Skip to main content
Recent Posts
21
DnD Central / Re: The twits on Twitter
Last post by ersi -
So you went the stupidest route, trying to disprove Trump's crimes. An easy refutation of this route goes as follows: Think if a Democrat had done all that, would you denounce him or not?

In your case, the refutation is even easier: You denounce any and all Democrats simply because they are Democrats. Crime or virtue have no bearing in your considerations. Whenever you mention things like "fair trial" and "constitutional principle", it's exclusively to promote the power of Republicans or to cover Republican butt when they fail.

Trump is a massive failure. He does not stand for any principle you claim to stand for or any princple he himself claims to stand for. For example, you would claim to be against autocrats, I presume. Trump is a proud autocrat, as demonstrated by his actions.

It must be that for you only words matter. If the words are nice, e.g. somebody has the label "Republican" slapped on them, then things are fine. Actions do not matter at all. For me it is the other way round. Actions speak louder than words. Trump is convicted by his actions.

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.
But if banks do their own estimation anyway, why over-value the properties in loan applications? You see, it IS a crime to over-value the properties in loan applications and under-value them in tax reports. The deeper point here is that you are not even denying the crime - you are justifying it! Why would you justify it? Trump did it, therefore it is all good.

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.
Tax evasion IS a crime! People sit locked up because of this. Most notoriously, this is what Al Capone was locked up for.

IRS has internal investigations about why IRS allowed Trump to evade taxes, so IRS knows that Trump has evaded taxes. If IRS were consistent, not covering up for rich and pretend-rich dudes, it would report itself to the police.

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? :) )
Ha, again not even denying the crime! The crime is okay for you because Trump did it. But Trump did more than "find me 11 000 votes!" He set up false electors, some of whom are now under criminal investigation. Any reason why Trump should not be under criminal investigation? Just the political cover-up reason: It is undesirable to make Trump accountable for anything he did in office. Better to have Trump go down with something silly and mundane like pussy-grabbing prior to office.

Insurrection? Ask Nancy Pelosi about that...
Or ask those who have already been convicted of it. Again, the only reason why Trump is not on trial for this is that a conviction of a former president would indicate that the office of the president has some accountability. Nobody in either political party wants this.

You seriously ask why I'm eager to have a criminal run my country? Have you heard of Joseph Robinette Biden?
Indeed, I understand. For you it's no problem to have a crooked criminal in the office. You just want it to be your crooked criminal - and even better when he is an autocrat to boot.

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?)
The actual evidence is in front of you. Take a look! There are people in Trump's circle who have been convicted based on it. Insurrection: A growing line of leaders of Oath Keepers, Proud Boys etc. Stormy Daniels hush money: Michael Cohen. Tax evasion and fraud: Trump's corporations, even though somehow not Trump personally. But if Trump's corporations are guilty, how is it fair to assume Trump is free of guilt?

Yup, I get it. All these trials are unfair - because they are against Trump. A fair trial can only be in favour of Trump :lol:
22
DnD Central / Re: The twits on Twitter
Last post by OakdaleFTL -
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."
23
DnD Central / Re: The twits on Twitter
Last post by ersi -
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...) :)
The collusion indictment is the least desirable for the establishment. It would highlight that foreign powers can meddle with American elections. The establishment does not wish to remind the world of it.

But election rigging is possible to pursue, because Trump himself keeps constantly reminding everyone of it. His phone calls are still in memory. If smaller things fail to silence Trump, I predict that his election rigging will be promptly taken up and prosecuted swiftly.

"Stormy" Daniels has, to date, paid upwards of $5m to Trump in legal fees. (Remember: Her original lawyer is serving a prison sentence...)
She owes $.5m, not $5m.[1] And it's legal fees for a dismissed case raised by a lawyer whom she had dismissed. Legal fees are owed to the other side's lawyers, not to the other side. Definitely it's a messy situation, but she is a messy person. Messing with Trump guarantees messiness.

Still, Michael Cohen was locked up in this affair, and once she manages to charge Trump on a similar basis, Trump will fall too. It's a matter of finding a diligent lawyer for her instead of another predator.

You are right, ersi, that the establishment will do everything it can to prevent a Trump second term.
But to no avail, I predict.
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?

Well, who am I kidding. The answer is of course: It's a partisan thing. He is not a Democrap!
I understand that it is just a difference of zeroes and zeroes mean nothing to you. But to bookkeepers and bankers there's a difference.
24
DnD Central / Re: Artificial intelligent - Ideas producer
Last post by OakdaleFTL -
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! :)
25
DnD Central / Re: The twits on Twitter
Last post by OakdaleFTL -
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? :) )
At worst, it'll cost Trump some money...
26
DnD Central / Re: Happy Birthday America!!!
Last post by ersi -
Henry Kissinger turned 100 years old. So he's older than me, hmm...

And he did an interview with Wall Street Journal for the occasion https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-great-strategist-henry-kissinger-turns-100-china-ukraine-realpolitik-81b6f3bb

In the interview, he says that the leading countries of the world, almost all of them, have lost a sense of direction. Trying to make Ukraine a member of Nato was a massive mistake and brought about the current war, but now the only option is to make Ukraine a Nato member. In Kissinger's opinion, loss of Sevastopol would threaten the integrity of Russia and therefore Ukraine should not take back Crimea.

About Taiwan, Kissinger thinks the tensions are to be solved later, the only solution is time.

And Kissinger prophesies that Japan will soon build own weapons of mass destruction.

In other reporting (Financial Times) it is claimed that Kissinger has been fiddling behind the curtains in Africa to persuade Ukraine into a ceasefire.
27
DnD Central / Re: The twits on Twitter
Last post by ersi -
You are quoting empty words from Durham. Those words are empty because they are a restatement of general legal principles, nothing specific to the actual investigation, nothing specific about any person or action. Sheer blather.

Compare with one of the conclusions of the January 6 report:

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.

As you (obviously don't) know, lesser actors, such as leaders of Oath Keepers, have been successfully prosecuted and locked up under this very point. Locking up Trump for the same is just a matter of finding a brave prosecutor. There are no other obstacles. But they'd prefer to lock him up for something lesser, e.g. suppose he fails to cough up the $5m he owes to E. Jean Carroll. Or Stormy Daniels. Or tax evasion. These are preferable options for the establishment than to take him down for his hardest offenses like election rigging and insurrection.
28
DnD Central / Re: The twits on Twitter
Last post by OakdaleFTL -
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.
There's more, of course...about politics.

The establishment needs to time one of the several available options correctly to take Trump off the race. They will.
Indeed, that is their intent. By hook or by crook, so to speak!
I look forward to your disappointment. :)
29
DnD Central / Re: The twits on Twitter
Last post by ersi -
Durham pursued the facts.
100% false. Everything that Durham has taken to court has failed, which is a rare achievement for such reports. But most things that he denounces and criticises he does not recommend any charges against anyone or changes to current procedures, so those are empty denouncements.


Of what importance is the popular vote?
It's a good question to Trump. He's the one who has been going on forever how he received more votes than any president ever and, if it appears otherwise, it is because Democrats rigged the elections. It's the same guy who also said, "I need 11 000 votes, come on, give me a break!" in multiple phone calls during counting. So, yeah, what importance is the popular vote? I don't care, but election rigging is another actual crime in the books. The establishment needs to time one of the several available options correctly to take Trump off the race. They will.
30
DnD Central / Re: The twits on Twitter
Last post by OakdaleFTL -
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%...