USA v. Donald J. Trump – Indictment 8/1/23

[DavidOdden]

36 minutes ago, necrovore said:

So the deciding factor is what was in Trump's head... which makes this thoughtcrime.

I understand that belief, but it is legally not correct. The crime is specifically about making and implementing a choice. There are a few strict liability crimes (drug possession is a typical example) where all that matters is whether you are in possession of a forbidden substance, but for the most part and especially for fraud, what is prohibited is a cetain choice that is implemented in some way (it isn’t purely thought, it has to be thouht paired with action). With respect to criminal prosecution, it is up to the prosecution to prove, to the point of it being irrational to disbelieve, that the elements of fraud were present.

37 minutes ago, necrovore said:

one does not have to be delusional to question the credibility of statements made by DoJ officials

No, that is an independent conclusion that I reached well before this indictment. Though if you are thinking that I mean delusional in some technical APA-sanction diagnostic way, I don’t mean that. Delusional is not the same as maniac. I think he has manufactured his own version of reality, one that is not supported by facts, instead it is determined by an emotional desire for a particular outcome. Pretty much the mode of reasoning that has been promulgated by the left for decades, and he has bought into it (remember, he was a Democrat). His philosophy of reality does not encompass accepting any fact that is contrary to what he emotionally wants. Whereas, I am also certain that Hillary very strongly wanted to win the election in 2016, but she accepted the reality that she didn’t. The usual response when one has to face a hard reality is to shut up and not concoct alternative realities that allow you to continue evasion. However: I am expressing a very old-school view of how people should react to unpleasant realities. There is a more modern view, implemented in GPT Chatbots, where words are moved around on the screen in whatever fashion is most likely to obscure one’s error, and to avoid admitting that you were wrong.

The tragedy of this all (and this is not limited to the past 6 years, it is a decades-long or longer matter) is that rational discussion has slid down the toilet. There is a very simple model of how to discuss matters: set forth facts, and use logic to reach conclusions. We can read Aristotle, Socrates and Plato to see what I mean by such a discussion. But I weakly blame the Socratic method, since I think that a direct challenge and alternative claim is superior to a suggestive question intended to lead a person to reject their own claim. Every decent Socratic question (which cannot be true of false) can be re-stated as a proposition with a definite true/false answer.

In other words, the world needs an intensive dose of Objectivist epistemology.

 

[necrovore]

9 hours ago, DavidOdden said:

I understand that belief, but it is legally not correct.

This looks like one of those cases where the law itself is legitimate -- I wouldn't say that laws against fraud should be thrown out -- but it doesn't seem like it's being used correctly here.

So it's thoughtcrime in the way it's being used.

9 hours ago, DavidOdden said:

I think he has manufactured his own version of reality, one that is not supported by facts, instead it is determined by an emotional desire for a particular outcome.

You also have to look at who Trump is up against -- the permanent bureaucracy. They believe consensus is reality. If they reach a consensus, e.g., that masks are effective, then that's "reality" as far as they are concerned, and they have the power to prosecute accordingly. So their definition of "delusional" is different from yours.

Bureaucrats expect all the right forms to be filled out, and all the right boxes to be checked. This approach probably clashes with Trump's frequent use of "salesman's intuition." That's why they don't like him.

Edited August 6, 2023 by necrovore

[Easy Truth]

3 hours ago, necrovore said:

So it's thoughtcrime in the way it's being used.

13 hours ago, DavidOdden said:

If it were simply a thought crime, it should and probably would be thrown out. But Trump acted a certain way and the prosecution is trying to provide proof that there was an intention to do it.

[DavidOdden]

8 hours ago, necrovore said:

Bureaucrats expect all the right forms to be filled out, and all the right boxes to be checked. This approach probably clashes with Trump's frequent use of "salesman's intuition." That's why they don't like him.

I agree that there is such a difference between Trump versus (many of) those professionally in politics – Trump’s focus is on getting a certain result, methods be damned. Insofar as the job of the President of the United States is, as articulated in the Constitution, to implement the laws enacted by Congress, that makes him tempermentally quite unsuited to that job, at least in the classical version of the POTUS job description. He is more suited to the revised view of the position, as “running the country (with the advice and consent of Congress)”.

It isn’t important to me whether we condemn him as “delusional”, rather than “evasional”, he still lacks a fundamental respect for reality and law. Still, evasion is I was giving him the benefit of the doubt by putting him in the delusional bin, which is better than the dishonest bin. Even if he uttered those sentences without a firm belief in their truth, I still don’t see what utterances rise to the level of fraud.  

 

[necrovore]

On 8/6/2023 at 6:43 PM, DavidOdden said:

Insofar as the job of the President of the United States is, as articulated in the Constitution, to implement the laws enacted by Congress, that makes him tempermentally quite unsuited to that job, at least in the classical version of the POTUS job description. He is more suited to the revised view of the position, as “running the country (with the advice and consent of Congress)”.

This may be because of the current laws of Congress more than because of the Constitution or its original intent.

We didn't start out with a big permanent bureaucracy like the one we have today.

We do want a government of laws as opposed to a government of men, but in many cases we have a "government of laws" when we should have freedom instead. The laws become more and more complicated over time because of unintended consequences and "controls necessitating further controls." Freedom is considered a "barbarous relic," like gold.

I saw a TED talk once about how China's government was better than the USA's because in China they don't have elected leaders; instead people have to start at the bottom of the bureaucracy and get promoted up to the top, so that by the time they reach it they have 20-30 years of experience in government.

The Founding Fathers, by contrast, called for a popularly elected President. This can lead to a wide variety of different temperaments from one President to the next, and I think the Founding Fathers knew that and didn't think it would be a problem. So one must ask, why is it a problem now?

This conflict about Trump is not really about Trump per se. It's just that the bureaucrats want one of their own (or at least somebody who will stay out of their way).

I don't think they want there to be a President (or a Congress or a Supreme Court) unless they are rubber stamps. I think the bureaucrats want to run things themselves.

So, as John Galt said, "Fire your bureaucrats." Trump actually planned to do something like that, and that's one big reason why they don't want him being President again.

[tadmjones]

The elected ones aren’t much better 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_it7eyrK6k

 

[Boydstun]

 

The elected ones aren’t much better 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_it7eyrK6k

 

Tad, concerning the event in the link, did you think the murder conviction in the Floyd case was incorrect? Why?

 

. . .

So, as John Galt said, "Fire your bureaucrats." Trump actually planned to do something like that, and that's one big reason why they don't want him being President again.

Where did the Galt character say "Fire your bureaucrats"? I don't recall that.

Pres. Trump and his Sec of State DID "do something like that." They got a great many out of the State Dept. and did not hire replacements.

My ideal sort of President would propose a balanced budget in the first year in office and veto any outcome from the Congress that was projected to be in the red. That would have the indirect effect of reducing civil servants across the board even were taxes also raised, practically speaking. I don't hear much sense in talk of reducing professional staff for any reason other than budget. If one is just symbolically reducing staff to show one is for smaller government in general, although such a generality as a basic tenet is emptiness of thought, it is not so off disconnected from real people as making war on government as was done in the Oklahoma City Federal Building bombing in 1995 or in the batteries and other violence at the US Capitol building on Jan 6, 2021. If reduction of the professional staff is to express the idea that one can perform as President better without them, that's myopic foolishness I'd say.

Edited August 9, 2023 by Boydstun

[necrovore]

29 minutes ago, Boydstun said:

Where did the Galt character say "Fire your bureaucrats"? I don't recall that.

It was towards the end of the book where they had captured him and they were asking him to rebuild the economy for them, and he was saying that he couldn't work with them. Near where they offered him a "cool, neat, billion dollars."

-- Actually it's "Fire your government employees." I didn't remember it word-for-word.

Edited August 9, 2023 by necrovore

[tadmjones]

Stephen

I think Floyd was responsible(ultimately?) for his own death. He refused to allow the officers to arrest him and detain him in a vehicle, those actions resulted in the officers' subsequent actions of restraint. The toxicology reports showed Floyd had ingested chemicals that actively reduce respiration which likely exasperated the effects of what was determined to be a negligent level of force applied by the arresting officers. The jury was left to decide the distal and proximate causes. The prosecution argued that a healthy person would have died due to the subdual and restraint: prone position while handcuffed and subject to weight/pressure from the officer's position and objective disregard of Floyd's medical status in the moment.

In Chauvin's civil rights convictions he was charged with violating Floyd's right to be free of excessive police force along with violating a 14 year olds' right to be free of excessive police force when he restrained him a similar manner for 14-15 minutes an event that did not result in the death of the young male. I would say he was bad/dangerous cop and that he unintentionally caused a major contributory threat to Floyd's life , legally defined as second degree unintentional murder.

As to the quasi-ritualistic actions of Pelosi, Schumer etal. in the Capitol , I say they were shameless. The theatrics of that escapade stoked resentment of a false charge of rampant racism against blacks perpetrated by all law enforcement. It was almost demonic in its irony, old mostly white public officials miming the 'lethal act' festooned in the 'colors' of an African nation( tribe) known for subjugating and enslaving neighboring tribes. While properly social distanced and masked ! The rot is so entrenched and so deep that 'most' would apologize for it , them . Every two years since 1987 the majority of people in California's 11th district elect her to the same office, obviously the uniquely and single best person in the district to hold the office!

[DavidOdden]

We have here a balanced struggle between law and politics. The bureaucracy exists because laws were passed, and they were passed for political reasons. The law is self-protective, not just at the level of agencies promulgating rules, but in the Constitution itself (the president does not get to name the Speaker of the House, or write the rules that govern Congress or the courts). In order to achieve politically-desirable goals (leaving aside who desires them), Trump operated both illegally and un-traditionally. If Congress doesn’t like his un-traditional actions, they can pass a law forbidding it (that’s why we have the Administrative Procedures Act). Proper criticism of POTUS as executive officer is directed at illegality, not unconventionality. Should we cheer the outcome, means be damned, or should we as-enthusiastically cheer an undesirable outcome that was properly implemented? That is, should be declare that a contradiction is possible? I insist that there are no contradictions, and we should condemn both evil means and evil outcomes, even when Mussolini gets the trains to run on time.

[Boydstun]

 

Lawrence Tribe – "misrepresentation of my scholarship"

[Grames]

Nothing will come of this except Trump will become stronger.

[Doug Morris]

1 hour ago, Grames said:

Nothing will come of this except Trump will become stronger.

In the primaries.

 

[tadmjones]

20 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

In the primaries.

 

But Biden is a stronger general candidate or do you mean Harris or Newsom maybe the Transportation Secretary? Big Mike ?

[Doug Morris]

22 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

But Biden is a stronger general candidate

You said it.

[Boydstun]

Well, we've gotten shifted at least for the day on this thread to electoral-politics impact of these proceedings in criminal law. I'll chip in my two cents on the electoral stuff (about which there is no rational certainty in anyone's head, whether they realize that or not).

I'd bet a Coke that most people who voted for Biden over Trump in 2020 were simply voting against Trump regardless of who the Democrat was. That is, they were not voting against Republican positions overall in comparison to Democratic positions overall. At the same time as Biden was winning against Trump in that election, tax-increase initiatives around the country were uniformly being voted down.

I think there is still a real possibility that Republican Primary voters will vote for someone besides Trump for their nominee, judging that any other Republican would do better in the General than Trump. I suspect actually that any other Republican candidate could defeat the Democratic candidate, whomever that is, provided the Republican-not-Trump runs on a positive campaign on genuine issues such as the price of food and the role of government in causing this inflation. Thanks to the lingering "Moral Majority" influence in the Republican Party, there may be no possible Republican nominee who favors legality of abortions at will in the first trimester, and that is something that will weigh heavily against them in the general election.

I doubt most voters care much about a bunch of the other issues on which devout Democrats or devout Republicans most holler about in recent times, such as income inequality, homelessness, people who cannot afford medical insurance, continuance of all species of plants and animals, collective action to resist climate change, Bible thumping from the throne against homosexuality, keeping the US from becoming a bi-lingual country, rewriting history for the children in public schools with rose colored glasses, and there also teaching Genesis as a scientific alternative to biological evolution. 

[tadmjones]

I think the anti-Trump sentiment to whatever degree it was held was a product of persuasion implemented by 'anti-populist' factions in society that most strongly control the means of persuasion.

Economically the most recognized 'metrics' (notwithstanding any public naivety toward perception vs the 'reality' of the nature of the metrics) were on the whole up or improving, showing signs of continuing on a positive trajectory.

Foreign policy , from a pro American lens, was very positive : no new foreign wars, Rocketman back in his cage, 'peace in the Middle East' and China ostensibly on the defensive.

Those are traditionally the major aspects of presidential 'accomplishments' to be considered as the main criteria in judging for support in a candidate. Objectively he didn't score 'badly' in those areas and historically when an incumbent doesn't fuck shit up in especially those areas it would be hard for a candidate to lose.

If he lost it was because "Orange man Bad" was believed by 'everyone' that 'everyone' believed it and his losing would be inevitable. 'everyone' also believed "safe and effective" and zero covid is a "thing".

"They" shut down the world with covid to curtail a raising populist sentiment and the boot grinding is only going to get worse.

 

 

[Boydstun]

4 hours ago, tadmjones said:

I think the anti-Trump sentiment to whatever degree it was held was a product of persuasion implemented by 'anti-populist' factions in society that most strongly control the means of persuasion.

Economically . . .

Foreign policy . . .

Those are traditionally the major aspects of presidential 'accomplishments' to be considered as the main criteria in judging for support in a candidate. Objectively he didn't score 'badly' in those areas and historically when an incumbent doesn't fuck shit up in especially those areas it would be hard for a candidate to lose.

If he lost it was because "Orange man Bad" was believed by 'everyone' that 'everyone' believed it and his losing would be inevitable. 'everyone' also believed "safe and effective" and zero covid is a "thing".

"They" shut down the world with covid to curtail a raising populist sentiment and the boot grinding is only going to get worse.

Populism in the USA 

Tad, I didn't need any outside counsel to tell me I should not support Mr. Trump for President in 2016 (a, b, c) [I am the 'Guyau' author of those posts]. 

Or in 2020. I had never watched "reality tv", but once Mr. Trump was campaigning in 2016, it was plain to me from his own remarks and behavior that he was a con man, that he indulged in the adolescent ploy of accusing (and trash-naming) his political opponents with whatever evils he was himself up to or had done, that he tapped into a lot of bigotry in the country, that he had bolstered anti-intellectualism as G. Wallace had done in '68, that he was unable to sustain thought on policy on his feet in his debates with H. Clinton, that he was a creep in coming into her physical space and towering over her, plain enough that he'd prefer fists to thought (and knew his fans would like that too).

By the end of his term, my summation of him was "Subjectivist-in-Chief," his zenith under that description being his kicking and screaming ploys to still be President a second term after his defeat in 2020. It was because of the public side of that behavior that my older sister, who had supported him in 2016, before any of these indictments and particulars they bring to public light, decided not to support him in his 2024 bid.

Pres. Trump's practices in combating Islamic Terrorists overseas were a continuation of Obama (and good) notwithstanding all the railings that he was different on that front. He should get credit particularly, as mentioned by Pres. Biden at the time, of continuing the kill-search for al-Zawahiri, as the administrations of Bush and Obama (and Biden after Trump) had done. The most important action by Pres. Trump was his appointment of three anti-abortionist Justices to the Supreme Court. He had promised his appointments would be such during the 2016 campaign, bringing out the countryside vote with his Heritage Foundation list from which he promised to choose. (I have a post somewhere with an analysis [by professionals, not by me] after that election of four different factions of concerns in the population backing him, but I should not take time to find it just now.) I was, of course, definitely opposed to that. Something he did that I liked was have the EPA roll back the methane limits on fossil-fuel power plants. Those two moves, of course, were standard Republican faire, nothing distinctively Trump. 

During his term, I had friends in New York who had those doggy-poop pickup bags with Trump's face printed on them. I think in my lifetime the Presidents I most despised were G.W. Bush (Iraq) and L.B. Johnson (Vietnam). Mr. Trump was often thought by my friends to be an idiot except in creating a personality cult (my younger sister was part of that cult; she died before him losing in '20). When I heard the tape of the phone conversation between Trump and M. Cohen over hush-money decisions, I saw that was wrong. He was smart and able to think-talk when he was in private and with someone he trusted. I do think of him by now as human depravity, paraded and applauded. All of these legal troubles he and cohorts are having today come from deeds stemming from his personality disorders and ability to con. Still, I expect law to prevail, with all rights of the accused respected. That was one nice thing to witness during his Presidency: it didn't matter how egregious his directives or proposals might be or how loudly his base was stamping the floor, judicial review prevailed, and we continued as a constitutional republic, where as Paine had envisioned, "the Law is King."

Exit Poll and Ballot Initiatives of 2020 Election

Edited August 16, 2023 by Boydstun

[Boydstun]

 

6 November 2020 

13 January 2021

[tadmjones]

In that thread I described his appeal to me as 'not a redeemer, but a table overturner'. and attributed that sentiment to what I was seeing from his supporters.

Do you still hold admiration for the Republic of which Hillary stands? It feels more like martyr making , again.

[Boydstun]

Tad,

Shortly after Mr. Trump was elected President, my husband received a mailing from the Democratic Party asking for financial contribution. He asked me if we should do that. I thought a minute, and said "No. Let's contribute to the ACLU." That has indeed proven an important force for preserving the constitutional republic in which civil liberties and personal liberties are protected.

More generally, in my view, the great bulwark that preserves our form of government against ignorant, parochial, mob-to-dictatorship rule is the American legal profession and the wide peaceful acceptance and embrace by the citizens of  judicial process. I know it is a long tradition that derides lawyers in general, and I know some do things worthy of being disbarred or prosecuted under the law. But I'm of the view and will tell, contrary the usual opinion: God bless the legal profession. Anyone getting through law school and passing the bar has learned what our law really is and how reasoning goes into judicial decisions as to having law in this land. Mob lawyers are not the usual.

Hillary Clinton is a Democrat, and, for many of their policies concerning genuine issues, I don't support the Democrat program. HC earned a law degree from Yale, and from her performance in debates, especially with Mr. Trump, it wouldn't surprise me to learn she had some training in appellate advocacy. She was smeared continuously by Fox News on a personal level as it was thought she might come to succeed Obama as President (having strong preparation and skills and being a woman, I suppose, since, after all, a given Party seldom wins a third term in the White House, which is a non-warrant for all that advance smearing of a possible 3rd-term candidate; years earlier the Republican Party seemed to have a similar focus on and anxiety over Sen. Edward Kennedy). Repetitions of smears or gossip does not carry weight with me. Years of National Enquirer headlines presuming an affair between JFK and Marilyn Monroe adds up to nothing above zero with me.

It is plausible that H. Clinton lost the election crucially because nine days before election day, the FBI reported that they were reopening an investigation into her use of a private server for emails because they had found there were tracks of them in a machine they did not have available earlier. They cautioned that there might not be any new information therein, which ultimately proved to be the case. But meanwhile voters had time to reflect: "Not another administration rife with scandal and under investigation!" (contrast with quiet on that score with the Obama terms). I was so concerned that would be he effect among voters—and indeed her poll numbers plummeted—that I switched to voting for her to give my trivial help to preventing Mr. Trump getting our electoral votes here, whereas, until those last few days, I had planned to vote for the Libertarian. (I think that candidate would have gotten double the votes he got had the FBI announcement not come up at the last minute.)

I'm reasonably sure that only the Clinton's know why she used that private server. And she is the one knowing whether the decision had been worth the ultimate cost of her not becoming President in 2017 and the consequent undermining of many citizens' confidence in the constitutional republican form of government and in law enforcement that ultimately resulted from the ravings against them by our former President Trump.

To do my bit to stop Mr. Trump from winning the electoral votes of my state in 2024, I'd vote for H. Clinton again were she the opposition candidate. That's enough election stuff for this participant on this thread in the Law subsection.* 

 

Edited August 16, 2023 by Boydstun

[tadmjones]

Comey said (paraphrasing) "No reasonable prosecutor would bring charges" , so not much Law as Yale law and when to wield it and against whom.

[tadmjones]

 

[Doug Morris]

On 8/16/2023 at 2:13 PM, Boydstun said:

To do my bit to stop Mr. Trump from winning the electoral votes of my state in 2024, I'd vote for H. Clinton again were she the opposition candidate.

Trump threatens, and has damaged, our system of democratic elections and orderly transfer of power.  He'll probably do even more if he wins or comes close.  If he wrecks our system of democratic elections and orderly transfer of power, we'll be left with a contest of physical force to see who gains office.  Whoever wins that contest, having used force to get power, will probably use force to keep it, and we'll have a dictatorship.  This is a more immediate threat to our rights than the gradual slide into statism that the current Republican party can only delay and tweak, not prevent.

To do my bit to stop Mr. Trump from winning the electoral votes of my state in 2024, I'd vote for H. Biden were he the opposition candidate.  (Yes, I said H.)  I'd vote for a yellow dog.  I'd vote for that apparent serial killer that was recently arrested in Long Island.

 

[tadmjones]

Was the power transferred? ( an unarmed mob isn’t an attempt, a year of mob shit shows wasn’t a threat to their democracy)

And which democratic process was broken by what and who ?

Mask up and slide gracefully , the American way.