U.S. Judges Call Emergency Meeting Over Fears About William Barr And Trump

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

it's not part of his job to try and get his friends off prosecution cases (or stop prosecutions cases that may damage his reputation),

That is incorrect. As prosecutor, deciding whether to charge someone is exactly his job. So is making sentencing recommendations.

vikorr wrote:

nor to put undue pressure on the prosecutors against a prosecution case against his friends (or in fact, just about any case) - and yes, any criticism from a president with a history of wanting yes men, and firing anyone who dissents....is undue pressure. Any criticism against a prosecution case from a president even without that history is undue pressure.

That is incorrect. It is not undue pressure for the boss to tell his employees what he has decided to do and instruct them to carry out his wishes. That is the nature of employment.

Now you are using two inapt terms. "Do it or you're fired" is not exactly criticism.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

RABEL222 wrote:

Al capon, Donald Trump, the only difference i see in them is that one was deported and the Donald is hailed as a hero by 40 percent of a demented population.

Are you referring to Al Capone??

A capon is a castrated rooster.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

I figured it was some new fangled recipe for cooking a chicken. Sort of like pasta al pomodoro or pasta al forno.

...although, I'd no previous knowledge of castrated roosters being deported. Maybe it's a new Trump policy so he can gain the vegan vote.

0 Replies

Misspellings are no big deal so long as everyone can tell what is intended.

I find his false accusations that people are lying much more objectionable than I do his spelling errors.

You should see some of the spelling blunders that I make when I am tired. Luckily I catch and fix most of them. But I know that I'm up too late when I start to make really dumb spelling errors.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

As usual you correct spelling and ignore the point made. I am beginning to doubt that you ever drove a boat. That would take a great deal of education and ability to assimulate others ideas which I think you are incapable of. You seem to me to be another Ollie clone.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

vikorr wrote:

it's not part of his job to try and get his friends off prosecution cases (or stop prosecutions cases that may damage his reputation),

oralloy wrote:

That is incorrect. As prosecutor, deciding whether to charge someone is exactly his job. So is making sentencing recommendations.

As this statement of yours is in relation to Trump - it says it all about where this conversation was going, and how far you are prepared to bend over to justify his actions.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

As the prosecutor, Mr. Trump has the authority to make these decisions. That's just a fact.

There isn't anything unusual about me pointing out facts. I do it all the time. I like to point out facts.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Uh huh. You keep telling yourself that.

You talk about freedom (at great length in the firearms threads), but apparently you don't understand the apparatus or concepts that keep us free.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

I understand freedom pretty well I think.

And what's wrong with me pointing out facts? I like pointing out facts.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Uh huh. If you say so.

One of the problems here is that there are no true 'facts' (contrary to your claims). This discussion is really about the concepts and beliefs that support freedom - or detract from freedom. Support for those concepts is what enhances, or diminishes freedoms. Society, big as it is, can cope with minor support for those concepts that diminish freedom without impacting wider freedoms.

Because human rights etc are concepts - anyone can justify anything in this realm to themselves.

It's one of the reasons your conversations with many people go around in circles.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Oh good grief. Facts are quite real.

It is a fact that prosecutors have discretion to make sentencing recommendations and to decide whether or not to charge someone (and if so, with what crime).

It is a fact that Mr. Trump was just exercising his normal prosecutorial powers.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

It is a fact that prosecutors have discretion to make sentencing recommendations and to decide whether or not to charge someone (and if so, with what crime).

I did say true facts (mathematics is one of the few true types of facts)

That 'fact' of yours, is based on a concept of what prosecutors role is. The 'fact' of a prosecutor itself is a concept. It was developed after the concept of law was introduced, and the laws produced concepts that were turned into legislative 'fact'. The 'fact' is, if the concept developed differently, so then too did your so called 'fact' (this is backed up by the different laws in every country). The 'fact' you refer to is based on common agreement of a concept.

So what you are arguing as 'fact' actually refers to an underlying concept that enough people accepted that it became 'enshrined/enacted/enforced etc.

This is why you rabbit on about 'facts' when in fact (pun intended) you are only talking concepts...and its why your conversations go around in circles with other people who don't accept the premise of your concepts.

For example : the 'fact' is - you obviously don't understand the concept of separation of powers. You obviously don't understand the concept of judicial independence. You obviously don't understand the concept of political inference in the judicial process....

...but that is a concept, and you are able to argue concepts to your hearts content, and justify anything you want to yourself. That is up to you.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

I did say true facts (mathematics is one of the few true types of facts)

While someone can be wrong about whether something is a fact, facts are by definition always true.

vikorr wrote:

That 'fact' of yours, is based on a concept of what prosecutors role is. The 'fact' of a prosecutor itself is a concept. It was developed after the concept of law was introduced, and the laws produced concepts that were turned into legislative 'fact'. The 'fact' is, if the concept developed differently, so then too did your so called 'fact' (this is backed up by the different laws in every country). The 'fact' you refer to is based on common agreement of a concept.

So what you are arguing as 'fact' actually refers to an underlying concept that certain people accept.

This is why you rabbit on about 'facts' when in fact (pun intended) you are only talking concepts...and its why your conversations go around in circles with other people who don't accept the premise of your concepts.

When other people refuse to accept reality, the conversation may go in circles. However, that does not change the fact that reality is real.

vikorr wrote:

For example : the 'fact' is - you obviously don't understand the concept of separation of powers.

No. I understand that quite well.

vikorr wrote:

You obviously don't understand the concept of judicial independence.

No. I understand that quite well as well.

Mr. Trump is not interfering with judicial independence in any way.

vikorr wrote:

You obviously don't understand the concept of political inference in the judicial process....

When prosecutors like Mr. Trump exercise their powers, that is not interference in the judicial process. That is participation in the judicial process.

vikorr wrote:

...but that is a concept, and you are able to argue concepts to your hearts content, and justify anything you want to yourself. That is up to you.

I'll just stick to truth and reality if you don't mind. It's what I'm comfortable with.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

And there's your problem - always true.

For example $1 is worth $1 is commonly accepted as true. But money is only worth anything if the underlying concept is supported by everyone (ie. if it is no longer accepted, then it is no longer true). It's true...but only if the concept is commonly accepted (currency conceptualises bartering into easier form)

1 Reply

@vikorr,

I don't have any problem with the reality that facts are true.

I also accept that money is real. So does the rest of society. So there is no problem. Money is real.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Nor apparently could you argue against the transient nature of 'being true' that 'facts' based on concepts have. Such are only true so long as they are accepted by enough people as true.

In any event, it is up to you if you want to support the U.S' loss of freedoms and slide to dictatorship under Trump. Not that Australia is doing much better, with the loss of the ability to criticise government policy by heads of departments, the attacks that have occured against experts who offer their expert opinions on proposed policy affects, and implemented policy affect, nor the slide of journalism into populist sloganism.

So another 'fact' for you. In the 70's and 80's Director Generals of Government Departments regularly criticised government policy on TV. The 'fact' was they could do such. Today, they can no longer do such, and it is no longer a 'fact' that they can. The underlying concepts changed (and the new concept became accepted). And so the fact that was true, was no longer true.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

Facts are true even if people refuse to accept them.

The US is not losing our freedom.

The US is not becoming a dictatorship.

I do not know enough about the situation in Australia that you are referring to to comment on it. It is a shame that Australia gave up their freedom to have guns however.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

If you say so. I had an edit in the above post to give yet another example against your position.

But they are all concept based, and you can hold and support any you want. And I see the US giving up its freedoms that support democracy. Attacks on media to make them compliant (bad for democracy), judicial interference (against the law system in general), openly promoting yes men, firing people who disagree. But hey, if you think such is good for democracy, go ahead and think such.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

I edited in a reply to your edit. I do not perceive any contradiction with my position.

The US is not giving up any freedom.

When Mr. Trump exercises his prosecutorial authority, that is participation in the judicial system, not interference with it.

It is the nature of employment that employees have to do with their boss tells them to do.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

When Mr. Trump exercises his prosecutorial authority, that is participation in the judicial system, not interference with it.

Depends on how you view the concepts.

_______________________________

More on the transient nature: 80 years ago, the fact was that 'gay' meant happy. This is not long true / no longer a fact. Gay now means homosexual. The underlying concepts changed. So once again, this transient nature of 'facts' (actually being based on underlying concepts) and is why your conversations go around in circles.

I've noticed that Trump is quite black and white in his views (this is not a reference to race), and that he attracts people who desire certainty and black & white perspectives.

1 Reply

U.S. Judges Call Emergency Meeting Over Fears About William Barr And Trump

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know