Guilt by association is an informal fallacy. This means you cannot just call it out and think you proved something. That would be acting like a doofus.
When the association is close enough, then the implication of guilt is solid.
Hence the phrase, "close enough for government work"! Your explication is itself fallacious: Essentially, "if only I could find it, I'm sure there's guilt there; hence you should believe me when I say there's guilt there!" Come now: Either there's convincing evidence or there isn't. What I should believe doesn't go beyond accepting that you believe there's guilt there... At least, in American criminal law.
what I get from you is that when some non-descript politician who you do not like (why? because of the islands she is from, even though it is a US colony so you should feel like a boss there? or because of her skin colour?) is associated with Epstein via a political donation (she is a politician, duh), that's bad, but when Trump and Epstein party together, then, well, Epstein might still be bad (again, why? because you were not invited to the party?) whereas Trump has successes and glory and honour and is pure as angel. In short, sheer partisan bullshit blather from you as usual.
I'm afraid your excess verbiage didn't quite obscure your question: Why do I dislike the Gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands of the United States? Two reasons. One, her pretentious preening about her "privileged position" as an excuse to dismiss the proceedings... That would be bad enough! But, two[1], it was she who applied Ye Olde Guilt-by-Association schtick[2], in the first place! (What? Guilt-by-Association isn't in your little handbook of Approved Fallacies? Who to blame, Aristotle or the Churchmen? You decide; or see if you can procure an updated edition!)
1 However did you miss this? Shall I call you Dobbin? ↵
2 What, is that Yiddish!? I must be antisemitic, too! (At least, a Cultural Appropriator...)↵
Virgin Islands Non-Voting Representative Stacey Plaskett was called out for taking money from Jeffrey Epstein, the disgraced sex trafficker who may or may not have killed himself. [...] Last month, reporting from the Washington Free Beacon’s Chuck Ross revealed that Plaskett took money from Epstein even after he was a convicted sex offender, and met with him personally. As Ross reported:
Quote
Plaskett met Epstein numerous times after her entry into politics in 2014, visiting Epstein's office in the Virgin Islands and his New York City townhouse, she said in a deposition last month [May 2023]. The meetings occurred years after Epstein's conviction on child sex crimes was publicly known, but Plaskett nonetheless met the registered sex offender to solicit campaign donations for herself and Democratic committees. Though she has denied knowing Epstein contributed to her campaign, emails revealed in court documents show her directing a fundraising consultant to ensure Epstein is invited to her fundraiser. "I would be grateful for his support," Plaskett wrote in the July 2018 email.
Details of the relationship are revealed in court documents released as part of a lawsuit the government of the Virgin Islands filed against JPMorgan, where Epstein banked for years. Emails released in the case show that Epstein jumped at a request in 2014 to help Plaskett in her underdog campaign.
When it was initially reported that Plaskett took money from Epstein, she lied and denied having any knowledge of the donation whatsoever, claiming to have only then just learned about it in the media.
Which is preferable, the syntactical mush Harris spews or the entitlement that oozes from Plaskett — with nary a hint of self-awareness? (At least Plaskett can't vote in the House...)
But perhaps you're right about one thing: Read Roger Kimball's piece in the current Spectator.
the correct conclusion is that impeachment does not work
Your logic is deficient: What do you think the purpose of impeachment is? Is it not removal from office? (If you -I mean you, in particular, ersi- read real closely you'll find that that is what the Constitution calls for, upon conviction by the Senate...)[1]
I worry that his corruptions, not his principles[2], will further divide my country — and further pervert its institutions! (Much of the rest of the world is in a jeopardy peculiarly of his making.)
over Trump's defiant brazen ongoing obstruction of justice, perjury, libellous slander, election lies, election thefts, and criminal incompetence?
I suspect it's the concepts you cannot grasp, rather than the words you misuse, that make you so vehement! Isn't Putin villain enough for you? Actually -now that I think of it- it's likely the mere fact of Trump's defiance that drives your animosity: He's an unrepentant American who won't kow-tow to his "betters"...[3]
1 I know you'd prefer a firing squad for Trump! But your level of venom is rare, in the U.S.↵
2 Whatever they might be... (I'm frequently told, nowadays, that he loves his son!)↵
3 That hurts your feelings, and you can't help but feel outraged! ↵
You mean you remember an impeachment there? There wasn't.
Perfidious pedantry, ersi, and you know it! (BTW: Ed Brooke, Massachusetts' Senator, was the first in that chamber to ask for impeachment. He was a black republican!)
I'll await events; but I expect your ass-tute predictions to amount to nothing.
I think Biden could well be guilty of some personal gain in that instance, but he is not guilty of obstructing the investigation of it, the way Trump is.
You obviously haven't watched (or seen decent reportage of) Comer's hearings in the House. (And -as I've said elsewhere- I expect Missouri v. Biden to be fast-tracked to SCOTUS...) The fall-out from Congressional oversight of the FBI and AG Garland's DoJ could easily impel even die-hard Democrats to counsel Uncle Joe to go...
And, no, Biden's "work" in Ukraine was nothing like what Trump was impeached for... https://youtu.be/S3Ibbq_LG-4
Since the term has expired and nothing caught anyone's attention (here), I'll make a prediction: The Missouri v. Biden case will be fast-tracked to SCOTUS.
Kam-ela Harris, a.k.a. Willie Brown's Mattress, remains -despite her relative obscurity- largely disliked by one and all! There are some few who are befuddled by her inanity, not knowing how the Democratic Party got into its current mess. When she was merely a local DA, I was unconcerned. But as my state's Attorney General and then one of its Senators and then a spectacularly unsuccessful Presidential candidate, where she proved herself the perfect running mate for Joe Biden [1], I had justifiable qualms: When Biden inevitably justified Barack Obama's warning "Never underestimate Joe's ability to f*** things up!" her brief stint on the national political stage would prevent his impeachment.
About the actual topic: You're feigned inability to take human nature into account is quite amusing! But -do tell- what were those countries which were never "colonized"?
I fault the judicial system here. The law you cited, Trump should easily fall under it for his stealing of confidential documents and for famously tweeting info from his secret intelligence briefing. Trump has not been locked up for this dangerous breach of law - should be, but hasn't. A systemic problem with the judicial system.
Your understanding of presidential powers in the U.S. regarding classification of documents is deficient; hence your mistaken belief that Trump breached that law... But you often confuse your understanding (biases and all...) with reality.
(But -on your reading, Obama would be liable, too! What a can of worms...)
You did not see the insurrection unfolding in front of you
I did see a riot of sorts; although nothing like the Antifa/BLM riots throughout the previous year! Your use of the term "insurrection" indicates -to me- either an uncritical reliance on propaganda from the MSM or a Woke vocabulary perverting your common sense...
So here we have it. When it comes to Democrats, your standard is: Guilty if suspicious.
I'd like to continue this... But your ability to ignore reality and accept Democrat Party narratives as Gospel makes that a pointless endeavor!
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had a private email server in her private residence over which she communicated classified information with her boss, President Obama; when this was discovered and those emails subpoenaed, her lawyers selected some 30,000 emails for exclusion, and her various employees physically destroyed their phones and other devices... As FBI Director Comey and Obama said, she was "grossly negligent" in her handling of classified information. (Indeed, the FBI concluded that her server was hacked by foreign intelligence services...) But had "not intended to harm" the U.S., so she wouldn't be prosecuted.
I cited the relevant law... This is it:
Quote
(f)Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
Newt Gingrich pointed me to an alarming development[1] that bears upon the readiness of U.S. forces:
Quote
The Marine Corps is small, agile, and flexible, priding itself on being the first to fight, anywhere. Over the past four years, however, the current Commandant, General David H. Berger, has radically transformed the image and the mission of the Marine Corps. The primary focus now is upon developing missile units intended to sink Chinese warships. To fund those units, General Berger did away with 21% of the personnel in infantry battalions, 100% of the tanks, 67% of the cannon artillery batteries, 33% of the assault amphibious companies, nearly 30% of Marine aviation, and almost all assault breaching equipment. The desired number of large amphibious ships was reduced from 38 to 31. Due to these cuts, Marines are less capable to fight as a combined arms force. [emphasis added]
Between the Osprey goof and constant efforts to "retire" the venerable "Warthog", the Marines have not been well-supplied... But this change in mission is bizarre! And dangerous... And it's mostly secret? Scary.
Will Congress intervene? Before it's too late...?
1 Since leaving the House of Representatives - and his Speakership- he's been a fair weather friend of conservatives — the primary evidence of which was his support of George Gascón, the Soros-backed Los Angeles District Attorney...↵
Richard Nixon. I "remember" watching him debate JFK, and thinking he'd won! When he actually won in'68, I was old enough to understand what he was doing to our economy: His formative years were under FDR and a war-time "command and control" system that would have suited any Communist. But, aside from his botched handling of our pull-out of Viet Nam, his most damning sin was naively believing Maoist China would moderate under the influence of quasi-free markets...[1] I'm quite sure, ersi, that you believe "Watergate" was a serious crime! But that's because you're not a serious person. Nixon's sin in that fiasco was his loyalty to hapless underlings. But I'm not sure his continued presidency would have been good for the country, anyway.
Ford. Speaker of the House of Representatives before being elevated to the Vice Presidency (thanks to the egregious Agnew, whose only saving grace was speaking the words “nattering nabobs of negativism,” which Patrick J. Buchanan wrote) and thence to the Presidency, was a true patriot!
Reagan. He got too old in office... Sad, really. (You'd think others would learn from his example.) He got rolled by "Tip" O'Neill on his "amnesty" bill; and Republicans have -ever since- distrusted their Democratic colleagues. So our immigration quagmire isn't that hard to understand. Also, he had his "Wall": He did not dismantle the federal Department of Education, as he'd promised![2]
G.H.W. Bush. The country would have been better off had Carter taken him up on his offer to stay at CIA, where he was accomplishing much. He was not a conservative — but like many savvy politicians he could "play one on TV," and he was earnest! A care-taker sort of president; managed Saddam's invasion of Kuwait better than anyone could have hoped; including Saddam.
G.W. Bush. As I've said before, his hankering to get revenge on the man who arranged the assassination attempt on his dad in Saudi Arabia led him to the Neocon adventurism that was the Iraq War; Afghanistan was -should have been easy — no occupation, only dire and real threats. But what you, ersi, call The Establishment (I call it that, too) had other ideas. The shock of 9/11 galvanized a predisposition...
You're right, I mostly think in terms of policy and perfidy, when it comes to their "crimes"... Would you have had Britain do without Churchill during WW II — had he been a kleptomaniac? (Actually, I suspect you would. Like I said before: You're not a serious person.) Perhaps it raises me in your esteem, that I always thought the impeachment of Wm. Jefferson Clinton was misbegotten angst?
Whenever we talk about American politics or American influence, I have to remind myself that you wish my nation -if not actual ill- at least a comeuppance and eventual but permanent fall from prominence on the world stage.
1 Much as the Neocons thought the influence of a modicum of political freedom would create "democracies" in cultures vastly different to our own!↵
2 Promised even his Senate-confirmed Secretary of Education, who was fine with that...↵
As FBI Director Comey said: "Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case." Ya can't, ya just can't prosecute a Clinton!
Are you pretending to be outraged over this?
Quote
Bottom line: In April, President Obama and his Justice Department adopted a Hillary Clinton defense strategy of concocting a crime no one was claiming Clinton had committed: to wit, transmitting classified information with an intent to harm the United States. With media-Democrat complex help, they peddled the narrative that she could not be convicted absent this “malicious intent,” in a desperate effort to make the publicly known evidence seem weak. Meanwhile, they quietly hamstrung FBI case investigators in order to frustrate the evidence-gathering process. When damning proof nevertheless mounted, the Obama administration dismissed the whole debacle by rewriting the statute (to impose an imaginary intent standard) and by offering absurd rationalizations for not applying the statute as written.
Barack and Hillary were both guilty; for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18), for obstruction of justice, and (You'll like this one the best:) [1] Surely a "high crime and misdemeanor"!
Instead of being prosecuted in the appropriate venues, they were turned loose to concoct and promote The Russian Collusion Hoax™...[2] And in the process destroy America's trust in the FBI, the FISA courts, the DoJ, Congress and most of the media! What accomplished politicians they were.
Am I outraged by this? You bet I am.
1 Aha! Finally, the perfect instance to use my peculiar combination of punctuation and emoticon!↵
2 How's that for "election interference," my friend? ↵
Yesterday was the American holiday, Memorial Day. It began as Decoration Day. And no more fitting description of its import can be found than Frederick Douglas' address given in 1871.
You denounce any and all Democrats simply because they are Democrats.
I'd sure like to see an example or two... But let me cite a few possibilities for your consideration:
Lyndon Johnson. Responsible for "the Great Society" which decimated the American black family... (Counter-example, New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who saw and decried it!) Jimmy Carter. Allowed the Iranian revolutionaries to hold American diplomats hostage for 444 days, and micro-managed a botched rescue by our military... Oh, and his answer to an OPEC embargo was to advise Americans to don sweaters! Bill Clinton. If nothing else[1], he promulgated the idea of Hillary as "the world's smartest woman"! Her first foray into "real" policy was an attempt to remake the health care economy; but, as luck would have it, she couldn't even follow the law in selecting and convening her experts... Bill's "two-fer" would haunt the U.S. for decades. Bill also declined to take out Osama bin Laden after he declared war on the U.S. But, hey, no problem! The sheik didn't do us much harm... How do you imagine Hillary Clinton hasn't gone to jail? As FBI Director Comey said: "Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case." Ya can't, ya just can't prosecute a Clinton! Obama. His sheen shone brightly, for a while. But he quickly managed to racialize law enforcement, "evolve" on the question of Gay Marriage, and via administrative lawmaking enshrine Trans Ideology™ at the Department of Education. (I wasn't surprised: I was familiar with his record as a state senator; I'd read his editorial written upon his becoming editor of the Harvard Law Review, and knew his record of scholarly publication...) Joe Biden. He was a tool as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, performing like a chimp at the hearings for both Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas. I'd let him slide for his plagiarism; his hero Ted Kennedy had -among other foibles[2]- similar proclivities early on. What I found unforgivable was his treatment of the semi driver who happened to be coming down the road when young Joe's wife, infant in arms, drove into the intersection by running a stop sign... Of course, Joe repeatedly lied about the guy, to garner more sympathy. That's just Joe! Rather than list my other problems with Biden I'll simply repeat what his boss, Obama, once said: "Never underestimate Joe's ability to fuck things up!"
You're big on guilt by association, too, I see... Let's leave that for another time. (Perhaps you'd like a similar list of Republicans from me? )
1 Trump was a boy scout, in comparison! But on the bright side: Kids got the new word "Lewinski"...↵
A few honest questions: - How is it unclear that Trump is a criminal regarding to e.g. business fraud, tax evasion, election rigging, and insurrection? What kind of proof (besides a court conviction) would convince you? You don't believe your own eyes, so what do you believe? - Why are you so eager to have a criminal lead the country?
First, I'd quibble with your use of the word "honest"!
What business fraud do you refer to? Over-valuing his properties in loan applications, perhaps? You know, better than I, that no bank tenders a loan without doing its own estimation of value of collateral offered. Tax evasion? You mean not paying more in taxes than required by law? At any rate, tax evasion -as you term it- is not a crime. Election rigging? You apparently think the word "find" is a synonym for "fabricate"... In your world, that may be so! (In which case, I'd ask when Al Gore will be getting out? ) Insurrection? Ask Nancy Pelosi about that... Oh, wait: She was unavailable as a witness to the impeachment trial — even 'though she was directly responsible for security at the Capitol. She (and the Mayor of DC) both rejected Trump's offer of Nation Guard. And to this day the FBI and the Capitol Police remain cagey about how many undercover officers were present, and what their roles might have been.... The protest did become a riot at one point; much less violent than most BLM protests the previous year. In fact, the only fatality was an unarmed protester shot by a government agent. If you've only read or seen edited versions of Trump's speech, shame on you! But, as I've noted before, you have no shame: Your dislike of the man makes you see and believe the worst of him. Like Alvin Bragg running for Manhatten DA on the platform that he would indict Trump! He didn't know for what he would indict Trump... But animus is a strange beast: That you see and believe the worst is more than enough for you! No evidence -let alone, proof- required; he's as guilty as sin, because of course he is!
You seriously ask why I'm eager to have a criminal run my country? Have you heard of Joseph Robinette Biden?
Yeah, I'd kinda like to see actual evidence and a conviction following a fair trial... (These concepts may be foreign, to you. Or are they just superfluous, when you don't like someone?) But as Beria had it, "Show me the man, I'll show you the crime."
The new-found propensity for advanced AI to "hallucinate" is not too surprising. Lawyers are already finding out how useful these can be... See Volokh's article in Reason! ChatGPT would be expelled from its L1 institution...
UPDATE:
Quote
At the time I used ChatGPT for this case, I understood that it worked essentially like a highly sophisticated search engine where users could enter search queries and ChatGPT would provide answers in natural language based on publicly available information.
I realize now that my understanding of how ChatGPT worked was wrong. Had I understood what ChatGPT is or how it actually worked, I would have never used it to perform legal research.
The key point is that ChatGPT functions as an attempt to pass the Turing Test. But of course we know its successes have nothing to do with Artificial Intelligence!
Quote from: p. 690 The Select Committee has referred Donald Trump and others for possible prosecution under 18 U.S.C. 2383, including for assisting and providing aid and comfort to an insurrection.
Why go to all the trouble of a trial? Oh, wait: We did that!
But there's still "Russian Collusion"! Ask Rep. Adam Schiff, late chair of the House Select Committee on Intelligence: He's seen the evidence! (He's been saying so for years...)
"Stormy" Daniels has, to date, paid upwards of $5m to Trump in legal fees. (Remember: Her original lawyer is serving a prison sentence...) The recent "rape" trial was a travesty; the decision will be appealed successfully.[1] And Bragg's case in NY will fall apart without doing any real damage to Trump's campaign. The Georgia trial will go nowhere...
You are right, ersi, that the establishment will do everything it can to prevent a Trump second term. But to no avail, I predict.
It will prove very interesting when Durham testifies under oath before Congress! (Remember Mueller's performance? )
100% false. Everything that Durham has taken to court has failed, which is a rare achievement for such reports.
As I expected, you haven't read the report. (I don't blame you: It's a tedious read...) But, no, it is not that rare an achievement. Specially in today's political climate... Attorney General Garland has no shame! The reckoning will have to await a new administration.
From page 5:
Quote
Conducting this investigation required us to consider U.S. criminal laws, the Constitutional protections our system provides to individuals, and the high burden placed on the government to prove every element of a crime "beyond a reasonable doubt." Moreover, the law does not always make a person's bad judgment, even horribly bad judgment, standing alone, a crime. Nor does the law criminalize all unseemly or unethical conduct that political campaigns might undertake for tactical advantage, absent a violation of a particular federal criminal statute. Finally, in almost all cases, the government is required to prove a person's actual criminal intent - not mere negligence or recklessness- before that person's fellow citizens can lawfully find him or her guilty of a crime. The Office's adherence to these principles explains, in numerous instances, why conduct deserving of censure or disciplinary action did not lead the Office to seek criminal charges.
Still, the facts speak for themselves and could be pursued if wanted. Unfortunately you do not do facts at all and prosecutors do not want to pursue them for other reasons
Yeah: Like Comey's "exhoneration" of Clinton. Ignore the law, ignore the evidence, use political phrasing to accomplish the objective! In the Clinton case, the objective was Clinton's being found not culpable. In the Trump case, the objective was to urge an unfounded impeachment...
Durham pursued the facts. From p305 (after a long list of gaffes by Crossfire Hurricane investigators and supervisors, Durham writes this:
Quote
Given the foregoing, and viewing the facts in a light most favorable to the Crossfire Hurricane investigators, it seems highly likely that, at a minimum, confirmation bias played a significant role in the FBI's acceptance of extraordinarily serious allegations derived from uncorroborated information that had not been subjected to the typical exacting analysis employed by the FBI and other members of the Intelligence Community. In short, it is the Office's assessment that the FBI discounted or willfully ignored material information that did not support the narrative of a collusive relationship between Trump and Russia. Similarly, the FBI Inspection Division Report says that the investigators "repeatedly ignore[ d] or explain[ ed] away evidence contrary to the theory the Trump campaign ... had conspired with Russia .... It appeared that ... there was a pattern of assuming nefarious intent." [note 1749]An objective and honest assessment of these strands of information should have caused the FBI to question not only the predication for Crossfire Hurricane, but also to reflect on whether the FBI was being manipulated for political or other purposes. Unfortunately, it did not. [bold added]
Remember that Hillary got more popular votes than Trump! Oh, I forgot already, you do not do facts. My bad.
Of what importance is the popular vote? It's like saying your horse didn't finish the race — but look how pretty the jockey's uniform is! Hell, Lincoln himself only got 39%...
Your animus has consumed your intellect! You read the Mueller Report? (You can say Yes. Rest assured I won't believe you...) In his testimony before Congress Mueller stated baldly that he had no idea who or what Fusion GPS was! And, to think, he was recently the FBI Director...
You're like the "lovebirds" Strzok and Paige... What will you say, if and when Trump is elected to the presidency in '24?
(Next, you'll tell the world again that Hillary Clinton is the smartest woman in the world! But as Comey said, "Noone at DOJ would prosecute the case..." The subtext: Because Obama was implicated.)
Trump won't make it anyway (his witch hunt lawsuits will catch up with him).
Yeah. I still remember how many "commentators" predicted that Trump had no chance in '16. And the Durham report puts the focus of the "Russian Collusion" fiasco back where it's always belonged: On Hillary Clinton, her campaign, and the Obama administration... The various "lawsuits" will, I predict, prove no more than a nuisance to Trump and his campaign.
DeSantis had an interesting day yesterday; but the flubbed Twitter Spaces announcement won't really matter. Whoever next "falls into the orchestra pit" will obviate the gaffe.
Musk has egg on his face... But, as usual, ersi, your personal animus colors your analysis. What Musk's company SpaceX has accomplished is really quite remarkable. (Not throwing away booster rockets is a game-changer!) And don't forget that the Soyuz still crash-lands...
