I was also disappointed that even outlets like CBS would occasionally spin and report falsehoods with the aim of ridiculing Trump. And MSNBC and CNN? They lost whatever integrity they ever had. But that's capitalism for you. Money over integrity. — frank

When profit is the sole motive, to hell with what's right, moral, just, best, true, or fair...

I'm confident the CIA, NSA, etc and foreign intel allies have already begun finding those correlations but such findings are highly classified so they may not be made public for decades, if ever. Criminal Defendant-1's treason (sans "J6 coup attempt") will, no doubt, get many men and women murdered around the world and perhaps, more gravely downstream, destabilize some key alliances.

Doesn’t fly because no Trump supporter would agree that NOS is a bot. To them you appear to be dehumanizing an ‘other’, and they are the others.

When profit is the sole motive, to hell with what's right, moral, just, best, true, or fair... — creativesoul

Exactly. The world is just full of marks waiting to be played.

Well whatever...

I mean, I'm certainly not an angel when it comes to ridiculing others. However, in this case, I do not believe that I am, or was. One cannot sensibly be charged with deliberately ridiculing a person if one does not believe that the target is a person, but rather that it is a bot.

There is also most certainly no reason to continue and/or perpetuate such things as the glorification of ridiculing others when we realize their unhelpfulness... simply because we have been guilty of such things in past.

:brow:

All those laws are designed to protect state power and prestige, not to protect citizens and their human rights. There is nothing morally wrong with what Trump did.

One cannot sensibly be charged with deliberately ridiculing a person if one does not believe that the target is a person, but rather that it is a bot. — creativesoul

NOS is not a bot and I doubt you actually believe that he is. I imagine that a Trump supporter would not believe NOS is a bot and would take your efforts to dehumanize personally.

More distractions. Designed to confuse the issue and muddy the water.

Trump stole very sensitive national defense information. He did so knowingly. He concealed those items. He deliberately lied about having them. He attempted to recruit others to do all the dirty work(of hiding or destroying) for him so that he could claim plausible deniability. He lied to the American public at large repeatedly about the classification level of the information in his possession. He lied repeatedly about the motivations for the investigation in attempts to discredit it. He lied repeatedly about all of it.

He continues to do so.

Whether or not you believe it's morally wrong is irrelevant. What he did was criminal. He knew it too.

NOS is not a bot — praxis

How do you know that?

What evidence convinces you that an internet avatar is a person? What evidence would convince you that an avatar is not a person, but rather a very sophisticated form of plagiarism?

Whether or not you believe it's morally wrong is irrelevant. What he [Trump] did was criminal. He knew it too. — creativesoul

:100:

I imagine that a Trump supporter would not believe NOS is a bot and would take your efforts to dehumanize personally. — praxis

Possibly.

Appealing to law is a fallacy for a reason, and following the law is no sign of morality. Nazis followed the law as they rounded up Jews. Dr. MLK was a criminal. You’re going to need a better argument.

No, I don't need an argument at all. It's a matter of fact.

You asked what crimes he committed. The crimes are established by law.

And again...

Whether or not you believe it is immoral is irrelevant. You asked what crimes he committed. That has nothing to do with whether or not the law establishing those crimes are moral or not. That's an entirely different matter, and as far as it goes... you've yet to have offered any argument yourself.

So...

Pots and kettles.

I asked what you thought his most egregious crime was, then you listed off all of them. You couldn’t answer the question. You just parroted the indictment.

Touche.

What better way to set out the actual crimes he's being accused of than to quote them verbatim?

Ready to discuss the indictment?

What evidence would convince you that an avatar is not a person, but rather a very sophisticated form of plagiarism? — creativesoul

ChatGPT say:

• Inconsistencies and contradictions: If the avatar's responses or information provided show inconsistencies, contradictions, or illogical statements, it could indicate that the content is generated by a machine rather than a human. Plagiarism often involves piecing together information from different sources, leading to inconsistencies.
• Lack of personal context: If the avatar avoids sharing personal experiences, emotions, or context-specific information, it may be an indication that it lacks genuine human experiences. Plagiarism tends to rely on information available in public sources rather than personal knowledge or experiences.
• Repetition of generic content: If the avatar repeatedly provides generic, widely available information without offering any original insights, it could suggest that it is copying from existing sources. Plagiarism often involves reproducing content without adding value or unique perspectives.
• Lack of engagement or understanding: If the avatar fails to engage in meaningful conversations or lacks a deep understanding of the subject matter it claims to be knowledgeable about, it may indicate that it is plagiarizing content. Genuine human interaction typically involves active engagement, critical thinking, and the ability to grasp complex concepts.
• Rapid response times and consistency: If the avatar consistently responds immediately without any delays or variations in response time, it might indicate that it is an automated program rather than a human. Human response times tend to vary, and delays can occur due to the need for reflection or research.
• Zero sense of humor.

You're right, NOS is a bot.

You're right, NOS is a bot. — praxis

I do not know if I am or not. I certainly would question the veracity of sourcing a bot for information about how to tell if an interlocutor is a bot!

:joke:

I certainly would question the veracity of sourcing a bot for information about how to tell if an interlocutor is a bot! — creativesoul

I just added a telltale sign to the end.

Appealing to law is a fallacy for a reason, and following the law is no sign of morality. — NOS4A2

There is nothing morally wrong with what Trump did. — NOS4A2

I asked what you thought his most egregious crime was — NOS4A2

I'll address this.

His most egregious moral failure is to manipulate his followers into believing his false narrative (e.g. he did nothing wrong, he committed no crime, it's a witch hunt, DOJ is weaponized...). One effect of this is that it undermines rule of law, and only an anarchist would think that a good thing. 2nd worse (but related to his false narrative) is his hypocrisy - compare what he said in 2016 about Hillary's misdemeanor mishandling of lowest classification emails to his handling of highest security documents).

Moral failures are not crimes, and so he won't be held accountable (partly because of his power over his supporters).

His most serious crime was the concealment of highly classified documents he wasn't legally entitled to, in response to a Grand Jury Subpoena to surrender them. This is also morally wrong (lying, theft).

Contrast Trump's crime with Edward Snowden. Snowden seems to have had noble intentions. There's no evidence of noble intentions by Trump. The recorded conversation he had regarding Milley's war plan with Iran was entirely self-serving (yet another moral issue).

Those are the biggest things, IMO, but others are close behind.

even if that were true and the law isn't about morality, you're still expected to follow it. By inference you then agree that he broke the law otherwise your argument is entirely irrelevant.

@NOS4A2 is correct that the establishment is out to get Trump. But he seems to have drawn from this the false inference that Trump hasn't done what he's been accused of. Most likely though he has. So rather than persecution we have one party who keeps banging their head against the concrete while the other just sits and waits for the brain damage to become terminal.

Will be funny if no one shows like last time. Although it is Florida rather than NY.

It's blatantly obvious that it is the corrupt elements in the Republican Party who are 'politicizing' the prosecution of Trump, simply by declaring that the basis of the indictment is 'political persecution', when it's obvious that the facts as stated are utterly damning and inexcusable. Once again, the Republican Party puts power ahead of principle and the defense of the Constitution. But the most disgusting aspect of the whole sordid spectacle is the eagerness with which Trump and his cronies seek to exploit these charges as means to raise funds and appeal for sympathy from his zombie followers.

The thing about the hypocrisy is that it goes both ways. Trump was president. Clinton wasn’t. Trump had unilateral declassification power. Hillary didn’t. The only reason to bring up Hillary is to point at the preferential treatment she got. She stored classified info in her basement. She and her staff destroyed evidence. No indictment. People fell over themselves to defend her, call Trump a fascist, and look at those people now.

I don’t think Trump has the manipulative abilities you pretend he does. It is a witch hunt. They are literally inventing laws in New York, for example, to make his life hell. People campaign on getting him. There is no other way to describe it when your political opponents do that to you.

Rather, I believe his detractors are being manipulated, for instance by the years-long Russia hoax, which people fell for world-wide and still repeat it. I won’t name names but people here thought I was Russian. There has yet to be a single moment of clarity even after that whole charade. We’re in the midst of mass hysteria.

I don’t think he broke the law nor do I care if he did. But I’m certain they will do everything in their power to get him.

From inside the MAGA circus-tent:

I was shocked by the degree of sensitivity of these documents and how many there were, frankly. If even half of it is true, then he is toast. It's a very detailed indictment and it's very very damning. And this idea of presenting Trump as a victim, a victim of a witch hunt, is ridiculous. Yes, he's been a victim in the past. Yes, his adversaries have obsessively pursued him with phony claims, and I've been at his side defending against them when he is a victim. But this is much different. He's not a victim here. He was totally wrong. — fmr US AG (and Trump-fixer) Bill Barr, FOX Noise 11Jun23

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/06/11/bill-barr-donald-trump-classified-documents-indictment/70310878007/

it is an extremely damning indictment ... this is not an indictment that you can dismiss. It's really breathtaking. Obviously, this is mishandling, you know, putting classified documents into ballrooms and bathrooms is -- it borders on the bizarre. ... the visual and audio tape evidence is really daunting.

There are indictments that are sometimes called narrative or speaking indictments. These are indictments that are really meant to make a point as to the depth of the evidence, there are some indictments that are just bare bones. This is not one of those indictments. The Special Counsel knew that there would be a lot of people who were going to allege that the Department of Justice was acting in a biased or politically motivated way. This is clearly an indictment that was drafted to answer those questions. It's overwhelming in detail.

The Trump team should not fool itself. These are hits below the waterline. These are witnesses who apparently testified under oath [and] gave statements to federal investigators, both of which can be criminally charged, if they're false. Those witnesses are directly quoting the president in encouraging others not to look for documents or allegedly to conceal them. It's damaging.

It's hard to show a picture of these boxes surrounding a toilet and saying ‘we really acted responsibly'. The government is bringing dozens of counts – they only have to land one of those punches. Keep in mind that every one of these counts is coming with a substantial potential sentence. — Jonathan Turley, MAGA legal spin-master, FOX Noise 9Jun23

https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-legal-commentator-jonathan-turley-trump-indictment-extremely-damning-2023-6

@NOS4A2 :victory: :mask:

The thing about the hypocrisy is that it goes both ways. Trump was president. Clinton wasn’t. Trump had unilateral declassification power. Hillary didn’t. The only reason to bring up Hillary is to point at the preferential treatment she got — NOS4A2

Case in point: you bought the false narrative: Declassification Power Absolution/Hillary/Witch Hunt/Russia Hoax.

Hillary didn't get preferential treatment. She was treated the same as anyone who unintentionally mishandled classified documents. During the investigation, Comey asked the DOJ to review every past case of mishandling of classified materials that had been prosecuted. They all fit into one of more of 4 categories; 1) clearly intentional mishandling; 2) very large quantities; 3) behavior indicating disloyalty to the US; 4) active obstruction of justice. Comey discussed this when he gave his televised speech in 2016, in which he chastised her carelessness, a speech that's been characterized as election interference. No way to know if this cost her votes, but it clearly wasn't helpful).

Less severe cases (which happen often) are treated as administrative infractions - discipline by a superior, and a mark on their employment record. All such cases, including Hillary's, entail a technical violation of the Records Act, so it's true Hillary violated the law. But GOP wanted to treat her worse than everyone else: a clear example of "two tier justice" against her.

The documents that she mishandled were the lowest classification level (confidential), Trump had documents at the highest level. There's no evidence that Hillary knew she'd mishandled anything classified. Trump knew he had classified documents. Hillary didn't hide any classified documents*, ,Trump hid some, including in defiance of a Grand Jury Subpoena for "all documents with classificaton markings" -which made his claim of having declassified them, or even "owning them" irrelevant (per the Presidential Records Act, the government owns everything except personal materials - and classified documents clearly wouldn't apply). Trump also lied and accused the FBI of planting documents. Finally, Trump is being prosecuted for crimes related to the Espionage Act, which entails risking exposure of national security secrets and isn't contingent upon the official classification level. And yet, you're reciting Trump's irrelevant assertion that as President, he declassified everything he took (which the recording referenced in the indictment proves to be another lie).

Even though Trump knowingly had possession of top secret materials, even though his actions fit 3 of the 4 categories Comey discussed, and even though he failed to send everything back when requested by National Archives - all of which puts him in a different category than Hillary, if he had fully complied with the Grand Jury Subpoena, he would not have been prosecuted. So the claim that he's been treated worse is 100% nonsense, and this should be clear to anyone who is aware of all the facts. I'll assume you weren't aware before now, but now you are (and I encourage you to research my claims to verify or dispute them).

* Deleting personal emails is not a a crime. The records act only requires the retention of government emails.

**using a personal server was stupid, but not illegal. It DID create an environment that resulted in some classified emails being inappropriately sent through it. 38 individuals were involved for a total of 497 violations (this is based on an intensive analysis conducted by the state department - see this.)

I don't know if you will have read this entire, lengthy post. It's so much easier, and satisfying, for GOP to embrace the much simpler false narrative that Trump so adeptly drummed into all you guys, particularly because it involves the hated Hillary Clinton.

P. S. For completeness, and to demonstrate my desire for objectivity: Hillary has consistently denied that she even had a technical violation of the law. This lie is the 2nd worst thing she did in the matter, behind using the private server in the first place. But it's not a crime (if lies were crimes, think about where this would leave Trump!)


Finally, regarding your parroting Trump's "witch hunt" claim (again confirming my point) the classified documents case ain't that. It began with a crime - a minor one of violating the Presidential Records act, and obstinate refusal to return documents, and in the process, Trump committed even worse crimes. It wasn't necessary to seek something to pin on him. The crimes were right in front of the government entities that were involved.

I will say that Alvin Bragg's case seems a bit shakier, but even here - it was well known that Trump was involved in a crime - this came out when Michael Cohen was prosecuted. I personally think it shouldn't have been prosecuted, but then again, should we really have a 2-tier system that prosecutes only one of the 2 co-conspirators?

I don’t think Trump has the manipulative abilities you pretend he does — NOS4A2

You've demonstrated that you buy the false narratives. Then you add:

I don’t think he broke the law nor do I care if he did. — NOS4A2

My guess is that Trump made you care that Hillary broke the law, but perhaps you can point me to some old post of yours where you said the same thing about her. You obviously care that Biden MIGHT have broken the law, since you were able to point to the accusations. I trust you understand the epistemic weakness of an unsubstantiated, vague accusation vs the epistemic strength of the evidence that's referenced in the indictment, which you haven't read, at least not with understanding, since you recited Trump's talking points and said you don't care.

I don’t think he broke the law nor do I care if he did. — NOS4A2

Well that just says everything.