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 8th October 2019, 06:13 PM   #241
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 38,395
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
This IS ABSOLUTELY FALSE. Is that the plan Prestige? Make up nonsense, hoping that you're not called on it?
How is it false? As far as I can tell, it's a faithful restatement of PW's own explanation, organized and phrased to make the logic of it more clear. If the logic is false, or my interpretation is false, please explain where and how.
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 8th October 2019, 06:17 PM   #242
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 38,395
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
If the reason for firing the FBI director was definitely to obstruct an investigation into YOU, you were CLEARLY operating with intent to obstruct.
I think I'm missing something. My understanding is that Mueller's argument for obstruction hinges on the claim of corrupt intent.

In any case, there are legal reasons to fire an FBI director. Because he's lost the trust of the country, for example. Given that there are legal reasons, that can be applicable regardless of the state of any investigation, how do you determine which reason was predominant? Is that even possible?

Conversely, if you're not allowed to fire a director for legitimate cause, because he's also involved in an investigation, then starting an investigation becomes a literal get out of jail free card. Anyone involved in the investigation can commit any illegal or unethical act they please, and nobody can get rid of them until they close the investigation, because obstruction.
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 8th October 2019, 06:37 PM   #243
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,445
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
How is it false? As far as I can tell, it's a faithful restatement of PW's own explanation, organized and phrased to make the logic of it more clear. If the logic is false, or my interpretation is false, please explain where and how.
40 But it's not corrupt intent unless the President knows it's illegal.

This is categorically false. You do not need to know that what you are doing is illegal. Ignorance is no excuse.

But more importantly than criminality is whether it subverts proper government functions.

High Crimes and Misdemeanors does not necessarily mean criminal. Dereliction of duty and abuse of power were always intended to be impeachable offenses. Congress has a Constitutional reponsibility to oversee the workings and administration of government. When the President refuses or orders the government to obstruct a proper investigation by the DOJ or Congress he is not only committing a crime punishable by prison, he is violating his oath of office to uphold the Constitution.

Now you may consider such wanton abuse of power to be acceptable but I do not. FYI: This was one of the Articles of Impeachment levied against Nixon.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla 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 8th October 2019, 06:44 PM   #244
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 38,395
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
40 But it's not corrupt intent unless the President knows it's illegal.



This is categorically false. You do not need to know that what you are doing is illegal.
PW's argument explicitly contradicts you. Why are you taking me to task, instead of him, about the central point of his argument?
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 8th October 2019, 06:47 PM   #245
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,445
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
PW's argument explicitly contradicts you. Why are you taking me to task, instead of him, about the central point of his argument?
I read his post. That was NOT my impression.

He said "Corrupt Intent" means to do something "with the full knowledge that it is illegal."

I would disagree with his description. But nowhere does he say the absence constitutes a free pass.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.

Last edited by acbytesla; 8th October 2019 at 06:51 PM.
acbytesla 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 8th October 2019, 06:56 PM   #246
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,486
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Well, give me some links from outside of my island, then.

In the meantime, I'd like to present 1,027 former federal prosecutors to the witness stand.
I must admit, I sought, and I did not find what I was looking for. I was looking for analyses on the subject of corrupt intent and how it applied to Trump, and I found several passing references to it, but nothing in depth. This point goes to you.

But don't get too excited about the victory. The articles I did find barely got to corrupt intent because they dismissed the idea of criminal activity before they ever got to corrupt intent. I was willing to concede the first two legs of the obstruction charge, but they weren't. Also, as was to be expected, a lot of people didn't even take the charge sufficiently seriously to address the details. They found a wide variety of reasons to say that the charges were merely political.

However, hold that thought. I strongly suspect there will be a trial in the Senate, and debate on the floor, and assuming that happens, those ideas will arise again.
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 8th October 2019, 07:01 PM   #247
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 30,224
Is there a need for this "trial" considering that Trump is currently and blatantly obstructing justice?
__________________
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 8th October 2019, 07:06 PM   #248
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,486
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
This IS ABSOLUTELY FALSE. Is that the plan Prestige? Make up nonsense, hoping that you're not called on it?
Is he making nonsense up, or summarizing it?
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 8th October 2019, 07:12 PM   #249
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,486
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
I would like to request that the defense respond to this question, as well.

As someone noted earlier, if the "murder" is properly authorized, it isn't really murder in the legal sense anyway. I said "True" earlier as a quick way of saying that there are circumstances where killing is legal for any of us, and there are even more circumstances where killing by the President, or more likely at the direction of the President, is legal. So it isn't truly "murder" by definition, but rather an act that would be considered murder if it were not authorized by the President.

As for any subsequent obstruction of the investigation, it would depend on whether he had corrupt intent. If the killing were actually legal, but someone launched an investigation into it, presumably any interference would be legal as well, but there are too many hypotheticals to give a definitive answer.
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 8th October 2019, 07:12 PM   #250
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,445
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Is he making nonsense up, or summarizing it?
The point again is ignorance does not constitute a free pass. And behaviour does not need to be criminal to be a 'high crime or misdemeanor"
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla 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 8th October 2019, 07:16 PM   #251
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,445
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
As someone noted earlier, if the "murder" is properly authorized, it isn't really murder in the legal sense anyway. I said "True" earlier as a quick way of saying that there are circumstances where killing is legal for any of us, and there are even more circumstances where killing by the President, or more likely at the direction of the President, is legal. So it isn't truly "murder" by definition, but rather an act that would be considered murder if it were not authorized by the President.

As for any subsequent obstruction of the investigation, it would depend on whether he had corrupt intent. If the killing were actually legal, but someone launched an investigation into it, presumably any interference would be legal as well, but there are too many hypotheticals to give a definitive answer.
Murder is defined as an "illegal" killing. It is not murder if it is legal. The highlighted sentence is unabashed nonsense.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla 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 8th October 2019, 07:32 PM   #252
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,916
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I think I'm missing something. My understanding is that Mueller's argument for obstruction hinges on the claim of corrupt intent.
The obviousness of it being willful, knowing obstruction is clear in the Mueller evidence.

The Mueller arguments only hinge on the "corrupt intent" issue in the sense that Barr claimed non-corrupt intent to dismiss Mueller's evidence.

Quote:
In any case, there are legal reasons to fire an FBI director. Because he's lost the trust of the country, for example. Given that there are legal reasons, that can be applicable regardless of the state of any investigation, how do you determine which reason was predominant? Is that even possible?
In some cases it might be difficult, but not in this one.
You judge it by the totality of the evidence.

In this case, even the "non-corrupt intent" argument Barr was forced to make ("He really believed it was a witch hunt, so that makes it fully excusable") presumes Trump was trying to take the special counsel out as a matter of self-defense. As opposed to something like "Mueller had developed a drinking problem that was causing him to miss work for weeks on end, and Trump didn't even know there was an investigation of him underway."

Quote:
Conversely, if you're not allowed to fire a director for legitimate cause
Strawman.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
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 8th October 2019, 07:35 PM   #253
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,486
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Let me see if I can illustrate with a hypothetical.

There's a big city mayor. The police department is conducting an investigation. The chief of police in this city serves at the pleasure of the mayor.

The mayor calls the chief of police and says, "If you do not end that investigation, you're fired."

Has the mayor committed Obstruction of Justice?
I would like to thank the two people who offered an answer. However, their answers were wrong. (I would like to thank them even more for providing wrong answers. ) The correct answer is, of course, that there is insufficient data.

Suppose the Chief of Police is a CT loon, and he has used departmental resources to launch an extensive, and expensive, investigation into whether the mayor was the second gunman firing from the grassy knoll. In such a case, it is rather obvious that he ought to be fired, and the mayor is the only one who can do it. It's not a crime to execute your duties as chief executive.

Some elements of that story might be analogous to some of the situation that existed with Donald Trump and James Comey.
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 8th October 2019, 07:36 PM   #254
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 9,816
Originally Posted by fishbob View Post
Whoa there pardner.
Murder is not murder if authorized by the prez? I don't think so.
Are you arguing that the President can't authorize a drone strike?
Because many have, even against US citizens.
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 8th October 2019, 07:37 PM   #255
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,486
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Murder is defined as an "illegal" killing. It is not murder if it is legal. The highlighted sentence is unabashed nonsense.
But of course, the original question was about "properly authorized" murder, which is an oxymoron. Your rhetorical outrage is rather selective.
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 8th October 2019, 07:38 PM   #256
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 9,816
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I would like to thank the two people who offered an answer. However, their answers were wrong. (I would like to thank them even more for providing wrong answers. ) The correct answer is, of course, that there is insufficient data.

Suppose the Chief of Police is a CT loon, and he has used departmental resources to launch an extensive, and expensive, investigation into whether the mayor was the second gunman firing from the grassy knoll. In such a case, it is rather obvious that he ought to be fired, and the mayor is the only one who can do it. It's not a crime to execute your duties as chief executive.
Some elements of that story might be analogous to some of the situation that existed with Donald Trump and James Comey.
Not analogous, since Trump repeatedly told people he was firing Comey because of Russia
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 8th October 2019, 07:39 PM   #257
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,486
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
The obviousness of it being willful, knowing obstruction is clear in the Mueller evidence.

The Mueller arguments only hinge on the "corrupt intent" issue in the sense that Barr claimed non-corrupt intent to dismiss Mueller's evidence.
That, and the fact that Mueller says his arguments hinge on corrupt intent.
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 8th October 2019, 07:43 PM   #258
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,916
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I must admit, I sought, and I did not find what I was looking for. I was looking for analyses on the subject of corrupt intent and how it applied to Trump, and I found several passing references to it, but nothing in depth. This point goes to you.

But don't get too excited about the victory. The articles I did find barely got to corrupt intent because they dismissed the idea of criminal activity before they ever got to corrupt intent. I was willing to concede the first two legs of the obstruction charge, but they weren't. Also, as was to be expected, a lot of people didn't even take the charge sufficiently seriously to address the details. They found a wide variety of reasons to say that the charges were merely political.

However, hold that thought. I strongly suspect there will be a trial in the Senate, and debate on the floor, and assuming that happens, those ideas will arise again.
The senate is probable just going to dismiss the whole matter as "a witch hunt" and not proceed with anything at all.

If you were a corrupt senate republican, why would you not take this advice?
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
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 8th October 2019, 07:44 PM   #259
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,486
And on that note, I'm going to mostly leave behind the Mueller charges of obstruction of justice. We could lock antlers for weeks without getting anywhere, but the positions are pretty well defined by what has already been posted.

My position is that you have to prove corrupt intent, and there is no way you could convince a jury of it. That applies whether to vote required on the jury is 67 senators, or 12 ordinary citizens. (There may be other problems with the obstruction charge as well, but that's the way I see things.) As the impeachment process moves forward, we'll learn a lot more about this, and I won't abandon the subject altogether if people want to talk about it, but there are other alleged crimes, as well as high crimes and misdemeanors, to deal with.

See you in Ukraine in the not terribly distant future.
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 8th October 2019, 07:45 PM   #260
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,445
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
But of course, the original question was about "properly authorized" murder, which is an oxymoron. Your rhetorical outrage is rather selective.
What outrage? Something can still be obstruction even if a toadie like Barr refuses to acknowledge the obvious corrupt intent. And again, this isn't a free pass. Even if it isn't something the DOJ is willing to indict for does NOT mean it's not obstruction of justice.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla 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 8th October 2019, 07:47 PM   #261
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,486
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
The senate is probable just going to dismiss the whole matter as "a witch hunt" and not proceed with anything at all.

If you were a corrupt senate republican, why would you not take this advice?
I don't think they will, but that's really not a legal issue, so I won't go into why not.
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 8th October 2019, 07:53 PM   #262
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,916
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
As someone noted earlier, if the "murder" is properly authorized, it isn't really murder in the legal sense anyway. I said "True" earlier as a quick way of saying that there are circumstances where killing is legal for any of us, and there are even more circumstances where killing by the President, or more likely at the direction of the President, is legal. So it isn't truly "murder" by definition, but rather an act that would be considered murder if it were not authorized by the President.

As for any subsequent obstruction of the investigation, it would depend on whether he had corrupt intent. If the killing were actually legal, but someone launched an investigation into it, presumably any interference would be legal as well, but there are too many hypotheticals to give a definitive answer.
Okay. Let's say someone like this person is called to testify in the impeachment proceedings, but ends up dying of mysterious causes the day before testimony is to be given.

Trump overtly obstructs the snot out of the FBI investigation into the death, firing every agent involved in the investigation, claiming they're deep state agents out to frame him.

Is that obstruction excusable as "with non-corrupt intent"?
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
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 8th October 2019, 07:56 PM   #263
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,916
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
My position is that you have to prove corrupt intent, and there is no way you could convince a jury of it.
...even though you can provide absolutely no argument (not even a weak, lame one) to support the claim that he acted without corrupt intent.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
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 8th October 2019, 07:58 PM   #264
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,916
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I don't think they will, but that's really not a legal issue, so I won't go into why not.
I sure would if I were a corrupt republican senator.

__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
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 8th October 2019, 07:58 PM   #265
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,486
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Okay. Let's say someone like this person is called to testify in the impeachment proceedings, but ends up dying of mysterious causes the day before testimony is to be given.

Trump overtly obstructs the snot out of the FBI investigation into the death, firing every agent involved in the investigation, claiming they're deep state agents out to frame him.

Is that obstruction excusable as "with non-corrupt intent"?
Someone would have to investigate and/or present evidence to a jury. The way you described it, it sure sounds corrupt, but the jury would have to decide based on the actual evidence presented to them.

I am saying that if you present the Mueller Report, together with legal arguments and circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back explaining each one, and let the defense do the same thing, you wouldn't secure a conviction.
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 8th October 2019, 07:58 PM   #266
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,445
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
And on that note, I'm going to mostly leave behind the Mueller charges of obstruction of justice. We could lock antlers for weeks without getting anywhere, but the positions are pretty well defined by what has already been posted.

My position is that you have to prove corrupt intent, and there is no way you could convince a jury of it. That applies whether to vote required on the jury is 67 senators, or 12 ordinary citizens. (There may be other problems with the obstruction charge as well, but that's the way I see things.) As the impeachment process moves forward, we'll learn a lot more about this, and I won't abandon the subject altogether if people want to talk about it, but there are other alleged crimes, as well as high crimes and misdemeanors, to deal with.

See you in Ukraine in the not terribly distant future.
And YOU would be wrong. In fact your position is absurd. And whats even more ridiculous is your denial of the corrupt intent.

If there is no corrupt intent, you don't hide it. You don't stonewall. This alone proves "consciousness of guilt". The corrupt intent might as well be tattooed on your forehead. Personally I consider what you are doing is both intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla 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 8th October 2019, 08:00 PM   #267
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,486
At the risk of breaking my own rule about the contents of this thread, I'm going to cite this post : http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post11594642 that I made three years ago, predicting Trump would be impeached and convicted, and why.


I don't think he has done it yet, but the impeachment inquiry itself might push him over the edge and cause him to do something that would actually result in impeachment and conviction.
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 8th October 2019, 08:05 PM   #268
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,486
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
And YOU would be wrong. In fact your position is absurd. And whats even more ridiculous is your denial of the corrupt intent.

If there is no corrupt intent, you don't hide it. You don't stonewall. This alone proves "consciousness of guilt". The corrupt intent might as well be tattooed on your forehead. Personally I consider what you are doing is both intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt.
On second thought, I'm done.
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 8th October 2019, 08:08 PM   #269
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,916
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
See you in Ukraine in the not terribly distant future.
Now that you've basically conceded on obstruction during the Mueller investigation...

Onto (or, back to) violations of the emoluments clause, 52 USC 30121, and the FEC!

It is illegal for anyone to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with any election in the United states.

Also see:

https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-co...tributions.pdf

What is the argument against this?
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
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 8th October 2019, 08:13 PM   #270
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,445
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
At the risk of breaking my own rule about the contents of this thread, I'm going to cite this post : http://www.internationalskeptics.com...2#post11594642 that I made three years ago, predicting Trump would be impeached and convicted, and why.


I don't think he has done it yet, but the impeachment inquiry itself might push him over the edge and cause him to do something that would actually result in impeachment and conviction.
Any other President, would be impeached and removed. The only reason he has not been is ultra partisanship and a willingness to excuse abominable behaviour. Every day, Trump does something worse. His willingness to use government for personal purposes is definitely one of them. But a far greater offense in my view has been a wanton abuse of power and his efforts to destroy checks and balances.

I gave him a chance when he became President and yet every single day he betrayed that trust. As criminal as his extortion of Ukraine was, his refusal to cooperate with Congress is far worse.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla 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 8th October 2019, 09:52 PM   #271
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 5,021
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
The obviousness of it being willful, knowing obstruction is clear in the Mueller evidence.

The Mueller arguments only hinge on the "corrupt intent" issue in the sense that Barr claimed non-corrupt intent to dismiss Mueller's evidence.

Quote:
In any case, there are legal reasons to fire an FBI director. Because he's lost the trust of the country, for example. Given that there are legal reasons, that can be applicable regardless of the state of any investigation, how do you determine which reason was predominant? Is that even possible?
In some cases it might be difficult, but not in this one.
You judge it by the totality of the evidence.

In this case, even the "non-corrupt intent" argument Barr was forced to make ("He really believed it was a witch hunt, so that makes it fully excusable") presumes Trump was trying to take the special counsel out as a matter of self-defense. As opposed to something like "Mueller had developed a drinking problem that was causing him to miss work for weeks on end, and Trump didn't even know there was an investigation of him underway."



Strawman.

And speaking of the totality of the evidence, Trump asked Rosenstein to come up with a list of reasons why he should fire Comey, which he then released as the reasons. However, he then told Lester Holt that he had already decided to fire Comey, and it was because the "Russia thing was a made-up story." Then he told two Russian officials that he had taken the investigation pressure off by firing Comey. That isn't just circumstantial evidence that he had been dishonest about his supposedly "legal" reason; it's pretty much a confession. And then, as I said before, refusing to testify can be taken as circumstantial evidence of knowledge of wrongdoing. Now, Trump apologists suggest that he can go back to the list of reasons Rosenstein came up with and a make a case that he didn't have corrupt intent. Yeah, you can try that, but the confidence in making that case from the evidence is baffling.
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 8th October 2019, 09:59 PM   #272
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,749
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Thank you for the correction. I hope my imprecise terminology didn't confuse you too much about my meaning.

Anyway, this analysis seems potentially circular, or at least incoherent. Consider:

10 It's legal for the President to dismiss an FBI Director.

20 Unless it's obstruction.

30 But it's not obstruction unless there's corrupt intent.

40 But it's not corrupt intent unless the President knows it's illegal.

50 GOTO 10

So there must be some nuance or other consideration that I'm missing.
You are twisting what I said, as I never actually even discussed the firing of the FBI Director.

The more logical pathway is this...

- It is legal for the President to dismiss an FBI Director, if he does so for a valid reason.
- Not all reasons are valid for dismissal
- Some invalid reasons may be reasons that are also illegal
- Among the illegal reasons would be firing the Director to stop an investigation into oneself or one's actions.
- If the president knows that firing the Director to stop an investigation into oneself or one's actions, is either illegal, or likely illegal, then it is Obstruction of Justice.
__________________

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 8th October 2019, 10:00 PM   #273
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,749
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I read his post. That was NOT my impression.

He said "Corrupt Intent" means to do something "with the full knowledge that it is illegal."

I would disagree with his description. But nowhere does he say the absence constitutes a free pass.
You'd be arguing with Black's Law Dictionary, not me.
__________________

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 8th October 2019, 10:11 PM   #274
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,445
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
You'd be arguing with Black's Law Dictionary, not me.
Feel free to cite the relevant text. I dont believe you are correct. Ignorance of the law has never been an excuse for breaking the law.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla 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 8th October 2019, 10:20 PM   #275
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,749
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
PW's argument explicitly contradicts you. Why are you taking me to task, instead of him, about the central point of his argument?
I didn't make an argument at all, I merely gave the definitions of the terms as from Black's Law Dictionary and showed that they had a different meaning in Law.

If anyone makes the argument that "Corrupt Intent" is required, it was Special Counsel Mueller.

Also I personally would not consider the firing of Comey to be the main case for Obstruction of Justice, mostly because Trump gave multiple reasons for the firing, and so it it muddled. Rather there are three other cases of obstruction that show clear "Corrupt Intend" and so satisfy all three requirements that Mueller says are needed for Obstruction of Justice.

There is no doubt that there was corrupt intent when it came to Trump's ordering Don McGahn to get then AG Sessions to unrecuse himself and fire Mueller, something that he clearly knew was illegal because of historical precedent and also that he tried to hide it both through using back channels (i.e. McGahn) and then later tried to get McGahn to lie about it to cover up the cover up. After McGahn failed to follow his orders, Trump then tried a second time, getting Corey Lewandowski to get then AG Sessions to unrecuse and halt the investigation by changing its Mandate to only include future Elections. Again that he tried to hide this via Back channels shows that he knew it was illegal to interfere in an investigation into himself. Lastly, and the real nail in the coffin, when he realised that the game was up and Mueller was going to find out about his ordering McGahn to have Sessions kill the investigation by firing Mueller, he ordered MaGahn to lie about it and to create a fake document to cover it up. These actions clearly show that he knew that it was illegal because he was trying to hide it from Law Enforcement agents. That speaks volumes to his intent, and it is clear that his intent in these three things was to knowingly and illegally interfere in the Mueller investigation. That is Obstruction of Justice.
__________________

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 8th October 2019, 10:22 PM   #276
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,749
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Feel free to cite the relevant text. I dont believe you are correct. Ignorance of the law has never been an excuse for breaking the law.
Already did...

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
"Corrupt Intent" and "Criminal Intent" are not the same thing.

"Criminal Intent" means that the person acted deliberately to "injure or deprive another"

"Corrupt Intent" means to do something "with the full knowledge that it is illegal."

So if you are aware that something is illegal, and do it anyway, then you have acted with corrupt intent, even if that action doesn't and isn't meant to injure or deprive anyone else.
__________________

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 8th October 2019, 10:30 PM   #277
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 11,916
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
I read his post. That was NOT my impression.

He said "Corrupt Intent" means to do something "with the full knowledge that it is illegal."

I would disagree with his description. But nowhere does he say the absence constitutes a free pass.
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Feel free to cite the relevant text. I dont believe you are correct. Ignorance of the law has never been an excuse for breaking the law.
Here:
https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/r...an-excuse.html
Quote:
Specific Intent Crimes
Criminal statutes often require a defendant to have a particular state of mind.
Quote:
For example, consider a law that requires a business owner to file a certain tax form related to the business. The law says that willfully failing to do so is an offense. In this situation, the owner’s ignorance of the filing requirement might well be a good defense. In fact, it would be the prosecutor’s burden to prove willfulness in demonstrating that the owner purposefully avoided filing the tax form.
https://www.legalmatch.com/law-libra...nt-crimes.html
Quote:
Additional examples of specific intent crimes are:

Burglary;
Child Molestation;
Conspiracy;
False Pretenses;
Forgery;
Embezzlement;
Solicitation;
Theft (also called Larceny);
Robbery; and
Murder (most jurisdictions call this First Degree or Premeditated Murder).
That's why Mueller ruled "no conspiracy" (or anything else) regarding the Trump Tower meeting. He said:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/don...eeting-n995816
Quote:
“On the facts here, the government would unlikely be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the June 9 meeting participants had general knowledge that their conduct was unlawful," the report reads. "The investigation has not developed evidence that the participants in the meeting were familiar with the foreign-contribution ban or the application of federal law to the relevant factual context. The government does not have strong evidence of surreptitious behavior or efforts at concealment at the time of the June 9 meeting."
That's also what makes the Ukraine solicitation of dirt so SUPER DEFINITELY illegal, too.

Trump now has NO way to argue that he didn't know he wasn't supposed to be doing that.
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell
I am proud to say that Henry Kissinger is not my friend.
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 8th October 2019, 10:35 PM   #278
Minoosh
Philosopher
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 9,886
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Feel free to cite the relevant text. I dont believe you are correct. Ignorance of the law has never been an excuse for breaking the law.
It's linked to on the previous page. It is a very minimalist definition:
CORRUPT INTENT

This term applies to doing something with the full knowledge that it is illegal.

If Trump thought it was legal to fire Comey he could not have had "corrupt intent." However, I think the whole conceit of acting as if this is a criminal trial is falling apart. Within a day or two Trump had cited multiple reasons for his firing of Comey, one of which was to block an investigation of Trump's conduct. The remedy for this is a political process, not a criminal trial. The House will have to make a case that this was obstruction of justice and IMO it really won't matter what Black's dictionary says. Impeachable conduct is what the House says it is.

ETA: Ninja'd, of course

Last edited by Minoosh; 8th October 2019 at 10:37 PM.
Minoosh 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 8th October 2019, 10:43 PM   #279
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,749
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
It's linked to on the previous page. It is a very minimalist definition:
CORRUPT INTENT

This term applies to doing something with the full knowledge that it is illegal.

If Trump thought it was legal to fire Comey he could not have had "corrupt intent." However, I think the whole conceit of acting as if this is a criminal trial is falling apart. Within a day or two Trump had cited multiple reasons for his firing of Comey, one of which was to block an investigation of Trump's conduct. The remedy for this is a political process, not a criminal trial. The House will have to make a case that this was obstruction of justice and IMO it really won't matter what Black's dictionary says. Impeachable conduct is what the House says it is.

ETA: Ninja'd, of course
I totally agree, though as noted previously, I'd avoid the Comey firing altogether, there are three clear cut cases that are far, far, far, stronger that can be used.
__________________

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 8th October 2019, 11:01 PM   #280
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 22,445
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
It's linked to on the previous page. It is a very minimalist definition:
CORRUPT INTENT

This term applies to doing something with the full knowledge that it is illegal.

If Trump thought it was legal to fire Comey he could not have had "corrupt intent." However, I think the whole conceit of acting as if this is a criminal trial is falling apart. Within a day or two Trump had cited multiple reasons for his firing of Comey, one of which was to block an investigation of Trump's conduct. The remedy for this is a political process, not a criminal trial. The House will have to make a case that this was obstruction of justice and IMO it really won't matter what Black's dictionary says. Impeachable conduct is what the House says it is.

ETA: Ninja'd, of course
Part of the problem is you keep talking about a criminal statute and you're only discussing the Trump Tower meeting. The "obstruction of justice" was firing Comey and why they did it. Whether Trump knew that firing Comey to stop an investigation was legal is irrelevant. It would be a textbook definition of Obstruction of Justice.

But beyond criminal statues it clearly is a high crime since the purpose is to subvert investigation.
__________________
Try
Science, not superstition.
Reason, not revelation.
Education, not epiphanies
Intellect, not ignorance.
.
acbytesla 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 10:24 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.