• 3017amen
    2.1k


    I think Dumpertrumper met his match with Bloomberg, as well. Interesting irony there for sure...
  • 3017amen
    2.1k
    Both prosecutors who left the case were Obama stooges. Sounds like justice to me.NOS4A2

    (This might read a little better.) Let's parse these questions very carefully one at a time. What did you mean from your quote above?

    have never supported POTUS influencing DOJ in lesser sentencing recommendations for people who he likes. The question is loaded because it assumes, without evidence, that POTUS was influencing DOJ.NOS4A2

    Then we will get to Dumpertrumper's tweets that influenced public policy (the second part of your above answer to question #1).
  • NOS4A2
    3.6k


    Again your assumption that Trump’s tweet somehow influenced Barr’s decision is just that, an assumption, and one that isn’t backed by any evidence save for fantasy. Carry on with your analysis.
  • 3017amen
    2.1k


    Don't Mind if I do. We will get to that shortly. Let's get to your own statement credibility issues first, where you seem to be evading the question.

    You said: "Both prosecutors who left the case were Obama stooges. Sounds like justice to me."
    — NOS4A2

    Explain what you meant by that?
  • NOS4A2
    3.6k


    I believe it is unjust to punish someone in a manner not appropriate to their crime.
  • 3017amen
    2.1k


    You're evading the question again. In your words, why was it justice that they left the DOJ?
  • NOS4A2
    3.6k


    You're evading the question again. In your words, why was it justice that they left the DOJ?

    I was speaking about DOJ’s decision to change its recommendation.
  • 3017amen
    2.1k


    You are evading the question once again. We already know that their job as prosecutors is to recommend sentencing. Again, why was it justice they left the DOJ?
  • NOS4A2
    3.6k


    You are evading the question once again. We already know that their job as prosecutors is to recommend sentencing. Again, why was it justice they left the DOJ?

    Again, I was speaking about the recommendation of the DOJ for a lesser sentence. Someone linked to an article saying it was corruption. I said it sounded it justice. If you don’t want to know what I meant, why ask?
  • Relativist
    1.5k
    That's a valid complaint by Barr. The timing of Trump's tweet, though it agrees with Barr's assessment about the Stone case, has a tendency to fuel conspiracy theories among the Twitterati.NOS4A2
    A conpiracy theory is:

    "a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators" source

    Trump's tweet doesn't suggest a conspiracy. Rather, it suggests he's interfering in the criminal justice process. And it IS an inappropriate interference- that's an unequivocal fact - and it's a clear counterexample to your claim that Trumps words don't matter.

    Did the tweet have an effect? It's possible. Trump's behavior casts suspicion - that's the consequence of doing something inappropriate.
  • 3017amen
    2.1k


    You're dancing. I know the article that was linked and I read it. Let's examine your reasoning:

    a. If they weren't there, then would Justice have been better served ? Why or why not?
  • Relativist
    1.5k
    ↪Relativist You believe that smokescreen by Barr? He’s working with Guiliani.Noah Te Stroete
    He criticized inappropriate action by Trump. That was the correct thing to do. Contrast this with the typical things we hear: telling us how wonderful it is that he hear exactly what the President thinks.
    .
  • NOS4A2
    3.6k


    Trump's tweet doesn't suggest a conspiracy. Rather, it suggests he's interfering in the criminal justice process. And it IS an inappropriate interference- that's an unequivocal fact - and it's a clear counterexample to your claim that Trumps words don't matter.

    Did the tweet have an effect? It's possible. Trump's behavior casts suspicion - that's the consequence of doing something inappropriate.

    First, it is not inappropriate to call foul on injustice. In fact I think it is quite appropriate. Either way, how does a tweet have any bearing on a trial? If it does interfere that is a problem with the justice system, not the person who tweeted.
  • NOS4A2
    3.6k


    a. If they weren't there, then would Justice have been better served ? Why or why not?

    I’d hope that their political affiliations did not come into play, that’s for sure. If there is a conflict of interest then it puts doubt on the whole process of justice.
  • Relativist
    1.5k
    First, it is not inappropriate to call foul on injustice. In fact I think it is quite appropriateNOS4A2
    Ah, so you disagree with Barr.

    Our justice system is based on the premise of impartiality in its application. In his position as President, anything he says can potentially have an influence. So it is unequivocally wrong, and your inability to admit this suggests you truly think the man can do no wrong.
  • ZzzoneiroCosm
    985
    Did the tweet have an effect?Relativist

    It's the power of the tweet. So much plausible deniability in obstruction-by-tweet.
  • Son of a Bitch
    2.6k
    He criticized inappropriate action by Trump. That was the correct thing to do. Contrast this with the typical things we hear: telling us how wonderful it is that he hear exactly what the President thinks.Relativist

    Barr has to keep the DOJ together after four prosecutors resigned from the Roger Stone case and one altogether quit.

    “Mr. President, you can’t go tweeting out our friends and enemies list otherwise I won’t be able to keep prosecutors on staff. This won’t work if you telegraph our plans to the world. I will go on TV to try to recover whatever credibility I might still have, but you’ve got to keep quiet!” -AG Barr (mutters under his breath, “What a fucking moron!”)
  • Benkei
    3.3k
    Barr : "shut up so I can concentrate on sucking your cock".

    Don't kid yourself in him suddenly growing a moral backbone.
  • Relativist
    1.5k
    Don't kid yourself in him suddenly growing a moral backbone.Benkei
    I'm not. But I think it appropriate to identify behavior that is at least superficially good. I think one's credibility is damaged when one finds fault with everything the "opposition" does, just as credibility is damaged when one refuses to see fault in anything your side does (like NOS4A2 does).
  • Relativist
    1.5k
    Barr has to keep the DOJ together after four prosecutors resigned from the Roger Stone case and one altogether quit.Noah Te Stroete
    That's very possible, but that doesn't make it a bad thing.
  • Relativist
    1.5k
    Did the tweet have an effect? — Relativist


    It's the power of the tweet. So much plausible deniability in obstruction-by-tweet.
    ZzzoneiroCosm
    I'm reminded of Michael Cohen's description of the way Trump let you know he'd like you to buy him some tie he'd seen. Trump would never directly ask for the tie, he'd just talk about how nice the ties is, and how good he thinks he'd look in it.
  • Son of a Bitch
    2.6k
    You’re still not getting it. The interview on ABC was a ruse. Barr and Trump have a friends and enemies list. Because Trump tweeted about Stone as Barr was recommending a lighter sentence than the four resigning prosecutors did, Barr HAD to go on TV.
  • Relativist
    1.5k
    OK, but would it have been better if Barr had pulled a Mike Pence, and lavished praise on Trump for sharing his innermost feelings? My point is there are worse things he could have said, and I don't know that there are things he could have said that would have been better.
  • Son of a Bitch
    2.6k
    That’s irrelevant to the real crime they are pursuing, viz. the Justice Department that is a political tool of the President’s whims.
  • Relativist
    1.5k
    It's not totally irrelevant, but I agree it is considerably LESS relevant.

    My niece is an FBI agent. She doesn't talk to me directly about anything, but my sister (her mom) has told me that she perceives a huge morale problem in the FBI (she said something like, "who would like to be referred to as 'scum'?). I expect the problem pervades the entire justice department. Regardless of whatever else is going on, it is appropriate for the head of the Justice Dept to at least give lip service to the ideals they are pledged to. It's better than being called "scum".
  • Son of a Bitch
    2.6k
    Interesting story.

    My take: I use my real name and make no qualms about how I feel about the President on this forum. I think the career bureaucrats need to buck up and not be so sensitive and blow the whistle on any and every abuse of power by the President. I’m not afraid of retaliation because I know I’m right. When you are on the side of right, then there is no need for fear, unless you’re a coward.

    I know your niece and her colleagues can be brave, too, for the sake of the country. Send her flowers with a note.
  • Punshhh
    2k

    It really is remarkable how rightwing voters, and people who just listen to the media, don't know what socialism is, or how it benefits them. It's just a dirty word for them.

    It's even worse here in the UK, with the drip feed of rightwing ideology in the popular press. Most people, except university educated politics aware folk, equate socialism with Communism and would go for a privelidged rightwing populist loon every time. The fact that he will just make many of them poorer and poorer with less and less rights and greater social division, is just more socialist(communist) propaganda.
  • NOS4A2
    3.6k


    Ah, so you disagree with Barr.

    Our justice system is based on the premise of impartiality in its application. In his position as President, anything he says can potentially have an influence. So it is unequivocally wrong, and your inability to admit this suggests you truly think the man can do no wrong.

    I agree it’s probably not helpful for the DOJ to receive so much scrutiny, but I’m not aware that he said anything about speaking out against an injustice. According to Barr’s re-recommendation we are in agreement about the unjust recommendation. Add on top of that the biased jury foreman who was only discovered after the conviction, we are long past the mere appearance of bias.

    No, I just don’t understand how a tweet, whether it be from a president or celebrity or politician—anyone—can have an influence on a trial. I’m trying to understand a causal chain where that could be the case. Does the tweet enter into the evidence? Does the tweet stew in the head of the judge or jury so much that it changes their partiality? I just cannot see it. So no, to remain silent on matters of injustice is unequivocally right.
  • NOS4A2
    3.6k


    We could easily look at an exhaustive list of socialist states and cross-reference it with various indexes of quality of life, freedom, human rights records etc.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states
  • Michael
    9k
    We could easily look at an exhaustive list of socialist states and cross-reference it with various indexes of quality of life, freedom, human rights records etc.NOS4A2

    From that link:

    Self-identification is the only criterion used by the list, therefore it includes all countries that have claimed to be socialist, even if their claims are disputed. All countries that have not claimed to be socialist are excluded, even in cases where certain outside observers regarded those countries as socialist. This list includes countries that assert in their constitutions that they are based on socialism, regardless of their economic or political system. It does not list countries that do not have constitutional references to socialism as socialist states, even in cases where the government is currently run by a socialist party or other left-wing (centre-left and far-left) parties. On the other hand, countries that do maintain constitutional references to socialism are listed, even when those countries are ruled by non-socialist parties. As a result, this list is best understood as a list of countries that explicitly claim to be socialist and it does not reflect the actual economic systems themselves.

    It's not particularly a reliable measure.

    It really is remarkable how rightwing voters, and people who just listen to the media, don't know what socialism is, or how it benefits them. It's just a dirty word for them.

    It's even worse here in the UK, with the drip feed of rightwing ideology in the popular press. Most people, except university educated politics aware folk, equate socialism with Communism and would go for a privelidged rightwing populist loon every time. The fact that he will just make many of them poorer and poorer with less and less rights and greater social division, is just more socialist(communist) propaganda.
    Punshhh

    What do you understand socialism to be? Is it just things like higher taxes on businesses, single-payer healthcare, regulated economy, welfare? Or is it comprehensive nationalisation? I think it's too vague to simply assert that "socialism is good" or "socialism is bad".
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.