That's laughable to call a presumption of innocence a "precious human right, considering your support for President who so frequently accuses people of crimes with little or no basis.

The presumption of innocence is a legal standard in a criminal trial. It's an appropriate standard for that, because of the consequences of conviction. That doesn't mean it's a good, general epistemic standard. Imagine being on the jury of an alleged child molester. You decide the evidence did not rise to the "beyond a reasonable doubt" level, and because of your decision he's acquitted. Would you consider hiring this person to babysit your children? Would you even want that person living nearby? If not, what became of your presumption of innocence?

We are within our epistemic rights to judge people on the basis of a preponderance of the evidence if we've made an effort to understand all the available facts.

Likewise, considering your disdain for the president, I find it surprising you adopt his thinking.

It is a good standard because one cannot correctly judge if another is guilty until it is proven. Assuming innocence could be wrong, of course, but it is at least just. Assuming guilt is unjust.

Likewise, considering your disdain for the president, I find it surprising you adopt his thinking. — NOS4A2

Nice try, but I noted the need to make an effort to understand all the available facts, whereas Trump clearly ignores evidence when making his accusations. Besides, it's one thing to make a private judgment and quite another to publicly defame someone with an accusation.

It is a good standard because one cannot correctly judge if another is guilty until it is proven. Assuming innocence could be wrong, of course, but it is at least just. Assuming guilt is unjust.

"Proof" is ambiguous: it can imply absolute certainty, or it could simply refer to the evidence at hand. I'm referring to justified belief, and it is reasonable to belief a hypothesis that best fits the evidence and can plausibly be considered more likely than not. Adopting beliefs doesn't entail closing ones mind: beliefs should be revised if additional facts change the initial conclusion.

As an example, I remind you that I presented a set of facts pertaining to Trump's Ukraine scandal. I explained that IMO, the best explanation for those facts was that he did something wrong. I invited your input. I did essentially the same thing in another forum. No one disputed the facts or offered additional ones. This seems a reasonable justification for my belief that Trump did something wrong. Wouldn't it be nice if Trump would do something like this?

I mean absolute, natural sovereignty. You have no control, authority, or responsibility for my body, my actions, my choices. — NOS4A2

And yet if I want to physically assault another human, it is easy...what am I missing? I can easily violate their sovereignty...? You say I have no control...but if I am significantly physically stronger than you, I can literally control you for as long as I care to. I can't make you cure cancer, but I can certainly make you go to the store (as I drag you there).

You cannot make people choose to stand still while being attacked anymore than they can make you choose to attack them. — NOS4A2

I don't need anyone to stand still to violate their sovereignty. And "choosing" is only one limited aspect of sovereignty. Absolute sovereignty would mean no one (and no-thing) has power over my body but myself. A hurricane could take away my sovereignty just as any human could. Aren't their millions of bacteria living in my body? Did I approve their residence? Even if we suggest that most of those are helpful, I still want the bad ones out.

Nice try, but I noted the need to make an effort to understand all the available facts, whereas Trump clearly ignores evidence when making his accusations. Besides, it's one thing to make a private judgment and quite another to publicly defame someone with an accusation.

Nice try but you just publicly stated why you assume his guilt, and did so while suppressing exculpatory evidence, dismissing the testimony of the accused and other witnesses with a hand wave while accepting as faith the testimony of the accusers. Believe it or not but there are strong reasons why this sort of reasoning is unacceptable in criminal trials.

A “best explanation” may be plausible, but not necessarily correct, especially when these “facts” are derived from a one-sided, political show trial and not any sober and fair examination.

And yet if I want to physically assault another human, it is easy...what am I missing? I can easily violate their sovereignty...? You say I have no control...but if I am significantly physically stronger than you, I can literally control you for as long as I care to. I can't make you cure cancer, but I can certainly make you go to the store (as I drag you there).

Yes, you can attempt to violate someone’s sovereignty through violence and coercion. But even so they would need to acquiesce to your demands and willingly give you what you want. They could also spit in your face and defy you to the bitter end. This is because you have no authority over their bodies and actions.

I don't need anyone to stand still to violate their sovereignty. And "choosing" is only one limited aspect of sovereignty. Absolute sovereignty would mean no one (and no-thing) has power over my body but myself. A hurricane could take away my sovereignty just as any human could. Aren't their millions of bacteria living in my body? Did I approve their residence? Even if we suggest that most of those are helpful, I still want the bad ones out.

Yes, only you have power over your body. Even if you were chained to a wall and left for dead you could still resist any impositions. Only you are responsible for your actions. Only you can choose how to live your life.

Nice try but you just publicly stated why you assume his guilt, and did so while suppressing exculpatory evidence, dismissing the testimony of the accused and other witnesses with a hand wave while accepting as faith the testimony of the accusers. Believe it or not but there are strong reasons why this sort of reasoning is unacceptable in criminal trials. — NOS4A2

What exculpatory evidence did I dismiss? I made a point of listing the facts of which I'm aware, and invited you to provide additional facts. You didn't do that.

A “best explanation” may be plausible, but not necessarily correct, especially when these “facts” are derived from a one-sided, political show trial and not any sober and fair examination.

Very little in life is certain, but we adopt beliefs along the way on a pretty constant basis. As I said, we should always remain open-minded and be willing to revise our beliefs based on new evidence.

Show trial? Sure, sort of - in that the Democrats were making a show of presenting the facts that had been discovered. I invited you to challenge them, and/or raise additional ones. Instead, YOU played the same as the House Republicans: you failed to confront the facts and just dismissed them with a wave of the hand as being partisan - as you're continuing to do. All I see is you engaged in a genetic fallacy: you assume the facts are wrong because they were presented by Democrats.

Instead of making these after-the-fact charges about me, why don't you go back to the list of facts I posted, comment on them individually and directly, and provide additional facts that I overlooked. That is the sort of discussion I was looking for in the first place. If I merely wanted to engage in partisan bickering, I would have merely stated my opinion rather than providing the basis for it.

I’ve already provided you exculpatory evidence which you dismissed and/or pooh-poohed. I attempted to refute your opinion on the facts, but when I did so you claimed I was incapable of having a reasonable discussion, which suspiciously allowed you to avoid my arguments entirely.

That’s false, I did not dismiss “the facts” because they were partisan or expressed by democrats, but because they did not suggest any criminal intent or wrong doing or criminal activity. This is evidenced by my direct response to your list of facts, which you then used to accuse me of “denying the obvious”. I explicitly asked for evidence of motivations, ie any statement from the accused that might suggest he wanted investigations into political opponents so as to influence the 2020 elections, and your “facts” provided nothing of the sort.

It was you who accused me of writing things that sounded like I got it from Hannity and Levin, none of whom I watch, and which I proved to be false by showing where I actually heard the idea: the Wallstreet Journal Editorial Board. The partisan bickering was yours all along.

For those interested, the house just voted to send articles of impeachment to the senate. The show trial continues after a hiatus.

Why are you calling the Senate trial a "show trial"? I'd have expected you to consider the Republican-led trial to be a REAL trial. If you think he's innocent of wrongdoing, a trial is a perfect opportunity to establish that.

Yes, you can attempt to violate someone’s sovereignty through violence and coercion. But even so they would need to acquiesce to your demands and willingly give you what you want. They could also spit in your face and defy you to the bitter end. This is because you have no authority over their bodies and actions. — NOS4A2

No. I said I could drag them to the store if I want. That is a type of control over their bodies. It is not absolute control, but they do not have absolute sovereignty. You are referring to some type of sovereignty of will.

Yes, only you have power over your body. Even if you were chained to a wall and left for dead you could still resist any impositions. Only you are responsible for your actions. Only you can choose how to live your life. — NOS4A2

Again, this is only related to autonomy of will. If I am chained up, I can THINK anything I want. But my physical sovereignty (the power I have over my own body) is taken away.

Why are you calling the Senate trial a "show trial"? I'd have expected you to consider the Republican-led trial to be a REAL trial. If you think he's innocent of wrongdoing, a trial is a perfect opportunity to establish that.

I call the whole charade a show trial because the process is for the purpose of politics and propaganda, not justice. They’ve been trying to impeach Trump even before he was sworn in. It’s an unjust affair. There was no crime. There was no wrong doing.

No. I said I could drag them to the store if I want. That is a type of control over their bodies. It is not absolute control, but they do not have absolute sovereignty. You are referring to some type of sovereignty of will.

I’d like to see you try. Of course it’s not as easy as you say, and can only imagine yourself more powerful than everyone to do it. You have to fantasize because you lack control, you have no authority over anyone’s body unless they bestow it to you.

Again, this is only related to autonomy of will. If I am chained up, I can THINK anything I want. But my physical sovereignty (the power I have over my own body) is taken away.

The will is the body. Thinking is an act of the body, and you cannot make anyone think a certain way, speak a certain way, to be calm, to be quiet, to go to sleep...nothing. It is their choice, their responsibility, because they have absolute authority over themselves. You have no authority save for the one you fantasize in your head. Only through force, violence and coercion can you live out that fantasy.

There was no crime. There was no wrong doing. — NOS4A2

Clearly there was, and regardless of how much desire there has been for a Trump impeachment, the impeachment trial is in fact about justice. Trying to obfuscate Trump's crimes is unpatriotic at best...

Clearly there was, and regardless of how much desire there has been for a Trump impeachment, the impeachment trial is in fact about justice. Trying to obfuscate Trump's crimes is unpatriotic at best...

What crime would that be?

Of course it’s not as easy as you say, and can only imagine yourself more powerful than everyone to do it. — NOS4A2

I have included that I am "much stronger" than the other person in my example. If being much stronger allows me to infringe on their sovereignty, then it is no type of absolute sovereignty. It is not about "easy" or not. If it is ever possible, then absolute sovereignty makes no sense.

You have no authority save for the one you fantasize in your head. Only through force, violence and coercion can you live out that fantasy. — NOS4A2

Same goes for your sovereignty. Force, violent, and coercion would not work on someone/something with absolute sovereignty.

There was no wrong doing. — NOS4A2

You are aware there evidence of wrongdoing., right? Are you just saying the evidence is inadequate to meet some standard of burden of proof?

You started out critical of me for not basing my personal judgments on the legal standard. I think you came to accept that outside a courtroom, such personal judgments are reasonable as long as one remains open to reevaluating as more evidence is available. But given your initial reaction, I'm wondering if you are simply presuming Trump innocent (you labelled this a basic human right) because you feel he hasn't been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Is that it?

You are aware there evidence of wrongdoing., right? Are you just saying the evidence is inadequate to meet some standard of burden of proof?

You started out critical of me for not basing my personal judgments on the legal standard. I think you came to accept that outside a courtroom, such personal judgments are reasonable as long as one remains open to reevaluating as more evidence is available. But given your initial reaction, I'm wondering if you are simply presuming Trump innocent (you labelled this a basic human right) because you feel he hasn't been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Is that it?

I would go further than presume he is innocent. I believe he has done nothing wrong, and more, I think he was right and obligated, morally and as a public servant of the country, to look into possible corruption between US and Ukrainian officials. The notion that he shouldn’t do so because it might harm a Democrat’s political chances seems absolutely absurd to me and I feel I am living in Clown World for having to argue against it.

You once mentioned that Trump is violating Biden’s due process, so that’s why I brought up the presumption of innocence: to remind you of Trump’s due process in the hopes we could come to an understanding. Due process is not a legal standard for arbitrary reasons, but because it best guarantees justice. If justice doesn’t factor into your personal judgments, there is nothing wrong with that, but I I have doubts that you can remain fair and just while doing so.

Either way, I am prepared to be proven proven foolish in all of this. I could be completely mistaken, crimes might come to light, I could be proven a dupe, and I will admit that I was wrong if it happens.

I believe he has done nothing wrong, and more, I think he was right and obligated, morally and as a public servant of the country, to look into possible corruption between US and Ukrainian officials. The notion that he shouldn’t do so because it might harm a Democrat’s political chances seems absolutely absurd to me and I feel I am living in Clown World for having to argue against it.

And what did the CIA have to say about Trump getting involved in the investigation of Biden? Or did Trump neglect to tell them. Presumably they were already aware of said corruption from their Ukrainian spies.

And what did the CIA have to say about Trump getting involved in the investigation of Biden? Or did Trump neglect to tell them. Presumably they were already aware of said corruption from their Ukrainian spies.

I’m not sure what they said.

I’m not sure what they said.

My point being that it was the role of the CIA to do the investigation, rather than the president, because the president could be vulnerable to accusations of political expediency.

My point being that it was the role of the CIA to do the investigation, rather than the president, because the president could be vulnerable to accusations of political expediency.

It’s a Ukrainian company in Ukrainian jurisdiction. As for American government officials I think that’s up to the justice dept. The president was only asking the Ukrainian president to look into it

It’s a Ukrainian company in Ukrainian jurisdiction. As for American government officials I think that’s up to the justice dept. The president was only asking the Ukrainian president to look into it

So Trump was vulnerable to accusations of political expediency.

I expect the CIA will be watching what politicians are up to in ex USSR states if they may gain presidential office in the near future. Surely they know what happened.

You could be right. Excuse my tinfoil hat, but I would even argue the CIA or at least the State Department had its hand in the Ukraine revolution of 2014. So I worry they would be more protective of what went on there than otherwise.

Then we should hope the CIA isn't partisan.

You are aware there evidence of wrongdoing., right? — Relativist

Denying what one is aware of is nothing other than lying.

Now that Les Parnas's testimony is a available, Mayor Giuliani and Trump will be further exposed. If the Senate votes to exclude witness testimony, they will be collectively betraying their oaths of office. If witnesses are allowed they will either have to ignore the evidence, therefore losing any integrity they have, or if they accept it they will have to rule against Trump.

If witnesses are allowed they will either have to ignore the evidence, therefore losing any integrity they have, or if they accept it they will have to rule against Trump. — Punshhh

If NOS4A2 is any indication, ignoring the evidence (lying) will be very easy for these people.

After all, they are politicians.

Yes, I realise this. But I have heard a summary of what questions will be asked of what witnesses, under oath. It will be difficult for them to deny it. Unfortunately I don't have this information at hand right now.

It's not a matter of what the witnesses deny, they could make truthful testimony, as others have already. it's a matter of what those judging the testimony deny. As you see from NOS42's denial, with a few "white lies", it's very easy to deny that the evidence is evidence. A "white lie" is used for the purpose of being polite to an individual who might be hurt by the truth.