NolaAuTiger 3,295 Posted November 2, 2017 Share Posted November 2, 2017 3 minutes ago, homersapien said: Seems necessary to me. You said: Why won't you just recognize that the man is presumed innocent, and is innocent until said innocence is overcome by proof beyond reasonable doubt? That's called "begging the question". Are you retracting that? No. I'm interested in your answer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,153 Posted November 2, 2017 Author Share Posted November 2, 2017 2 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said: A jury has the power to return a verdict of acquittal even though the jury believes that the defendant is legally guilty of an offense. This might occur if the jury believes that the criminal statute is immoral or unjust, that the defendant has been “punished enough” already, or that the police or prosecutors misbehaved in some manner. Even if jury is convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of guilt, can still bring back not guilty verdict I am familiar with the concept of jury nullification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NolaAuTiger 3,295 Posted November 2, 2017 Share Posted November 2, 2017 Just now, Bigbens42 said: I am familiar with the concept of jury nullification. Great. Good knowledge to have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,387 Posted November 2, 2017 Share Posted November 2, 2017 13 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said: Trump hasn't been charged. Speculation about his innocence really shouldn't even be in the air. If Mueller files against him, then sure, speculate. But right now, all we have is an investigation that really hasn't revealed anything directly implementing Trump collusion. In our country, speculation is permitted. Free speech is the same as free thought. It's allowed for you to think he's innocent. It's equally allowed for others to think he's guilty. Regardless, no one has argued he has been found to be legally guilty. You, on the other hand, seem to be arguing the lack of an idictment necessarily means he is actually innocent. That would not be true even if the investigation was finished. The fact it's not, makes it particularly specious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,387 Posted November 2, 2017 Share Posted November 2, 2017 4 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said: No. I'm interested in your answer Seriously? You will find that in the posts I have already made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NolaAuTiger 3,295 Posted November 2, 2017 Share Posted November 2, 2017 3 minutes ago, homersapien said: In our country, speculation is permitted. Free speech is the same as free thought. It's allowed for you to think he's innocent. It's equally allowed for others to think he's guilty. Regardless, no one has argued he has been found to be legally guilty. You, on the other hand, seem to be arguing the lack of an idictment necessarily means he is actually innocent. That would not be true even if the investigation was finished. The fact it's not, makes it particularly specious. Free speech is NOT the same as free thought. Yes speculation of innocence is permitted. IMO it is not warranted at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,387 Posted November 2, 2017 Share Posted November 2, 2017 45 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said: Free speech is NOT the same as free thought. Yes speculation of innocence is permitted. IMO it is not warranted at this point. What's the distinction? Speech is the manifestation of thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,387 Posted November 2, 2017 Share Posted November 2, 2017 8 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said: Free speech is NOT the same as free thought. Yes speculation of innocence is permitted. IMO it is not warranted at this point. Speculation doesn't require a warrant. And there's plenty of smoke (evidence) to justify it to those who aren't Trumpbots. Personally I have doubts that collusion (conspiracy) will be proven, but there will be other things that will be - such as laundering Russian oligarchal money. I suppose it will be up to the electorate to decide what to do about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NolaAuTiger 3,295 Posted November 2, 2017 Share Posted November 2, 2017 Just now, homersapien said: Speculation doesn't require a warrant. And there's plenty of smoke (evidence) to justify it to those who aren't Trumpbots. Personally I have doubts that collusion (conspiracy) will be proven, but there will be other things that will be - such as laundering Russian oligarchal money. I suppose it will be up to the electorate to decide what to do about it. Well i am glad we are at least in agreement that free speech is not the same as free thought. Also notice I didn't bring up "stupid." Maybe if in Trash Talk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,387 Posted November 2, 2017 Share Posted November 2, 2017 35 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said: Well i am glad we are at least in agreement that free speech is not the same as free thought. Also notice I didn't bring up "stupid." Maybe if in Trash Talk How did you infer that? Speech is nothing more than the manifestation of thought. They are essentially the same thing in the context of this discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NolaAuTiger 3,295 Posted November 2, 2017 Share Posted November 2, 2017 25 minutes ago, homersapien said: How did you infer that? Speech is nothing more than the manifestation of thought. They are essentially the same thing in the context of this discussion. They are never the same thing. Speech is subject to criminal liability, while thoughts are not. The components of a crime are Actus Reus [the physical aspect] (sometimes causation) and Mens Rea [the mental aspect] (except for strict liability, stat rape, and bigamy). Every crime has an actus reus, while ALMOST every crime involves a mens rea. Thus, to say they are equal is erroneous. Speech is punishable, while "thought crimes" do not exist. I see you've tried to retract from your former statement. Good job Homer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,387 Posted November 2, 2017 Share Posted November 2, 2017 1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said: They are never the same thing. Speech is subject to criminal liability, while thoughts are not. The components of a crime are Actus Reus (sometimes causation) and Mens Rea (except for strict liability, stat rape, and bigamy). Every crime has an actus reus, while ALMOST every crime involves a mens rea. Thus, to say they are equal is erroneous. I see you've tried to retract from your former statement. Good job Homer. You are correct in that the legal system does not consider thought and speech the same. (It's kind of hard to sanction thinking after all.) But, once again you are applying a legal standard of comparison when I am speaking in actual, literal terms. In actual terms, free speech is the physical manifestation of free thought, by definition. The fact that one can be held accountable for illegal forms of free speech does not change the fact that speech is a manifestation of thought, legal accountability aside. I don't follow what you are saying about "retracting from my former statement". I frequently edit my posts in an attempt to refine what I am trying to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NolaAuTiger 3,295 Posted November 2, 2017 Share Posted November 2, 2017 10 minutes ago, homersapien said: You are correct in that the legal system does not consider thought and speech the same. (It's kind of hard to sanction thinking after all.) But, once again you are applying a legal standard of comparison when I am speaking in actual, literal terms. In actual terms, free speech is the physical manifestation of free thought, by definition. The fact that one can be held accountable for illegal forms of free speech does not change the fact that speech is a manifestation of thought, legal accountability aside. I don't follow what you are saying about "retracting from my former statement". I frequently edit my posts in an attempt to refine what I am trying to say. Got it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HVAU 673 Posted November 3, 2017 Share Posted November 3, 2017 http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/03/politics/jd-gordon-trump-papadopoulos/index.html Another advisor present at the meeting with Pap, Trump and Sessions confirming that all knew of the potential Russian jaunt. Trump was intrigued and Sessions said no. If only Sessions wouldn't have lied about this under oath... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,153 Posted November 3, 2017 Author Share Posted November 3, 2017 22 minutes ago, HVAU said: If only Sessions wouldn't have lied about this under oath... Acted insulted that he was asked such a preposterous question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,153 Posted June 5, 2018 Author Share Posted June 5, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,387 Posted June 5, 2018 Share Posted June 5, 2018 And let's not forget: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2018/06/05/trump-lawyers-admit-he-dictated-dishonest-letter-on-russian-meeting/ Trump Lawyers Admit He Dictated Dishonest Letter on Russian Meeting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,153 Posted June 9, 2018 Author Share Posted June 9, 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,153 Posted June 14, 2018 Author Share Posted June 14, 2018 Yeesh. Strzok should have been fired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,153 Posted June 15, 2018 Author Share Posted June 15, 2018 Manafort's bond is revoked. He's going to jail pending trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,153 Posted June 15, 2018 Author Share Posted June 15, 2018 I love that his defense against witness tampering was that he did not know he couldn’t witness tamper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,387 Posted June 15, 2018 Share Posted June 15, 2018 41 minutes ago, AUDub said: I love that his defense against witness tampering was that he did not know he couldn’t witness tamper. I suppose his knowledge is limited to being a presidential-level campaign manager. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexava 6,973 Posted June 15, 2018 Share Posted June 15, 2018 20 minutes ago, homersapien said: I suppose his knowledge is limited to being a presidential-level campaign manager. “For a very short period of time “. Low level guy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NolaAuTiger 3,295 Posted June 15, 2018 Share Posted June 15, 2018 4 hours ago, AUDub said: I love that his defense against witness tampering was that he did not know he couldn’t witness tamper. Eh, you're mischaracterizing and so is this twitter account. ...... They (his defense attorneys) said Manafort didn't know who the government witnesses are and the solution is for prosecutors to say who their witnesses are and the judge can say not to contact those people. Believable? I don't know. Considering the lengths he went to reach these witness, it will be a very very very very very very very very very very tough argument. But knowledge is a necessary element under 18 USC 1512(b)(1), which is the controlling statute. It's actually the only argument that can save his ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,153 Posted June 15, 2018 Author Share Posted June 15, 2018 22 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said: Eh, you're mischaracterizing and so is this twitter account. ...... They (his defense attorneys) said Manafort didn't know who the government witnesses are and the solution is for prosecutors to say who their witnesses are and the judge can say not to contact those people. Believable? I don't know. Considering the lengths he went to reach these witness, it will be a very very very very very very very very very very tough argument. But knowledge is a necessary element under 18 USC 1512(b)(1), which is the controlling statute. It's actually the only argument that can save his ass. Yep. I shamelessly stole that one form KT. Think it would be nigh impossible argument. How much clearer could "no contact" be? Given the facts presented by the prosecution, I'm not sure there was any argument that could save his bacon, especially since the judge has warned him about his behavior in the past. And judges don't particularly like it when you pull their lariat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.