
Graduate Poster
 
Cabbage's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,115
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
We are doing a rather delightful job of proving my original point, aren't we?

As for the obstruction of justice, if Congress impeaches him and he is subsequently convicted, I will accept that he was guilty. If he serves out his two terms and is subsequently convicted I will accept that he was guilty. Until then, innocent until proven guilty.

ETA: I do love that this is all part of a thread where the accusation in the OP has already been proven false. These threads live forever to humiliate the liberals who fell for it.
Actually, no. You simply remain blind to the fact that you made a false equivalence. Comparing (like you do) mountains to molehills doesn't change the fact that mountains are hard to climb.

You merely pretend the same is true of molehills yet somehow (disingenuously) believe the analogy is still apt.
Cabbage 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 21st May 2019, 06:08 PM   #177
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,425
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
As for the obstruction of justice, if Congress impeaches him and he is subsequently convicted, I will accept that he was guilty. If he serves out his two terms and is subsequently convicted I will accept that he was guilty. Until then, innocent until proven guilty.
Wait, whyíd you ask for the evidence of Trumpís obstruction if you werenít even going to consider it?

It is interesting that youíll only consider him guilty in the two scenarios where it is all but impossible. As it stands, Senate Republicans are just about as likely to convict Trump post-impeachment as they were to consider an Obama nominee to the Supreme Court and if Trump serves two terms, the statute of limitations on his known instances of obstruction of justice will have run out.

If he serves only one term, however, he has a very good chance of being convicted. Will you accept that or just the most unlikely possibilities?
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch 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 21st May 2019, 06:19 PM   #178
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 7,484
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
We are doing a rather delightful job of proving my original point, aren't we?

As for the obstruction of justice, if Congress impeaches him and he is subsequently convicted, I will accept that he was guilty. If he serves out his two terms and is subsequently convicted I will accept that he was guilty. Until then, innocent until proven guilty.

ETA: I do love that this is all part of a thread where the accusation in the OP has already been proven false. These threads live forever to humiliate the liberals who fell for it.
And that's really what it's all about for you, innit? To 'humiliate" them thar libruls. That's why Trump gets away with what he does because he has that kind of thinking supporting him. Sad.
Stacyhs 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 26th May 2019, 09:00 AM   #179
Safe-Keeper
Philosopher
 
Safe-Keeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 8,344
Sometimes, shock and horror, we know with reasonable certainty that someone is guilty even before they are convicted. If Trump shot someone on 5th Avenue and we had his fingerprints on the gun, CCTV footage, and the witness statements of three policemen who witessed the shooting...

...who am I kidding, they'd still sit there yelling witch hunt and fake news.
__________________
In choosing to support humanitarian organizations, it's best to choose those that do not have "militant wings" (Mycroft, 2013)
Safe-Keeper 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 26th May 2019, 09:52 AM   #180
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,425
Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper View Post
Sometimes, shock and horror, we know with reasonable certainty that someone is guilty even before they are convicted. If Trump shot someone on 5th Avenue and we had his fingerprints on the gun, CCTV footage, and the witness statements of three policemen who witessed the shooting...

...who am I kidding, they'd still sit there yelling witch hunt and fake news.
If this thread is any indication, they'll refuse to acknowledge any evidence against the person with the (R) after their name.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch 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 26th May 2019, 08:37 PM   #181
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,741
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
If this thread is any indication, they'll refuse to acknowledge any evidence against the person with the (R) after their name.
Only if that's what Fox News tells them to think.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"

Last edited by lomiller; 26th May 2019 at 08:40 PM.
lomiller 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 26th May 2019, 08:55 PM   #182
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 8,164
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Only if that's what Fox News tells them to think.
actually, not even all of Fox anymore.

Better to stay with the Sinclair Group if you want to stay in the Trump bubble 24/7.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isnít.
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 27th May 2019, 03:38 AM   #183
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,425
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Wait, whyíd you ask for the evidence of Trumpís obstruction if you werenít even going to consider it?
FWIW, I would still like an answer to this question.

Iíd also like to know who here has finished reading the Mueller report and yet, somehow, still believes (1) Trump did not commit obstruction of justice as defined by law and (2) Mueller did not completely justify Congressís use of impeachment in this case OR prosecution of Trump following the end of his first term, should he not be re-elected.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch 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 27th May 2019, 04:03 AM   #184
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 30,025
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
FWIW, I would still like an answer to this question.
To give the illusion that they care if Trump is a criminal or not.
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine
thaiboxerken 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 27th May 2019, 06:45 AM   #185
The Shrike
Illuminator
 
The Shrike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 4,909
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
And that's really what it's all about for you, innit? To 'humiliate" them thar libruls. That's why Trump gets away with what he does because he has that kind of thinking supporting him. Sad.
^This. We engage in these endless discussions about evidence and can't understand why those with whom we're interacting can't see the blatantly obvious truth. It's much like debate with any classic woo-slingers here, whether the topic is psychics, bigfoot, etc. The thing that binds all of these frustrating discussions is the false premise that the other side is engaging us honestly in an effort to determine what is actually the truth. They're not.
The Shrike 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 27th May 2019, 09:45 AM   #186
Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
 
Crossbow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Charleston, WV
Posts: 12,691
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
We are doing a rather delightful job of proving my original point, aren't we?

As for the obstruction of justice, if Congress impeaches him and he is subsequently convicted, I will accept that he was guilty. If he serves out his two terms and is subsequently convicted I will accept that he was guilty. Until then, innocent until proven guilty.

ETA: I do love that this is all part of a thread where the accusation in the OP has already been proven false. These threads live forever to humiliate the liberals who fell for it.
Wow!

I find it quite odd, to say the least, that you will treat someone as innocent until that person has actually been proven guilty by some legal mechanism.

After all, there a number of famous criminals (such as Al Capone) who were not convicted of murder and yet these people definitely did commit murder.

And then there are number of other people who have been convicted of murder, rape, etc. who actually were innocent of the crime that they were convicted of (see the Innocence Project).

I suggest that you reconsider your view on this matter and especially that bit about how you like to see liberals humiliated.
__________________
On 22 JUL 2016, Candidate Donald Trump in his acceptance speech: "There can be no prosperity without law and order."
On 05 FEB 2019, President Donald Trump said in his Sate of the Union Address: "If there is going to be peace and legislation, there cannot be war and investigation."
On 15 FEB 2019 'BobTheCoward' said: "I constantly assert I am a fool."
A man's best friend is his dogma.
Crossbow 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 27th May 2019, 11:14 AM   #187
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,846
Originally Posted by The Shrike View Post
^This. We engage in these endless discussions about evidence and can't understand why those with whom we're interacting can't see the blatantly obvious truth. It's much like debate with any classic woo-slingers here, whether the topic is psychics, bigfoot, etc. The thing that binds all of these frustrating discussions is the false premise that the other side is engaging us honestly in an effort to determine what is actually the truth. They're not.
It's a demonstration of just how effective the Trump propaganda machine is.
__________________
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 27th May 2019, 06:03 PM   #188
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,023
Originally Posted by lomiller View Post
Nonetheless you have still decided you want to see her locked up for strictly partisan reasons.
An accurate assessment.

Originally Posted by Upchurch
It is interesting that youíll only consider him guilty in the two scenarios where it is all but impossible.
'Interesting' for gauging the degree of partisanship perhaps. However in this case the needle has already pinned so hard it's stuck there forever.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets 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 27th May 2019, 06:32 PM   #189
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 16,513
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
FWIW, I would still like an answer to this question.
Because I thought you might actually have some evidence. Instead you urge me to read a report that you have already told me does not come to any conclusion about obstruction.

Quote:
Iíd also like to know who here has finished reading the Mueller report and yet, somehow, still believes (1) Trump did not commit obstruction of justice as defined by law and (2) Mueller did not completely justify Congressís use of impeachment in this case OR prosecution of Trump following the end of his first term, should he not be re-elected.
First guess is Nancy Pelosi?
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster 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 27th May 2019, 06:47 PM   #190
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,425
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Because I thought you might actually have some evidence. Instead you urge me to read a report that you have already told me does not come to any conclusion about obstruction.
Two logical fallacies in one sentence. You should know better than that.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"Itís easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch 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 27th May 2019, 08:04 PM   #191
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 11,453
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Ah, now *that's* relevant!

(I know it may sound like I'm being sarcastic, but I'm not. Meadmaker's cite is really relevant here.)
phiwum 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 28th May 2019, 12:55 AM   #192
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 8,164
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Ah, now *that's* relevant!

(I know it may sound like I'm being sarcastic, but I'm not. Meadmaker's cite is really relevant here.)
This is only relevant if the OLC decision that a sitting President can't be indicted is deemed unconstitutional.
In that case, yes, a President could run out the Statutes if no one indicted him under the presumption that they couldn't.

Prosecutors can clearly make the case that they had to assume the the OLC memo was binding, and wouldn't have gotten permission to proceed if they tried.

My guess is that if this gets to the SC, it will make a ruling about the future, not the past.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isnít.
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 28th May 2019, 08:31 AM   #193
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 11,453
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Because I thought you might actually have some evidence. Instead you urge me to read a report that you have already told me does not come to any conclusion about obstruction.
I'm willing to remain in doubt over whether Trump committed obstruction. That's not to say I think he's innocent. It means that I don't know whether he's innocent or not.

I'm okay with this stance because I don't know the law. Lots of folks who know the law say that the evidence in the Mueller report is sufficient to prosecute, were Trump not the president. Lots of folks disagree. I have a bit of a bias in favor of the former, but not enough to express confidence.

But you seem pretty darned willing to proclaim Trump's innocence unless he's convicted. Is this a principled stand? Is Hillary innocent of the various crimes some have claimed she committed? (Not an attempted derail onto the topic of Hillary, since no evidence is necessary here. She wasn't charged with any crimes. Hence, I presume, you agree that she is innocent unless things change.)
phiwum 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 28th May 2019, 10:57 AM   #194
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 16,513
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
I'm willing to remain in doubt over whether Trump committed obstruction. That's not to say I think he's innocent. It means that I don't know whether he's innocent or not.

I'm okay with this stance because I don't know the law. Lots of folks who know the law say that the evidence in the Mueller report is sufficient to prosecute, were Trump not the president. Lots of folks disagree. I have a bit of a bias in favor of the former, but not enough to express confidence.

But you seem pretty darned willing to proclaim Trump's innocence unless he's convicted. Is this a principled stand? Is Hillary innocent of the various crimes some have claimed she committed? (Not an attempted derail onto the topic of Hillary, since no evidence is necessary here. She wasn't charged with any crimes. Hence, I presume, you agree that she is innocent unless things change.)
Isn't that the whole basis of our legal system? Now colloquially we understand that almost everybody ignores this (myself included), when what we really mean is that we think the case should go to trial (based on our admittedly incomplete knowledge of the facts and the law). And in Hillary's case, I don't think there's any justice to be served by prosecuting her.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

Last edited by Brainster; 28th May 2019 at 11:02 AM.
Brainster 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 28th May 2019, 11:23 AM   #195
ahhell
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,323
I had an interesting conversation with a prosecutor this weekend.
A. He thinks Trump definitely committed obstruction of justice and the argument to the effect, "you can't obstruct justice if the underlying crime didn't happen" is BS.
B. There is something called a "sealed indictment" which is essentially a secrete indictment and Mueller's team probably filed about a half dozen of them. There is the potential, though unlikely, that Mueller indicted the president but he charges won't be revealed until he is out of office. That's pretty wild speculation though.

The guy is a federal employee in the DC higher and a prosecutor but he is fairly progressive so he may have some confirmation bias in his opinions.
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
I'm willing to remain in doubt over whether Trump committed obstruction. That's not to say I think he's innocent. It means that I don't know whether he's innocent or not.

I'm okay with this stance because I don't know the law. Lots of folks who know the law say that the evidence in the Mueller report is sufficient to prosecute, were Trump not the president. Lots of folks disagree. I have a bit of a bias in favor of the former, but not enough to express confidence.

But you seem pretty darned willing to proclaim Trump's innocence unless he's convicted. Is this a principled stand? Is Hillary innocent of the various crimes some have claimed she committed? (Not an attempted derail onto the topic of Hillary, since no evidence is necessary here. She wasn't charged with any crimes. Hence, I presume, you agree that she is innocent unless things change.)
I tend to agree with this take on Trump and obstruction. Unless your are a criminal defense lawyer, prosecutor, or professor of law, strong opinions on the matter are probably unwarranted. I've seen the above such people claiming that trump would clearly be prosecuted and others saying he would clearly not. I am currently at probably he would.

I do think Hillary clearly broke the law regarding handling of classified material but I also no for a fact that mishandling classified material is often not prosecuted, so meh.

Last edited by ahhell; 28th May 2019 at 11:33 AM.
ahhell 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 29th May 2019, 12:47 PM   #196
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,741
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Ah, now *that's* relevant!

(I know it may sound like I'm being sarcastic, but I'm not. Meadmaker's cite is really relevant here.)
It’s close, but not quite
The Wikipedia article quotes the actual decision thusly:
"a law enacted after expiration of a previously applicable limitations period violates the Ex Post Facto Clause when it is applied to revive a previously time-barred prosecution."

NoSince the previous applicable limit has not expired a new law extending it would not be covered by this ruling. The fact that it's part of the ruling actually seems to suggest that statutes of limitation can be extended so long as the previous limit has not expired, which n this case it has not.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller 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 29th May 2019, 01:12 PM   #197
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,741
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post

I do think Hillary clearly broke the law regarding handling of classified material but I also no for a fact that mishandling classified material is often not prosecuted, so meh.
There is a requirement for intent for mishandling classified information to be criminal. Even if there were classified information on a server run on her behalf, and there was intent to put it there knowing it should not be, she would only be guilty if she was the one who put it on the server which wasn't the case The suggestion that she, or anyone else, was guilty of anything was obviously going to be dismissed by the FBI and indeed it was.


The only offence that was actually committed by anyone was that a staffer destroyed documents after disclosure request for them. Normally documents get destroyed based on a pre-authorized schedule for documents of that type, if they are not destroyed on time and a court requests them they must be made available. Destroying them at this point is contempt of court, but again only the person who decided to destroy them would be guilty, and Clinton was not implicated in this decision.
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller 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 2nd June 2019, 06:22 AM   #198
fuelair
Cythraul Enfys
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,585
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
How cute! You think that the republicans in the senate might actually have some integrity.
No current republican/ckers have any integrity.
__________________
There is no problem so great that it cannot be fixed by small explosives carefully placed.

Wash this space!

We fight for the Lady Babylon!!!
fuelair 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 2nd June 2019, 07:49 PM   #199
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 30,025
Originally Posted by fuelair View Post
No current republican/ckers have any integrity.
Justin Amash appears to have a little. But in general, no they do not.
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine
thaiboxerken 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 11:30 PM.
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.