But they did. — NOS4A2

No, they didn't. Clinton was presented information purported to establish a secret communications link between Trump and Russia's Alfa Bank. She approved the proposal to make this public. No one lied, they were simply mistaken.

Funny you'd bring this up, since this incident led your hero, Durham, to prosecute Sussman for making a false statement to the FBI (one of those "process crimes" you complain about, when it involves a Trump loyalist). But it was shown at trial that Sussman believed what he told the FBI. It also came out that no one in the Clinton campaign approved taking this to the FBI. If you were consistent, you'd be complaining about the injustice done to Sussman. It never should have gone to trial.

The steele dossier. It was bought and paid for by the Clinton campaign. It worked exactly as they intended. — NOS4A2

Typical Trumpist propoganda, which I've previously disabused you of. — Relativist

That’s the only thing you can say and it’s taken place of your arguments. Keep telling yourself that, if it helps. But you have nothing to dispute it. — NOS4A2

I believe I've reviewed the facts with you before, but nevertheless I'll go over it again.

The law firm of Perkins-Coie represented the 2016 Clinton campaign and the DNC.

Marc Elias, a partner of at the firm personally hired Fusion GPS to conduct opposition research on Donald Trump . Fusions research on Trump was already in progress, funded by GOP opponents).
Fusion’s research consisted of digging through court filings from Trump’s numerous lawsuits and through newspaper reports.

From their research, they saw a suspicious pattern of associations with Russians. This led Fusion to hire Steele to investigate further. Fusion told Elias only that they had hired someone from outside the US to collect intelligence about Trump’s ties to Russia. Elias gave no direction to the activities, and had no idea who was doing it. As the only conduit between Fusion and the Clinton campaign, this shows that there was no direct connection between this intelligence collection and the campaign. The work was ultimately funded by the campaign, but there has never been any evidence of wrongdoing (or direction) by anyone associated with the campaign (including Elias). Perkins-Coie paid Steele, and passed the charges along to the Clinton campaign – which incorrectly booked these costs as legal fees (based on the fees being incurred by the law firm – although it should have been identified as opposition research).

So...sure, they paid for it, but they had no idea they were paying for faulty intelligence. Furthermore, the campaign never used Steele's intelligence in their campaign. So the "propoganda I was referring to was the falsehood that the Clinton campaign wanted to make stuff up about Trump and that they used this in the campaign. That is categorically false.

The steele dossier. It was bought and paid for by the Clinton campaign. It worked exactly as they intended. — NOS4A2

Typical Trumpist propoganda, which I've previously disabused you of.

If he did obstruct the investigation, it was because it was an unjust investigation. Obstruction of justice is wrong, Obstruction of injustice is laudable. — NOS4A2

That's laughable. Are all investigations unjust when hindsight shows the person was innocent? In this case, there's not even a rational basis to claim Trump was proven innocent - because Trump's obstruction was successful: who knows what Manafort may have revealed had he not been promised a pardon? And no, I'm not insisting Trump conspired with Russia, but it would be false to claim he was proven innocent. His obstruction undermined the investigation and thus tainted the conclusion. If there weren't so many bigger crimes by Trump, it would be a worthwhile campaign issue for Dems.

Regarding the investigation, there was a great deal of reason to be suspicious, and Trump's behavior (including the obstruction) is not the least of it. An innocent statesman would have merely expressed his confidence that the investigative process would prove his innocence. Instead, Trump's childish tirades have led to his cult members losing trust in the justice system. Despite errors being made during the investigation, they did not lead to inventing evidence or bringing false charges. That is the best evidence that the system works (setting aside the obstruction, which was clearly criminal).

I already knew you applauded Trump's illegal obstruction, and I expect you wouldn't care if Trump had conspired with Russia, either. I asked you how would justify it to an open-minded person. You obviously couldn't.

The fact is that primaries elect delegates, not candidates. No nomination rules were broken and the system is working as designed.

as usual you’re spouting DNC and big donor propaganda. — NOS4A2

I had neither heard nor read Biden's statement. I stated something I believe to be factual based on m own analysis: the process was followed, no rules were broken. You didn't dispute that.

Biden had a perfect right to drop out, and others had a right to talk him into it. I would have accepted an open convention, had that occurred, but what I consider what occurred a better outcome because the prime objective was to defeat Trump - not to nominate the most popular loser.

I do generally wish incumbents weren't always the default candidate. Real choices would have been great, but there really weren't any - which actually makes the primary process meaningless when there's an incumbent. Since the primaries didn't offer a real choice, it doesn't make sense to suggest my will as a voter was ignored.

I am curious: since you so value democratic principles, are you in favor of eliminating the electoral college?

Here is something that might interest folks here.

There's No Free Will. What Now? - Robert Sapolsky: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgvDrFwyW4k&t=2804s — I like sushi

I didn't watch the video, but I've read his book - so I assume it's the same message. It appears to me Sapolsky deals only with the dichotomy: Libertarian Free Will (LFW) OR No Free Will. He also considers there to be no agency unless there is LFW.

He doesn't write about compatibilism...but his description of behavior seems perfectly consistent with compatibilism.

I haven't read through all 22 pages of this thread, so I'll just ask this question: has the subject of Dialetheism come up? From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article:

"A dialetheia is a sentence, A, such that both it and its negation, ¬A, are true. If falsity is assumed to be the truth of negation, a dialetheia is a sentence which is both true and false. ....Dialetheism is the view that there are dialetheias. If we define a contradiction as a couple of sentences of which one is the negation of the other, or as a conjunction of such sentences, then dialetheism amounts to the claim that there are true contradictions."

Further, [Durham] writes of the two-tiered system. He writes: “Unlike the FBI’s opening of a full investigation of unknown members of the Trump campaign based on raw, uncorroborated information, in this separate matter involving a purported Clinton campaign plan, the FBI never opened any type of inquiry — NOS4A2

Durham makes no allegation of a "two-tiered" system. What he said was this:

Although the evidence we collected revealed a troubling disregard for the Clinton Plan intelligence and potential confirmation bias in favor of continued investigative scrutiny of Trump and his associates, it did not yield evidence sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that any FBI or CIA officials intentionally furthered a Clinton campaign plan to frame or falsely accuse Trump of improper ties to Russia.

This was the most damning thing Durham had to say about the matter: there was POTENTIALLY some confirmation bias involved. At the time at which these Russian memos were obtained, it had already been established that Russia was working to help Trump and hurt Clinton. This background knowledge would surely have influenced the investigation. Does the DOJ always follow up 100% of leads, irrespective of their deemed credibility? I doubt it.

Much of the information Steele provided was confirmed, most importantly - the basic fact of who Russia was trying to help and who to hurt. Contrast this with the Russian memos: there has been no evidence of any kind to corroborate any of their information. Durham tried to find corroboration, but found not one whisper of it. Durham's entire tirade is based on his opinion that the Russian memos (which we now know with certainty were disinformation) should have been treated as equally credible to the Steele memos. IOW, he laments the fact that investigators failed to waste their time pursuing it! The course the investigation actually took was fruitful, in spite of the fact that errors were made along the way.

Also consider the implications of the supposed "Clinton Plan": it would have meant that the Campaign was pushing some disinformation about Trump. I admit that I would find this appalling, but a Trump supporter - who embraces and repeats Trump's frequent lies, would be hypocritical to do so.

Read about it in this New York Times article! Let me guess, unnamed sources, current and former officials, — NOS4A2

Genetic fallacy. The Times article merely fills in a bit of context about the Russian disinformation memos:

"The [Russian] memos were part of a trove provided to the C.I.A. by a Dutch spy agency, which had infiltrated the servers of its Russian counterpart. The memos were said to make demonstrably inconsistent, inaccurate or exaggerated claims, and some U.S. analysts believed Russia may have deliberately seeded them with disinformation.

Durham says nothing that contradicts the above. He wrote, "The IC does not know the accuracy of this allegation or the extent to which the Russian intelligence analysis may reflect exaggeration or fabrication." That's not a lot of daylight between his comment and the NYTimes quote: he's tacitly admitting that it could be fabrication. It IS clear that Durham sought corroborating evidence for the allegation, but came up with nothing. Even if one chooses to believe the FBI committed an error in failing to follow up, it's clear that this possible error wouldn't have made a bit of difference - it would merely proven to be a waste of resources.

I'm still waiting for you to answer my questions about why Trump obstructed the investigation. I fully realize you don't care that he did, but how would you defend it to someone who's open-minded? Imagine some other politician being investigated by the FBI, who took steps to silence witnesses - don't you think that would be a major scandal if it came out?

I need to also respond to this:

It’s unfair to replace a candidate from a race because you’re losing, especially against the will of the voters, and it’s dishonest and fraudulent to say you’ve done so for any other reason as Joe Biden and his surrogates did. — NOS4A2

As usual, you're repeating Trump-campaign propoganda.

The fact is that primaries elect delegates, not candidates. No nomination rules were broken and the system is working as designed. If Democrats are unhappy with the way it played out (or Republicans fear this could happen to them) they can push to change the rules (as was done with the prior role of superdelegates). There aren't many Democrats who are upset with the result, though - despite so many Republicans trying to convince them that they should be.

The whole charade was the fruit of a poisoned tree, none of which should have went past a preliminary investigation, but all of which had been used against just one political campaign. — NOS4A2

Yes, Crossfire Hurricane led to Mueller. And despite the fact that you consider the investigation inappropriate because of mistakes made on 2 FISA warrants, the investigation was warranted by the evidence. Russia had stolen DNC emails, and Papadopoulos knew about it before it was released: a crime was committed, and a Trump advisor had knowledge of it. More evidence developed after that. Trump behaved suspiciously throughout the Mueller investigation - and that added more reason to investigate, irrespective of what reasons or excuses one makes for that behavior.

Durham doesn't even deny the investigation was warranted, he just opined it should have started as a "preliminary investigation", which would have changed nothing.

Like Trump, you are irrationally claiming the investigation tainted by the mistakes that were made, as an excuse to ignore what it exposed: Russian involvement (Trump STILL hasn't acknowledged this fact), cooperation with Russia by Trump staff, Trump's willingness to accept dirt on his opponent that was obtained illegally by a foreign government, and he was eager to hear what additional dirt they could provide (the infamous Trump Tower meeting) and to hear what they wanted in return. This happened. A crime wasn't committed only because Russia didn't actually have any new dirt to offer.

Perhaps you don’t know, or at least won’t mention, that “On 07 September 2016, U.S. intelligence officials forwarded an investigative referral to FBI Director James Comey and Deputy Assistant Director of Counterintelligence Peter Strzok regarding ‘U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's approval of a plan concerning U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering U.S. elections as a means of distracting the public from her use of a private mail server. — NOS4A2

I alluded to this in my prior post: the "intelligence" was from Russian intelligence! It was part of their misinformation to convince people they weren't involved. There was no evidence this occurred other than this Russian fabrication! No one took it seriously for that reason.Durham and Barr flew around the world to try and get more evidence of it, but failed - because there was nothing. Read about it in this NY Times Article

So independent was it that the incompetent and biased investigators on the failed Crossfire Hurricane investigation were simply moved to the office of the Special Counsel. — NOS4A2

You're referring specifically to Peter Strzok, and repeating Trump's slur. Strzok didn't like Trump. So what? The IG assessed Strzok's work and found no evidence of inappropriate actions. He was removed from the Mueller investigation because of the appearance of impropriety that resulted from the release of his private text messages (Strzok recently settled a lawsuit about his unjust treatment). Durham judged that there was "confirmation bias" in the investigation, but that is debatable (investigators often follow their instincts). Durham's own confirmation bias is obvious. His judgement that a "preliminary investigation" should have been opened was made at the time the IGs report was issued, not after his investigation was concluded.
.
Serious question: if he had nothing to hide, why did Trump obstruct the investigation (which was a crime, btw) and why didn't he answer all the questions he was asked?

You’re just repeating media falsehoods. — NOS4A2

On the contrary, I read the Mueller report, the IG's report, the Senate Acitve Measures Report, and the Durham Report. You seem base your view entirely on the Durham report, and don't even seem to understand what he was examining and saying.

Durham's opined that Crossfire Hurricane should only have been opened as a preliminary investigation, and he based this on his assessment of the evidence listed in the case proposal. What Durham doesn't mention is that had it been opened as a preliminary investigation, it wouldn't have changed it's course and it would have been upgraded to a full investigation as additional evidence came in. Durham has a right to his opinion, but it is the FBI directors opinion that matters - because it is his call to make. The IG investigated and agreed. A difference of opinion with the FBI director does not imply any wrongdoing was done. And this isn't even the Mueller investigation - that investigation was initiated because Trump fired Comey. Durham had nothing but praise for Mueller.

It’s based on special counsel findings. — NOS4A2

Complete nonsense. The IG found some mistakes made during the Crossfire investigation (not the Mueller investigation), specifically with the FISA warrants on Carter Page. Durham found no other mistakes. He disagreed with some specific judgements (e.g. Durham felt that some misinformation from Russian Intelligence about Clinton's involvement should have been more fully investigated, which is ludicrous given that it's abundantly clear Russia was truly helping Trump).

As for evidence, most of those convicted in the Mueller investigation, for example, were for process crimes. Now that we know that there was no underlying crime to begin with, that the entire investigation was a failure and had no reason to start in the first place, it makes their indictments all the more unjust. — NOS4A2

Setting aside the fact that Manafort committed serious financial crimes, DOJ often threatens to prosecute "process crimes" to induce the witnesses to cooperate. It often does work, but in this case - Trump managed to keep them loyal by promising them pardons. Loyalist Barr killed the potential obstruction indictment of Trump which would have been well-deserved.

The evidence made it clear that Trump was willing to conspire with the Russians, and that he indirectly did so through Stone's coordination with Wikileaks. But because it couldn't be proven he had made a direct deal to act on Russia's behalf (it' supposed to be a mere coincidence that Russia asked him to speak supprortively of the Crimea invasion, and he did so), no case could be brought.

So...it seems that your judgement of the DOJ is based on Trumpian falsehoods.

When has the DOJ ever gone after Trump for a "process crime"?


Never. But my point was that they are going to, not that they have. — NOS4A2

So it's just paranoia toward the FBI (hmm. I wonder where that came from ;-)) that induces you to assume the worst about them....

Applying the law equitably entails "moral panic"?!

No, believing Trump is an existential threat entails a moral panic, and many of his disgruntled former employees have stated as much — NOS4A2

...but the paranoia of people who've worked for Trump and fear for what he might do (based on what they've heard him say and things he tried to do) is the only thing that's unreasonable.

Trump agrees to be interviewed by the one agency that will use it to indict him with some sort of specious process crime. — NOS4A2

When has the DOJ ever gone after Trump for a "process crime"?

Many of Trump's employees descend into the moral panic, as do many seemingly qualified and rational people — NOS4A2

Applying the law equitably entails "moral panic"?!

Trump is someone I really admire — Shawn

How do you square your admiration with his immoral character? In particular, the numerous instances of fraud. I can (kind of) get overlooking his sex crimes since they are against individuals, but fraud is a way of life with this guy - and he's applied it during his Presidency - manipulating his supporters with lies. His "drain the swamp" proclamation was a fraud - he had the most corrupt set of appointees in history. He tried to weaponize the DOJ, and then complains (without evidence) the Democrats have done that, while promising to prosecute people in retaliation for the fiction they've gone after him.

First, I've given the criteria of a good inductive argument, and based on those criteria the inductive conclusion is overwhelmingly reasonable. (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/912262) — Sam26

I read your argument, but it does not support your conclusion that consciousness survives death. You call your argument "inductive"; I think it would be better labeled "abductive" - because you are proposing a explanatory hypothesis that fits the facts associated with NDEs. Analyzed this way, we could consider whether or not your hypothesis is the best explanation for the available facts. You sidestep this, by simply claiming your conclusion is a reasonable inductive inference. I don't think it is reasonable, but this is shown most easily by comparing it to alternative hypotheses that better explain the available facts.

For example, most other NDEs are explainable as a form of dreaming. Relatively few out of body experiences lack reasonable natural explanations, but even if they are veridical - they are explainable as telepathy or clairvoyance


You don't consider the abundant evidence that mental activity depends on brain activity; NDEs do not demonstrate a counterexample. I previously pointed out that "no measureable brain activity" does not mean NO brain activity. So your explanatory hypothesis depends on the ad hoc assumption that mental activity can occur without brain activity.

Finally, I can't help but think you may be influenced by a desire to live on, beyond death. This may be influencing your choice of explanatory hypothesis, and the subset of evidence you choose to consider.

For what it's worth ... liberal legal scholar Jonathan Turley — fishfry

Turley is definitely not a "liberal". The article you linked doesn't actually analyze the decision, it just asserts that it is correct, and then procedes to chastize liberals who disagree with the decision.

When I speak of death, I mean clinical death, i.e., no measurable brain activity, no heartbeat, and no breathing. — Sam26

You make too much of the definition. People who have had NDEs have not experienced brain decomposition (clearly a point of no return), and the absence of measurable brain activity does not imply there is NO brain activity.

If an electron is 'composed' of position, momentum, spin, charge and mass; aren't these properties more fundamental than the electron? — Treatid

Can properties (e.g. position, momentum, spin, charge, mass...) exist independently of objects that have them (i.e. is a property a particular, or is a property necessarily an attribute of a particular?)

Regarding a simple universe: a single particular. Depending on one's preferred ontology, could be:
- a property (existing independently)
- an object with zero properties
- an object with exactly one property (if particulars necessarily have at least one property).

So what did the US do before the 16th amendment? — NOS4A2

See: https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/historical-highlights-of-the-irs#:~:text=From%201868%20until%201913%2C%2090,of%20Internal%20Revenue%20was%20created.

Thanks for the link to Bishop's review. Bishop's most salient point is that physicalism is inconstent with libertarian free will (LFW) because of Jaegwon Kim's causal closure argument.

FWIW, I earlier acknowledged that Tse was not successful at accounting for LFW, but that I think he IS successful at accounting for mental causation. Bishop picks a few nits with the language Tse uses, but he doesn't really undercut Tse's model of criterial causation (=mental causation). Mental causation is sufficient grounding for compatibilism.

R: "We are the product of physical interactions, which are determined entirety by the laws of physics, and none of our choices could ever have been, or ever will be, other than exactly what they were, or will be. But we have agency."

P: "Something that is entirely governed by physical determinism cannot have agency. They are mutually exclusive. How could that be possible?"

R: "It is possible. We are governed by physical determinism, but we are autonomous."

P: "You have given different wording for 'agency,' but you have not explained how it is possible for something ruled by physical determinism to have it."

R: "But if it is true, then we can be ruled by determinism, yet make independent choices."

P: "But what reason do we have to think it is possible?" — Patterner

Fair summary. You believe agency and physicalism are mutually exclusive. I don't agree.

Here's a high level explanation of why I think it's possible:
1. compatibilism is consistent with agency.
2. Physicalism is consistent with compatibilism
3. Therefore physicalism is consistent with agency.

In this scenario, there is nothing other than the laws of physics at work. — Patterner

But the mind's operation is functionally identical- it is no less autonomous. It's grounded in physics - but the decision process is the same.

Earlier in the thread, we discussed Peter Tse's physicalist account of mental causation. If something like this is correct, it means that the product of our thoughts truly has causal efficacy. We're not just going along for the ride (as you seem to be suggesting) we're driving.

The boulder can take only a single path, given the physical characteristics of itself and the mountain.

Suppose your mind is immaterial, (at least partially) operating independently of the laws of nature. You have chosen a path down the mountain, but you might have taken a different path if you knew it to be more scenic, offering more shade, or if you knew a rattlesnake awaited you on your chosen path. You were, at all times, free to choose a route based on your knowledge, the aesthetic appeal, fears, and your skills. Do you agree this is different from the boulder?

Now suppose your mind is entirely the product of physical brain function. You have the exact same freedom to choose a route based on your knowledge, the aesthetic appeal, fears, and your skills. In both cases, these factors are the result of events in your life (e.g. the DNA that produced you, your studies, your physical conditioning and mountaineering skills). Why should the fundamental basis of these factors (physical vs immaterial) matter? I don't think it does. You have no more, and no less, freedom.

How is an act intentional if there is no option but to act, and in that exact way? — Patterner

There ARE options. See my above reply to Gnomon (the bold part).

If a single path suddenly & surprisingly branches into two paths, with completely different end-points, is that not a true philosophical dilemma? One end-point may be my original intended destination, and the other a different unintended destination : as in Robert Frost's Path Not Taken. But if I didn't know that alternative when I set out, my choice to change destinations would be a change of personal intention (goal selection). Was that new information also eternally destined to make the choice for me? — Gnomon

We are frequently surprised because we aren't omniscient, not because there are indeteministic things occurring in the world. Intent does not entail a certainty of action, it entails an intent (at a point of time) to act a certain way.

In Physics, the well-traveled road might be the path of least resistance ; in which case, Nature would always "choose" that option. But humans are not so mechanical, and sometimes "choose" to take the more resistant path. — Gnomon

We aren't directly mechanical in the way mindless objects are, but that's because our minds mediate our activities. That occurs even if minds are purely a consequence of physical brain activity.

But what about the statistical uncertainties in natural processes? Are our intentional choices certain, or probabilistic? — Gnomon

The only true indeterminism (and true randomness) in the world is quantum uncertainty. Einstein never accepted that, but most modern physicists do.

This doesn't seem to be a factor in everyday life.

Intentional choices do not seem a product of quantum uncertainty. The development of an intent, seems to me to be consistent with determinism.

you seem to be saying that the meaning -- in this case the new destination -- was never a real option. — Gnomon

No. I'm saying the opposite: we actually make choices. We consider the options before us.

Envision making a decision (i.e. forming an intent) through a (mental) deliberative process. You consider some set of options, and weigh the pros and cons of those options (both objective and aesthetic). Maybe you google a few things to get more information. You settle on a particular choice.

That decision was entirely the product of your mental processes - you own it. Could you have made a different choice? Only if something had been different: e.g. you had considered more (or fewer) options; you had identified different consequences or weighed the differently, or perhaps your internet connection dropped - so googling was not possible. But this entails a different set of antecedent conditions. Given the actual set of conditions, you could only make the decision you actually made. (Setting aside the possibility of some quantum mechanical interaction that injects true uncertainty somewhere in the process).

Agency denotes the capacity for intentional acts. Making choices is just what it says: choosing actions. Avalanches and hurricanes do not make choices and don't act intentionally. These require mental activity.

I'm not seeing the Compatibilism in your outlook, since by your own description there are no viable alternatives to the final outcome. — LuckyR

Compatibilists believe in a sort of free will that is consistent with determinism, therefore there is always only one possible way a decision process can come out (IOW, the principle of alternative possibilities is not met).

But we still consider our choices to be freely willed, because we actively make them, and it's as a consequence of our mental activity.

As I was going back and forth between the two doors of Ben & Jerry's in the freezer section at the store today, picking up several and reading the description, considering if I was in the mood for something with peanut butter, or caramel, considering the marshmallow ice cream, etc., it certainly felt like I had a choice then, not merely in hindsight. — Patterner

You did have a choice. And you made one. I'm saying that the choice you made could not have differed. That's because something precipitated the choice. Even impulses must have some cause - unless you think they are truly random, or magic. I don't believe in magic, and the only true randomness in the world is quantum indeterminacy- and this doesn't seem to entail quantum mechanics.

Is that an accurate statement about your position? — Patterner

Essentially right, but it glosses over our agency. Hurricanes and avalanches don't involve agency. We have thoughts (series of brain states), and these thoughts can ultimately affect the world.

At least I didn't pull a strawman definition out of thin air without citing any source at all. :lol: — Leontiskos

I googled the definition, and that's what appeared. My intent was to get you to explain what you meant, not to argue semantics.
You failed to make the case for it being a "kangaroo court" using your own definition.

Listen man, these dick measuring contests are fun and all, but if you have a complaint with the sources I've provided you can go ahead and provide that critique. — Leontiskos

I told you the article attacked a strawman legal argument. This would be clear if you understood the technicalities of the actual legal argument. You told me you weren't interested in those technicalities. Seems like you've come full circle.

: a court characterized by irresponsible, unauthorized, or irregular status or procedures — Leontiskos

You've merely quoted a definition and implied this somehow fits what occurred without explaining how.

The trial was clearly authorized and conducted according to the law. The only party who acted irresponsibly, was Trump - by violating the gag order multiple times.

I was not in favor of prosecuting it [...] because it was trivial, and technically nuanced.
— Relativist

Which is much my point. — Leontiskos

That's very different from claiming the procedure was "irresponsible, unauthorized, or irregular". Laws were actually broken, and it was within the lawful discretion of the DA to prosecute it. Furthermore, by trial's conclusion, I had come around to thinking that it actually was a useful exercise.

We can just wait and see if the appeals result in a reversal. At this point it looks like everything was for show, prosecution and defense alike. — Leontiskos

The trial was conducted in accordance with reasonable interpretations of the law. Appellate courts may interpret the law differently, or decide there's something unconstitutional in the law. Overturning on some technicality will not mean he didn't do the deeds.

Just for show? Maybe, but Trump only has himself to blame. He did the deeds with no regard to the legality, and he constantly attacked the system. If it's overturned on appeal, that's the system working. If it's upheld- that's also the system working.

When I worked for a big oil company, I received annual training on business ethics - and was taught to always refrain for any activity that could possibly be construed as illegal, and this was because we had a target on our backs- our corporate behavior was often judged in the most negative light. Still, lawsuits were common, but the company never attacked the legal system. The company trusted the system. Why can't a candidate for President?

Here's a definition of "Kangaroo court":

an unofficial court held by a group of people in order to try someone regarded, especially without good evidence, as guilty of a crime or misdemeanor.

Trump's conviction was in an official court. The correct legal procedure was followed: he was indicted for committing specific crimes under New York law. An official trial was held. The prosecution presented evidence of his guilt, and Trump's attorneys presented a vigorous defense. The jury deliberated and judged that Trump was guilty of all the charged crimes. This was the antithesis of a kangaroo court.

The article you pointed to did not address the specific technical issues involved in the case, and instead analyzed a strawman - a distorted view of the case. If your perspective is consistent with that article, I can understand why you might conclude there was something inappropriate or nefarious. If so, then this demonstrates that indeed you have not done adequate research to form your judgement.

I had a lot of questions before and during the proceding. I did the research to get those questions answered. As I said, I was not in favor of prosecuting it - but not because Trump was actually innocent, but because it was trivial, and technically nuanced. Nevertheless, it was a legitimate trial with a legitimate verdict.

I don't have any interest in delving into all of the legal details. I will do that with some Supreme Court cases, but I have no intrinsic interest in the details of a kangaroo court. — Leontiskos

You don't understand the legal technicalities, so you have no rational basis to judge this a "kangaroo court". So your judgement seems to be based on a mischaracterization of the case (from the article you linked, it seems). Your disinterest in delving into the technicalities -while nevertheless embracing that irrational judgement, implies you choose to cling to that judgement. That's your choice, but then there's nothing to discuss.

Sometimes, when we make choices, we weigh the options, thinking of benefits and costs and so forth. But I don't agree that we always go through any particular mental process when we do so. — Ludwig V

Sure, but every choice was preceded by some sequence of one or more thoughts. Given that sequence, the resulting choice will follow.

When you come to a fork in the road, do you stop and imagine taking the road less traveled, or do you start walking in the desired direction? In what sense is an actual choice an illusion? — Gnomon

The choice is not an illusion: we are actually making the choice - we have to actually go through the mental process to reach that choice.

The illusion is that of hindsight: that we could actually have made a different one. In actuality, we could have only made a different choice had there been something different within us (a different set of beliefs, disposltions, impulse...).

Do you believe there is an element of randomness (or unpredictability) to the decision making process? Or does antecedent state A always lead to resultant state X, never Y. — LuckyR

The only true randomness in the world is quantum indeterminacy. It's possible there is some small degree of quantum indeterminacy involved, but I'm aware of no evidence to support it. So yes, I believe the antecedent state will necessarily result in the consequent state.

My impression is that you are libertarian and pro-democracy. Is that correct?

What material evidence to you have to support your belief that personal choice is illusory? — Gnomon

That's not what I said. I said there "is an illusion of freedom".

I'm a compatibilist, and deny the PAP (Principle of Alternative Possibilities) - IOW, whatever choice we make, we could not have made a different one. Each choice is the product of a person's memories, beliefs, dispositions, and impulses at the point in time the choice is made. When we examine a choice in hindsight, we think of alternatives we might have made - and this gives us the "illusion of freedom".

Still, I acknowledge that we are free from external control - so we are free in that (compatibilist) sense. So we are (in this sense) freely making the choices we make. The memories, beliefs, dispositions, and impulses are our own; they are part of what makes us the individual we are.

When I choose my sushi from what's on offer or a book from the shelf, is that a physical action, a mental action or a metaphysical action? (What's a metaphysical action?) — Ludwig V

Here's my opinion.

Decision-making is a mental process, but mental processing is fundamentally a physical process of the central nervous system.

Under a physicalist metaphysics: metaphysical = physical; although when we account for mental activity, we don't do so at the microscopic level of particle behavior. It's somewhat analogous to a hurricane: we track them as functional entities, not as the activities of water and air molecules.

Mental states are functional entities, like hurricanes. They cause other mental states. We analyze them at the functional level.

Physical actions are indeed constrained by the limiting laws of physics. But meta-physical (mental) choices are not subject to physical laws --- perhaps only the laws of Logic. — Gnomon

Are you assuming reductive materialism is false? Otherwise, I don't see how you get any freedom from physical laws. There is only an illusion of freedom.

Sounds like you're confirming that you don't understand the law he was charged with. Your points were red herrings because you were implying no actual crime was committed, but your points weren't relevent to the elements of the case.

At best, your points seemed to be contextual. That's why I responded with some contextual points of my own. I wasn't trying to present the legal elements, so they aren't "red herrings". I had stipulated the fact that Trump was guilty of the crime he was charged with. If you don't understand why this conviction was legitimate, ask questions.

Understand that I never thought this indictment should have been made. It's also possible the law will be held unconstitutional. But he's legitimately guilty of committing the crime as it's written- all the intricate details needed to establish guilt were demonstrated by evidence.

The traditional arguments against human Freewill were typically based on the assumption that the whole world, from Big Bang onward, is a linear deterministic physical system. — Gnomon

That's true only because of quantum indeterminacy. So, instead of strict determinism from big bang to present, there's numerous instance of probabilistic determinism along the way. It remains to be seen if quantum indeterminacy plays a role in mental processes (some think it does), but if so- it would only seem to add a random element to the otherwise fully deterministic processes, which doesn't make it more free (in a libertarian free will sense).

The conviction seems to be a flagrant disrespect of the rule of law, — Leontiskos

My guess is that you're not familiar with the technical details of the law that Trump was convicted of breaking, and are substituting some distorted view of what you think the law is (or should be). That would explain why you listed the red herrings.

Let's test that. Do you understand how Trump could be held legally accountable for the falsification of business records, despite the fact that Trump did not personally make the accounting entry? That's a question that trips up a lot of people. If you do understand why, then please identify specifically what elements of the law (§175.10) that were clearly not met.