1

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: November 27, 2023, 03:39:52 AM »

Again, you guys are arguing for possibility instead of probability, purely as excuse making for the lack of evidence in this case.

Lack of evidence?  Obviously the jury thought that there was enough evidence to find Trump liable for sexual assault.  That isn't a trivial charge.  If it were a criminal trial, he would likely be doing jail time and then be required to register as a sex offender.  Is that really the kind of man you want back in the White House?

2

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: November 27, 2023, 02:12:15 AM »

Yes, it is possible that a woman does not scream in a department store when she is raped against her will. However, it is improbable.

It's quite a lot more probable than you think.  Or don't you think that being paralyzed by fear is a thing?

The series of explanations presented are pure excuse making, which you are explicitly making to explain away and justify a lack of evidence in this case. You pretend that we should be completely on board with believing a series of improbable excuses.

Sure, they're flimsy excuses...   Until you look at the psychology and biology of what happens in the brain when someone is experiencing a highly stressful situation, like being raped.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2015/06/23/why-many-rape-victims-dont-fight-or-yell/

3

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: November 20, 2023, 11:15:56 PM »

In all my life, the word scheme has always held a negative connotation, typically involving criminal acts or fraudulent acts.

Perhaps for you, but that isn't necessarily the case for the rest of the English speaking world.

1: a plan or program of action
especially : a crafty or secret one

"Crafty" and "secret" don't always imply criminal or fraudulent.

4

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: November 19, 2023, 12:52:35 AM »

That's... not how court cases work. Judges don't judge defendants before the case is over.

Actually, he already did.  It's called a summary judgement.

If he did make such comments, it will only be used as fodder for an appeal. The judge in that case has already been slapped by an appeals court regarding his actions in this case: New York appeals court judge lifts gag order in Trump civil fraud case

Oh, I'm sure that Trump will appeal.  Probably all the way to the Supreme Court (if they're willing to hear it).  Personally, I think that this civil fraud trial is the least of his worries compared to the criminal charges that he's looking at.

5

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: November 15, 2023, 09:58:12 PM »

The media, in fact, has been going on for weeks about how Cohen was supposed to be the prosecution's "star witness" -

I'll leave Cohen's star witness status to be decided by a court of law rather than the court of public opinion.

Please try to understand that the judge already determined that there was enough evidence to find Trump guilty of fraud even before Cohen took the stand.

6

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: November 15, 2023, 02:31:44 AM »

Essentially "Trump didn't ask anyone to inflate financial statements directly, but he implied it by speaking like a mob boss!"

Do you sincerely and honestly believe that this type of evidence is going to go anywhere?

I can only roll my eyes when you guys continually fall for this media hype. 

Do you sincerely and honestly believe that Cohen's testimony is the prosecution's only, or even strongest, evidence against Trump?

I can only roll my eyes when you continually refuse to see the bigger picture.

7

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: November 14, 2023, 10:50:52 PM »

There isn't any reason to believe that they have substantial evidence against Trump. This is like the boy who cried wolf story. Trump was supposed to be in jail because there was all of this evidence that he was a russian spy years ago. It turned out that the evidence was pretty shoddy and politically motivated. Since then every other week it has been some other claim and some other alleged crime, which always comes with the coincidental far-left DA or far-left figure pushing for it, with recurring predictions from the left that a mountain of evidence has been collected against Trump and he is for sure going to jail this time.

How many times has Trump been indited?  Are you forgetting that he has already been found guilty of fraud in a civil trial?  The judge even said that there was enough evidence to fill the courtroom.

Engoron rejected the motion absolutely, contradicting the Trump team’s claim that Cohen was the key witness. “There’s enough evidence in this case to fill this courtroom,” he remarked.

Perhaps you have a different definition of evidence than the court system.

8

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: November 13, 2023, 10:33:07 PM »

You are trying to tell us what other people are thinking, who you do not know.

No.  I'm asking you what you think, given what we all (or at least most of us)  know about how plea deals generally work.

9

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: November 12, 2023, 10:39:22 PM »

As it is, she has only agreed to testify truthfully. Everything else is conjecture.

Tom, you keep focusing on the "what" of the deal (the truthful testimony).  Aren't you the least bit interested in the "why" of the deal?  As in, if she agreed that there was enough evidence to convict her for the original charges, then why would the prosecutors give here such a sweetheart deal instead of going to trial and conviction?

BTW, a plea deal still counts as a conviction.

10

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: November 07, 2023, 11:45:48 PM »

Tom, are you familiar with subtext?  Of course the plea agreement doesn't explicitly say that she must flip on Trump.  However, one can reasonably infer from the way that plea agreements work in general that she would not have been offered such a sweet plea agreement if she wasn't expected to flip.

One can also reasonably infer from her continuous attacks on the prosecutor that she did not flip.

Her attacks on the prosecutor are just for keeping up appearances for her adoring fans and have no effect on court proceedings.  Remember that she agreed in her plea that the evidence was strong enough to convict her had she gone to trial. 

The prosecutors don't really care about her attacks.  They primarily care about what she knows about Trump's attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

11

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: November 07, 2023, 04:03:02 AM »

If it was an agreement to flip on trump you might have something. However, it is not. It an agreement to truthfully testify, which could have been given out of a number of reasons, such as desperation.

Tom, are you familiar with subtext?  Of course the plea agreement doesn't explicitly say that she must flip on Trump.  However, one can reasonably infer from the way that plea agreements work in general that she would not have been offered such a sweet plea agreement if she wasn't expected to flip.

According to the left the walls have been closing in on Trump for 9 years now, for a wide range of crimes which are totally provable in court but somehow falls apart. Surely, you have him now. 

What exactly has fallen apart?  He already lost one E. Jean Carrol case and is looking at another one in a few months. He has already been found guilty of fraud in a civil trial in New York, so that's not a good sign.  Plus there are 91 well detailed felony charges that have been filed.  Oh, and a number of co-defendants are taking sweet plea deals that require them to provide "truthful testimony" in future trials against Trump.  So yes, I think that it's pretty safe to say that the walls are closing in.

12

Arts & Entertainment / Re: Now Playing

« on: November 05, 2023, 03:44:57 AM »

13

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: November 04, 2023, 12:16:56 AM »

Maybe she is intending to testify. I still don't see anything substantial suggesting that she has flipped on Trump, however. The agreement is for her to testify truthfully.

There is no "intending" about it.  By agreeing to the plea agreement. she is obligated to testify truthfully and the prosecutors already have a pretty good idea of how damaging to Trump that testimony is going to be, otherwise they wouldn't have offered the deal in the first place.

Also, agreeing to testify in exchange for leniency is pretty much the definition of flipping, or, if you prefer, turning state's evidence.

In American parlance, a defendant who agrees to cooperate with prosecutors and give information against co-conspirators (often those with greater culpability) is also said to flip.

14

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: October 29, 2023, 12:28:51 AM »

Prosecutors don't directly represent the victim. They represent society and must treat cases impartially in the interest of justice, as stated in the above quotes.

Exactly.  In this case, justice would be best served by putting Trump in jail for being a threat to society.

15

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: October 26, 2023, 10:27:13 PM »

As they are defendants...

Umm...  No.  Once they plead guilty, their trials are over and they are no longer defendants.  They become convicted criminals who are being called as witnesses for the prosecution.

16

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: October 25, 2023, 10:12:13 PM »

Looks like another half dozen rats might be getting ready to jump ship.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/25/politics/fulton-county-da-is-discussing-plea-deals-with-at-least-5-more-trump-co-defendants/index.html

17

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: October 24, 2023, 05:07:54 PM »

Umm…. She already waived her 5th amendment rights against self incrimination by pleading guilty, which usually involves providing details of the crimes that you admitted to committing.

18

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: October 23, 2023, 04:17:54 PM »

Yes there is a deal.  How are you this stupid?
She entered into a contract.  If she does not hold up her end of the contract by testifying truthfully, which means she can't take the 5th, she will have her deal canceled.

Its really not complicated.  I can only assume you simply don't understand how deals work.

Testifying truthfully has nothing to do with the 5th Amendment. A prosecutor cannot, BY law, frame a deal negating the Bill of Rights.

She already plead guilty.  How is she going to incriminate herself further by testifying against Trump?

19

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: October 22, 2023, 07:29:05 PM »

Again, if whatever testimony you offer could incriminate you, you are not obligated to give that testimony and can take the 5th. A prosecutor cannot even propose such a deal.

She already plead guilty, so her trial is over and double jeopardy would apply.  It's her testimony about her other co-defendants that they are interested in, so the self-incrimination part of the 5th doesn't really apply.

20

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump

« on: October 21, 2023, 10:26:19 PM »

Again, 5th Amendment.  Technically anything she reveals as truth could be self incriminating.  So she could take the 5th and answer nothing and not be liable for perjury.

This deal basically cancels out her ability to take the 5th.

The 5th Amendment also shields against double jeopardy.  Given that she plead guilty to lesser charges, she can't be charged again, unless her testimony might potentially include other crimes not already covered.