So, on one hand we have the possibility that a lifelong conman ran a con, but on the other hand we have the possibility that there was secret classified information that is so classified that the intelligence community doesn’t know about it and the lifelong conman is using this classified information to make reasonable decisions while managing to not tweet out this classified information that totally exonerates him.
Are you sure you understand what “reasonable” means?
I will address both of these by saying that the president probably doesn’t have direct knowledge of whatever basis I am speculating he might have for wanting some computer server in Ukraine. He makes his determinations based on what people report to him - his advisors and maybe the news. Maybe Dan Coats was unable to tell the president to his face that he was wrong (like Comey), for two years, and then when he finally took a stand the president fired him for not asserting himself. I’m guessing Pompeo hasn’t taken a stand against the president on this, either. Presumably Barr is all for the whole Crowdstrike thing, and obviously Giuliani is.
If most of the people I know or trust tell me your next door neighbor was JFK’s true assassin, does your analogy still hold?
~Max
Announcing your distrust, as POTUS, of the intel community who works for you, in public, is already off the charts unreasonable.
As POTUS, you don’t have the option to just shade them and act like you are in a movie that you are starring in. it can be seen as evidence of guilt. (By anyone not you)
You are way down the road to fan fiction with your scenarios. Every one of them now involves rights immunities, and priveleges that the US pres can’t reasonably ask for, and normalizing corrupt POTUS acts by asking for the supposed “crimes” in them.
It was corrupt to chase only the Bidens if he is addressing corruption generally. If that is the only case of corruption worldwide that he is concerned with, then it’s not OK, and he has no defense.
I haven’t heard of “beyond a shadow of a doubt”, but if it means jurors should entertain impossibilities, I don’t think it is an appropriate standard.
My idea of beyond a reasonable doubt is that it must satisfy the juror such that, if their life depended on the correctness of their finding, there would be no hesitation.
~Max
What, seriously ? You never heard of it?
Yeah, it kind of is miserable. Most of the time I don’t want to return to this thread. I think I even wrote that I didn’t want to defend Donald Trump.
But I’m not playing devil’s advocate here. I’m afraid of the precedent that might be set by a hasty conviction. The nuance is important to me.
~Max
But nothing hasty has happened yet. House Democrats are being very deliberate considering the circumstances, and Republicans are making nonsense arguments in response. What’s your beef?
You’re defending a false paradigm, though. Criminal conviction is a different process and a different standard from impeachment for high crimes and misdemeanors. You’re simply and unequivocally wrong in asserting the standard of proof that you are or the level of ill behavior. If your standards were correct, then your conclusions would be reasonable and would follow from them. But they are not.
You are also wrong in your understanding of the word evidence. Evidence is not synonymous with smoking gun. Nor is it synonymous with proof. Evidence is things that have to be explainable by any given theory of what occurred. They rule out potentials, they do not “prove”.
With a Republican Senate, there is no chance of a hasty conviction. Impeachment is a tool to use with extreme caution, but in this case we have unprecedented criminal behavior that cannot be unchallenged.
“Beyond a shadow of a doubt” is not the legal standard that’s used in jury instructions; “reasonable doubt is.”
I brought up “beyond a shadow of a doubt” because your explanation of your view of “beyond a reasonable doubt” (in post #3451, and above) is substantially more stringent than the legal definition of the term, and is far closer to the idea of “beyond a shadow of a doubt.”
This is all reminding me of juries which wind up becoming hung juries, because there’s the one juror whose definition of “beyond a reasonable doubt” doesn’t match up with the legal definition, and the typical jury instruction.
That’s an important point, as well. A impeachment by the House, and the subsequent trial in the Senate for removal from office, do not have to follow the standards that we have for criminal trials. It’s not a criminal trial; if Trump is impeached and removed from office, he would not have been convicted of a crime (though, it’s entirely possible for there to be criminal proceedings related to his activities once he leaves office). He would have been fired from his job.
This is likely a flawed analogy, too, but I think that the impeachment process is more like the procedure that a company has on its books to fire an employee “with cause.” Unfortunately, the authors of the Constitution used the word “trial” to describe the process, which leads to assumptions.
Let’s try “Fox News, Breitbart and beyond, and maybe his advisors.”
Of course he doesn’t have any direct knowledge. He consumes right-wing media, which has always had the purpose of discrediting the Dems: with the truth if any was available, and with whatever they could invent if it wasn’t.
So if you ask, would “a reasonable person in the President’s position” have reasonable doubts about information from these sources, the answer is, hell yes, they’d be skeptical of every bit of it.
And your definition of “reasonable doubt” is pure and utter bullshit, by the way. I can’t see the point in debating further with someone who’s just cooked that up.
That Mr. Trump is a lifelong conman is not a fact in evidence, despite how you or I feel. If this were a real jury trial, we would throw out anybody who comes in holding the opinion that defendant is a con man. With conviction for high crimes and misdemeanors, the majority of “jurors” are Republican Senators.
What I was trying to say is that going through the motions to establish that Mr. Trump is a conman, as a matter of fact, is undesirable. At the very least, first we should rule out the possibility that Mr. Trump made the call before an active investigation warranted such a request.
On second thought, one of my Republican Senators is on the record calling Trump a “con artist”. Maybe you have a point. But whose confidence did Mr. Trump exploit?
But let’s talk about my opinion, so that you have something to debate against. My opinion is that this possibility is very probable. Not proven, not a fact, but very probable.
I’m not sure if you’re familiar with right wing conspiracies, but the-intelligence-community-is-out-to-get-Donald-Trump is almost as popular as Democrats-want-to-take-your-guns-and-make America-a-communist-nation.
But in my opinion, it’s less likely that Mr. Trump knows something the IC doesn’t than Mr. Trump knows something and the IC refuses to acknowledge it. This is way less likely than the other option, but it’s still within the realm of things that might be true, in my opinion.
If my life would be forfeit should I find Mr. Trump guilty when he was innocent, I would not be comfortable finding him guilty because of the second possibility. I would, and do, want to know more facts, to be more certain.
~Max
Yup, you’re definitely the guy who causes hung juries.
Would you like to make a spin-off thread in Great Debates?
Corruptness, or ineptitude. Given the presumption of innocence…
~Max
Reading about it later tonight
~Max
It is a fact that has been decided in the courts. His university was declared a fraud. His charity was declared a fraud. His tax schemes are a fraud. I can go on, but I think that’s enough to put to bed the idea that Trump being a conman is an opinion and not a fact.
All the people that I surround myself with say that it is OK to murder my neighbor is not a reasonable defense for murdering my neighbor.
So, that puts him above the law. He can just claim super secret knowledge that the deep state doesn’t want you to know about, and get out of anything.
Also reasonable doubt is only the standard for criminal conviction where a defendant’s liberty is on the line. Impeachment conviction has no such peril and does not require the same standard.
Apropos of nothing…
When FPT* finally gets impeached by the House and then removed from office by the Senate, I would like him to be informed by tweet.
Yeah.
Eh, back in the real world, color me agog to find out Vindman has a twin brother who works in the NSC’s ethics office and is also a potential witness.