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

@oralloy,

Quote:

The conversation is over whether Mr. Trump did anything amiss.

That was the initial conversation. Your responses required a conversation regarding your beliefs in relation to the nature of 'facts'. We have been having the latter conversation for some time now.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

I reject any and all claims that facts are whatever we want them to be.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

I reject any and all claims that facts are whatever we want them to be.

Whoever said that? Yet again, you are not understanding the conversation. I gave you several examples of transient 'facts' - facts that are true in a time and place, but are not true in other times or other places.

As another example "I believe the sky is blue". Italians likely believe the sky is Azzurro (if I got that right). Both are true. Both are facts. One is not right over the other. So the quoting of a transient 'fact' does not make one person right over the other (as to the name of the colour of the sky).

A job description is a fact relating to the job role, and should be true. But that role can change as the ideas (concepts) of what was needed changed, and what was true is no longer true. The fact (that was) is no longer a fact.

Some transient 'facts', like the Pyramids have existed for Millennia, but even they will eventually become just historical existences, and perhaps with enough time, no longer even be known anymore.

The list of these types of 'facts' is endless.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Don't need to channel. Mc Carthy, we have the most corrupt unamerican as president since Nixon. As a matter of fact Trump makes Nixon look like an amature crook.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

I gave you several examples of transient 'facts' - facts that are true in a time and place, but are not true in other times or other places.

Since none of your examples change the fact that Mr. Trump only exercised his normal powers and is not interfering with judicial independence, what is the point of your examples?

vikorr wrote:

As another example "I believe the sky is blue". Italians likely believe the sky is Azzurro (if I got that right). Both are true. Both are facts. One is not right over the other. So the quoting of a transient 'fact' does not make one person right over the other (as to the name of the colour of the sky).

Since this example does not change the fact that Mr. Trump only exercised his normal powers and is not interfering with judicial independence, what is the point of this example?

vikorr wrote:

A job description is a fact relating to the job role, and should be true. But that role can change as the ideas (concepts) of what was needed changed, and what was true is no longer true. The fact (that was) is no longer a fact.

The role of president has not changed. The President is still the executive branch of the federal government.

The President is still the entire executive branch of the federal government.

vikorr wrote:

Some transient 'facts', like the Pyramids have existed for Millennia, but even they will eventually become just historical existences, and perhaps with enough time, no longer even be known anymore.
The list of these types of 'facts' is endless.

Since these facts do not change the fact that Mr. Trump only exercised his normal powers and is not interfering with judicial independence, what is the point of listing these facts?

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

Since none of your examples change the fact that Mr. Trump ...interfered with the prosecution of a friend of his...what is the point of your examples?

Yes I've changed your quote. I wonder if you can understand the point? If not. answering the below question may help you.

Please explain why you think your president is a prosecutor? Then look at the below post.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

The role of president has not changed. The President is still the executive branch of the federal government.

- Your Head of State has A,B,C powers
- Australia's Head of State has virtually no powers
Both are true for a Head of State...but both are significantly different. What then is the role of the head of State?

- In your country you argue that it is not political interference for your Head of State to try and get his friend off a prosecution
- In Australia it is 'fact' that the Head of State (or even the Prime Minister) trying to get a friend off a prosecution charge is absolutely political interference.
The latter is almost unanimously true (the accepted concept). The former very dubiously argued.

So is a Head of State trying to get a friend off a prosecution political interference or not?

Obviously it depends on the concepts of what a Head of State entails (what you try to pass off as 'fact'), and what entails interference ( which are affected by the concepts of Judicial independence, how a democracy best works etc). Around the world in virtually every democracy, such attempts by a Head of State would be viewed as political interference. I'm quite sure that is the case in the US as well, but you want it desperately to not be the case. Your arguments in this realm are incredibly poor, and appear very self serving.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

Quote:
Since none of your examples change the fact that Mr. Trump ...interfered with the prosecution of a friend of his...what is the point of your examples?

Yes I've changed your quote. I wonder if you can understand the point?

Sorry. I don't perceive the point.

vikorr wrote:

If not. answering the below question may help you.
Please explain why you think your president is a prosecutor?

The President is the entire executive branch of our federal government.

The President has 100% of all executive power and authority in our federal government.

Prosecution is an executive branch power.

All those other people who you are calling prosecutors are merely stand-ins for the President, there to carry out his wishes so that he does not have to be there in person.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

- Your Head of State has A,B,C powers
- Australia's Head of State has virtually no powers
Both are true for a Head of State...but both are significantly different. What then is the role of the head of State?

- In your country you argue that it is not political interference for your Head of State to try and get his friend off a prosecution

You are using inaccurate terminology with these words "get his friend off a prosecution". The proper terminology would be "deciding to not prosecute his friend".

As the prosecutor, the President gets to decide whether or not to prosecute someone.

vikorr wrote:

- In Australia it is 'fact' that the Head of State (or even the Prime Minister) trying to get a friend off a prosecution charge is absolutely political interference.
The latter is almost unanimously true (the accepted concept). The former very dubiously argued.

What is dubious about the fact that prosecutors have the authority to decide whether or not to prosecute someone?

vikorr wrote:

So is a Head of State trying to get a friend off a prosecution political interference or not?

Again this is inaccurate terminology. The proper terminology would be the President choosing to not prosecute his friend.

When a prosecutor decides to not prosecute someone, how could that be interference? It's his decision. How can someone interfere with himself?

vikorr wrote:

Obviously it depends on the concepts of what a Head of State entails (what you try to pass off as 'fact'),

Pass off as?

Can you provide any evidence that the President isn't the entire executive branch of our federal government?

vikorr wrote:

and what entails interference ( which are affected by the concepts of Judicial independence, how a democracy best works etc).

Judicial independence relates to the independence of our judges.

When a prosecutor decides to not prosecute someone, they are not interfering with the independence of our judges.

vikorr wrote:

Around the world in virtually every democracy, such attempts by a Head of State would be viewed as political interference. I'm quite sure that is the case in the US as well,

It is not. In the US, the President has direct authority over all executive decisions.

As I said above, the President is the executive branch of the government.

vikorr wrote:

but you want it desperately to not be the case. Your arguments in this realm are incredibly poor, and appear very self serving.

How is stating facts poor arguing?

I find that adhering to facts serves me quite well in disputes. The only times the strategy has ever failed me was when I was mistaken about what the facts are.

Thankfully that happens only rarely.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

The President is the entire executive branch of our federal government.

The President has 100% of all executive power and authority in our federal government.

Prosecution is an executive branch power.

Presuming you mean 'Head of the entire branch' (because he is not the staff, nor the buildings, nor the resources)...this isn't your argument. Your argument is that he is a prosecutor. You've said so on numerous occasions. And said so again, multiple times after this quote. So I'd ask again - what makes you think he is a prosecutor?

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

You are using inaccurate terminology with these words "get his friend off a prosecution". The proper terminology would be "deciding to not prosecute his friend".

Which 'proper terminology' (I'd say it's improper) amounts to 'getting his friend off a prosecution'. Your version once again, is self serving.

Quote:

Can you provide any evidence that the President isn't the entire executive branch of our federal government?

We both agree that he is head of your Federal Government. That is not in dispute. What is in dispute is your use of the term 'fact', and your lack of understanding as to its transient nature, and as to its foundation being built upon concepts. The concepts being what is debated. You can't argue that your head of State role isn't built upon concepts, because if they weren't, all Head of State roles would be the same.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

When someone is correct about something, it just naturally follows that facts serve them well.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

But this isn't your argument.

Yes it is.

vikorr wrote:

Your argument is that he is a prosecutor.

Yes.

That is the same argument just stated in different words.

More accurately though, he is the prosecutor.

Those other people that you are mistakenly referring to as prosecutors are just standing in for him so he does not have to show up in person. Their only job is to carry out the will of the President.

vikorr wrote:

So I'd ask again - what makes you think he is a prosecutor?

Prosecution is an executive branch function.

The President is the executive branch.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Your president, if his role were compared to business, would be chairman of the board (as each of the departments in this comparison, have CEO's). If we compare it to a multi-national computer manufactering firm, as chairman he is not:
- a software engineer
- a robotics engineer
- a computer engineer
- an accountant
- a logistics officer etc
It is unlikely he has the specialist knowledge to do any of those roles. Rather, he is strategic direction for them.

So he is not a prosecutor, not having the specialist knowledge to be one. He provides (maybe) strategic direction to the law enforcement activities of the country.

But unlike companies, the President, and his government, and the law enforcement system, is meant to be answerable to the people, and for the people (rather than any one individual). This obviously cannot be the case if Trump is interfering with prosecutions and getting his friends off.
---------------------

There are also the concepts of:

- everyone is equal before the law (but that is absolutely not the case if Trumps friends can't face prosecution)
- everyone is answerable to the law (absolutely not the case if Trumps friends can't face prosecution)

------------------------------------------------

Trump is well on his way to forming a dictatorship - or pushing the US eventually into that style of government under a future 'leader'. It will be interesting to see if the US becomes a Russian style 'democracy'

By the way...as I said right back at the very start - I was quite aware that you wouldn't be swayed. But it was interesting to see just how far fetched you could be in relation to this 'argument' of yours

2 Replies

@vikorr,

It is a sad commentary on the world today when "simply stating the truth" can be referred to as far fetched.

No dictatorship. Our government is divided into three branches. And two of those branches are answerable to the voters in regular elections.

The presidential power that I refer to is the same power that all of our presidents have had for the past 231 years.

0 Replies

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

But unlike companies, the President, and his government, and the law enforcement system, is meant to be answerable to the people, and for the people (rather than any one individual). This obviously cannot be the case if Trump is interfering with prosecutions and getting his friends off.

I missed this the first time around.

It is the case.

Mr. Trump has to stand for reelection in 2020. If the voters are unhappy with his job performance, they can elect someone else.

Additionally, if Congress feels that a president is committing offenses, they can impeach him and remove him from office.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

I'm just too late to edit this in to my post. He of course is not interfering with prosecutions. He's the prosecutor. How could he interfere with himself?

1 Reply

@oralloy,

I've asked you to justify your position that he is a prosecutor numerous times, but:

- I notice that you make no argument against the logic I presented that he is not a prosecutor (top of this post); and

- you provide no actual evidence (just your opinion) that he is a prosecutor. Please, show some link to government documentation that shows he is a prosecutor within his own country.

You talk about facts, but in this discussion have shown no basis for your 'facts', just your opinion about what his job entails.

Quote:

t is the case.

Mr. Trump has to stand for reelection in 2020. If the voters are unhappy with his job performance, they can elect someone else.

I notice that you ignored the 'for the people' (rather than any one individual), which is by far the more important part of what democracy is meant to be about (it is the reason the oversight & accountability exist - to try an ensure it is for the people, rather than any one individual)

So the 'answerable to the people' comment was about systematic accountability, so that corruption (like nepotism) doesn't exist. Eventually the only way that can be enforced is at the ballot box, but in a true democracy, there is oversight and accountability.

You can of course justify his interference to yourself all you want. If you buy the ridiculous arguments you make for yourself to hear, that is up to you.

2 Replies

@vikorr,

Of course, going by your support for him getting his friends off prosecutors, being 'the prosecutor', then he should also be able to chase after and prosecute anyone who is a rival to him (go the whole hog - let him do this in both business, and politics), or prosecute them even if he just sees an advantage to himself in prosecuting. After all, you say he is the prosecutor.

And I wonder if. along with your support for him getting his friends off prosecution charges... you also think he should be able to:
- shortcut the government tender process and give all the contracts to his friends (after all, he is the boss, or whoever chooses these, by whatever means)
- put his family in charge of government departments (after all, he's the selection panel, and the boss)
- accept the tax revenue personally (after all, he's a tax man, and the boss)
- change the tax structure to favour his own personal business/investments (same, he's a tax man, and the boss)
- make it known that absolutely no person that does not agree with him will get a job (same, he's the boss)

But wait...that sounds just so much like what dictators do....along with:
- trying to silence/control the press
- trying to bully any dissent into silence

Of course most dictators can be much more open or obvious about it, hence why I'm thinking the strategic thing to do would be to move towards something similar to the Russian model.

1 Reply

@vikorr,

vikorr wrote:

- you provide no actual evidence (just your opinion) that he is a prosecutor.

I am providing assertions, not opinions.

vikorr wrote:

Please, show some link to government documentation that shows he is a prosecutor within his own country.

Article. II.
Section. 1.
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript

vikorr wrote:

You talk about facts, but in this discussion have shown no basis for your 'facts',

Well, this is the first time you've asked for a cite.

vikorr wrote:

just your opinion about what his job entails.

Assertions are not opinions.

vikorr wrote:

The 'answerable to the people' comment was about systematic accountability, so that corruption (like nepotism) doesn't exist. Eventually the only way that can be enforced is at the ballot box, but in a true democracy, there is oversight and accountability.

Congress can impeach the President and remove him from office if his actions are a danger to the nation.

vikorr wrote:

You can of course justify his interference to yourself all you want.

There is no interference. How can someone interfere with himself?

vikorr wrote:

If you buy the ridiculous arguments you make for yourself to hear, that is up to you.

That you feel these facts are ridiculous doesn't make them any less factual.

I am posting these arguments for the benefit of all who read this thread.

1 Reply

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know