Frivolous Trump Argument No. 1: Classified Intelligence Reports Compiled by Government Agencies Are ‘Personal Records’ under the Presidential Records Act — Michael

Incredible article, written by Andrew McCarthy - a former DOJ prosecutor, who's a staunch Conservative with a history of defending Trump's behavior. I hope NOS4A2 reads it.

Whose lives did he put at risk? — NOS4A2

Directly: The people involved with collection of the information, including informants in other countries and the agents who collected it.
Indirectly: the entire US and some allies, by risking exposure of military capabilities of the US and allies, and identifying what we know and don't know about our adversaries.

Text of the indictment:
"The disclosure of these classified documents could put at risk the national security of the United States, foreign relations, the safety of the United States military and human sources, and the continued viability of sensitive intelligence collection methods."

It appears he did file them separately, took them with him, and disputed with NARA over them. If you find that he took something designated as presidential records with him, be sure to let me know. — NOS4A2

The Presidential Records Act defines what are Presidential Records. Follow the link and read it.

Also remember that, after months of demands from NARA, Trump returned 15 boxes of documents that included some with classification markings, some of which are related to National Security and would be covered by the Espionage Act. In the court filing for the motion for a Special Master, Trump's attorneys referred to all of these as "Presidential Records".

Regarding "filed separately", review the picture that Nauta took of the documents spilled on the floor. The contents include newspapers, photos, and a classified document.

Hillary wasn’t elected by the people as the authority of the US government. She was afforded no such right by the people of the United States. Trump was. — NOS4A2

How does being elected confer the moral right to expose national security and put lives at risk?

Why did you ignore everything else I said?

I do agree with Trump. — NOS4A2

So you're agreeing with his statement, "I'm going to enforce all laws concerning the protection of classified information. No one will be above the law."

You’ll remember that he was the commander in chief of the armed forces. He is the only one above those rules.

Setting aside the contradiction, you are conflating past tense with present tense. The crimes he is charged with all occurred after his term as President was over.

He can declassify what he wants. It doesn’t matter whether it’s classified documents or national defense information, which is a distinction without a difference. None of that is true in any other case.

When he was President, he COULD HAVE declassified what he wanted, but it would be reckless to do so without vetting the information with the organizations that classified it in the first place. It's reckless because it puts people at risk and risks our intelligence apparatus.The formal declassification process was put into place to ensure there were no adverse ramifications. It was established by executive order, so it arguably doesn't apply to him. Hypothetically, he could have declassified everything he took, and thus exposed no documents that were technically classified when he stacked them in the ballroom at Mar-a-lago - but it's still reckless. Is this not deserving of at least some criticism from you?

Even if a President isn't subject to executive order, private citizen Trump IS subject to law, including the Espionage Act. It's the law that makes such reckless behavior a crime. He's also required by law to comply with a Grand Jury Subpoena. Not only did he fail to return all the documents demanded in the subpoena, he lied and claimed he had. What's your excuse for private citizen Trump's illegal acts with respect to the subpoena?

Your standard of judgement seems incoherent. In terms of legal judgement: you implied the letter of the law should be applied to Clinton (and everyone else who carelessly, but unintentionally, mishandled even low level classified docs), but you choose to dismiss the relevance of the laws that Trump broke. Why letter-of-the-law enforcement in one set of cases, but not in Trump's?

You said you didn't care if Trump broke the law, so set laws aside and focus on morality. What moral standard puts Hilllary's behavior on the bad side, and Trump's on the good side?

Your lengthy post is suspiciously missing one key fact, that Trump was president and has unilateral powers of declassification that neither Hillary nor Biden had — NOS4A2

Your "key fact" (taken from Trump's talking points) is a red herring, and it's moot because:

1. Trump's own words clearly indicate that the "war plan" document that he showed to an unauthorized person had not been declassified. He had the document, knew he had it, acknowledged he couldn't show it to him, and did not return this document when requested by NARA, nor even in response to the Grand Jury Subpoena for all documents "with classification markings" (note the careful wording). This also calls into question the claim that he had a standing order to declassify any documents he took.
2. Trump is not charged with mishandling classified documents. Instead, he was charged with 31 counts of willful retention of national defense information under the Espionage Act. The Espionage Act provision does not depend on official classification level.*

Who else has willfully retained national defense documents (or even classified documents) that hasn't been prosecuted? The willfullness of the acts is a big deal. The associated obstruction is also a big deal. You seem to ignore this and focus solely on the aspects of the case that are similar to other cases.

Second, that Trump was elected by the people, that means you and me. So for some strange reason, which I can only assume is propaganda driven, you’ve opted to attack those who are elected to represent the will of the people, while running defense for those who weren’t, the career politicians and bureaucrats who made a living seeking power and telling people how they should live their lives. — NOS4A2

Your assumption of "propaganda" is incorrect, because I'm merely stating facts - facts that you haven't actually disputed (you've simply ignored them). Still, I guess bringing up facts does constitute an attack, but a reasonable one. By contrast, you stated Trumpian talking points that are irrelevant (like his erstwhile declassification power), false (e.g. the Russian investigation was a "hoax"), and questionable (e.g. there was a "witch hunt"). Your practice of presenting falsehoods and half truths better fits the term "propoganda" than my catalog of facts you haven't even disputed. Reminder: I even criticized Hillary, whereas I've noticed nothing from you that's critical of Trump.

I wager that you’ve never made a stink about Patreaus or Panetta,]I didn't have to raise a stink about Patreus - he was appropriately prosecuted. It is noteworthy that he admitted he was wrong, and had regrets. Think we'll every hear that from Trump? — NOS4A2

Re: Panetta, I assume you're referring to his discussing Top Secret information at an awards ceremony. I agree he did wrong, but did it meet a prosecutorial standard? His excuse was that he thought all attendees had clearance. Is that plausible? I don't know, but to meet a prosecutorial standard, you have to establish (beyond a reasonable doubt) that he was consciously aware. Like with Hillary, he should be slammed for his mistake. But if you think this should have been prosecuted, you'll need to make the case.

now Trump are subject to the espionage act as determined by the very same people.

As I said previously, intent matters (in legalese: mens rea). Can you not grasp that? Trump's technical violation began on Jan 20, 2021 when he ceased being President. No one has proposed he should have been prosecuted for that, and yet it's the closest analogy to Biden, Clinton, and (AFAIK) Panetta.

The penalty for that is to rot in prison, but you run defense for those who get off with a light verbal scolding. So you’ve demonstrated that your sense of justice is perverted and backwards.

I referred to prosecutorial standards, as identified by Comey. Was Comey mistaken? I'm open to hearing evidence that shows he was. But perhaps you'd prefer to prosecute everyone with a technical violation. You'd be consistent with Trump in 2016, when he said:

"I'm going to enforce all laws concerning the protection of classified information. No one will be above the law."
"One of the first things we must do is to enforce all classification rules and to enforce all laws relating to the handling of classified information."

Did you agree with him? If so, I hope you realize that this couldn't work retroactively, so you shouldn't complain when applying it to events AFTER 2016. Personally I think that's too harsh (although I do think there need to be process improvements that reduce the incidence). But as I said, the standards described by Comey seem to be what's been done historically and currently, and your guy is unfortunately on the wrong side of those standards.

-------------------------------------
* On the off chance you think charging under the Espionage Act entails an irrelevant technicality, consider the risks associated with both declassification (without vetting, as you and Trump claim was done) + careless handling of national defense documents. It's absurd on its face to suggest this ought to be OK. You said you didn't care if Trump broke the law. Criminality aside, do you care that he risked national security? Has he done nothing deserving of, at least, NOS4A2's criticism?

How many diseases ought we medically challenge? And how many are covert beneficiaries to our future, which ones are merely adaptations that are becoming more advantageous with time? — Benj96

Some great people have risen out of harsh conditions of oppression and poverty. By combating these ills of society, we rob society of the great people these conditions would have developed. Seems similar, and in both cases - I think we should do what we can to help eliminate or reduce suffering. I could draw the line with disorders like autism, as you mention.

If only these guys could persuade elected politicians to confront the evidence. The majority are ignoring the evidence and reciting the false mantra of "witch hunt" and "two-tier justice system". (on this latter point, you might take a gander at the above lengthy post I directed at NO4A2.. I don't expect him to read it).

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.

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.

I notice that the bribe allegation is tied to the firing of Shokin, the prosecutor general that Biden got fired at the behest of the EU and Ukranian anti-corruption groups, because he wasn't investigating Burisma and other companies. Shokin's replacement actually did bring charges against Burisma.

Shokin himself had previously accused Biden of getting rid of him to supposedly stop the Burisma investigation, as has some of his cronies. I realize the GOP is going to milk this for all its worth, but it's highly unlikely to go anywhere.

On the other hand, the CBS News article sounds more interesting - warranting investigation. I'm sure the House will get right on it. It seems to only implicate Hunter, unless they find some evidence Joe intervened.

I'm not trying to change your mind about materialism. I was just pointing out that it didn't stop with Nrwton.

Materialism - the view that all that exists is matter - hasn't had a place since Newton. — Banno

Are you unfamiliar with the late David M. Armstrong? He was a materialist metaphysician, and who's metaphysics is still widely discussed in the literature.

A 1. The universe began to exist a finite time ago.

A 2. Only an act originating from God could have caused the universe to begin. — spirit-salamander

You seem to assume that a finite past entails the universe having been caused. Actually, a finite past entails an initial state of affairs, and this implies it is logically impossible for it to have been caused (there's no time prior to an initial point of time).

Well if one is to discuss whether god "exists" or not, it would be good to start with a discussion of what one means by "God". The source of much talking past each other. — prothero

I propose defining "God" in a minimalist way as the entity that is ostensibly entailed by one or more deistic arguments. E.g. The Kalam Cosmological Argument allegedly proves there to have been an intentional agent who somehow caused the natural world to exist.

It is funny when people say: there is no evidence that God exists, what do they really mean? — Raef Kandil

This is a pet peeve of mine: when people claim there is (or isn't) "evidence" that God exists. It leads to unproductive discusions. Most generally, evidence = a body of facts that are used to support a position. Arguments for God's existence typically depend on metaphysical assumptions that they treat as the "facts" and proceed to show how it entails a deity. So they can claim there is "evidence" for God. Atheists deny the metaphysical assumption(s) and thus deny there is evidence.

The need for a higher supreme power is real if everything else is created. — Raef Kandil

Sounds circular- if we treate "create" as an intentional act. IF everything else is created, then there's a creator. But why think anything is created?

OTOH, if we equate "created" with "caused" - we could consider a causal chain that has a beginning (a "first cause") but it's perfectly coherent to see this as a perfectly natural state of affairs.

So I’m wondering, again, how others deal with this. — Darkneos

I approach it similarly to the way Alven Plantinga argues for the rationality of theism. Demonstrating rationality is distinct from proving something true. It's rational to believe ~solipsism because:

1) a natural world that produces creatures who's survival depends on successfully interacting with the external environment would entail the creatures having an innate (pre-semantic/pre-abstraction) knowledge that there is an external world.
2) Applying abstract reasoning to our innate understanding of the world entails ~solipsism
3) it is rational to maintain a belief that has not been defeated. Solipsism is logically possible, but mere possibility is not a defeater.

The possbility of solipsism is nothing more than a thought experiment. It demonstrates that we necessarily have basic beliefs at rock bottom. A belief like this, that is a result of the structure of the world, is basic "in the proper way" (as Plantinga puts it); i.e. its "properly basic".

So you embrace it, which means you can defend it.So:
1) what's the relevance of getting more votes than prior sitting Presidents when his opponent got even more (he lost pop vote both times)?
2) Is a former President above the law?
3) What makes you think there's no evidence of crimes?
4) What's the basis for claiming "it's known by all" no crime was committed?
5) What's the basis for claiming a "false charge"?
6) What is the benefit of mentioning "death and destruction"?
7) Are you aware of the Grand Jury subpoena for docs marked classified, Trump's attorney's letter certifying all had been turned over, and that more such docs were found when the search warrant was executed?
8) Do you deny that at least one crime was committed related to the Stormy Daniel's payment? (e.g. at least a misdemeanor, even of statute of limitations passed - it still .plies a crime committed).
9) Are you aware Trump tried to get the DOJ to lie and claim there was significant election fraud?
10) Are you aware Trump falsely accused Dominion of election fraud?
11) Are you aware Trump repeated a variety of claims about election fraud even after multiple people told him directly these claims were debunked? (E.g. he repeated the debunked Fulton Co. "suitcases of ballots" claim on 1/6 after he received briefings about what actually happened).
12) Are you aware John Eastman pushed a novel electoral college theory that he knew SCOTUS would not accept?
13) Are you aware Trump continues to push the bogus "2000 Mules" claim despite it being debunked?
14) Is Trump's rhetoric consistent with embracing rule of law, and is this at all relevant to you?

“What kind of person can charge another person, in this case a former President of the United States, who got more votes than any sitting President in history, and leading candidate (by far!) for the Republican Party nomination, with a Crime, when it is known by all that NO Crime has been committed, & also known that potential death & destruction in such a false charge could be catastrophic for our Country? Why & who would do such a thing? Only a degenerate psychopath that truely hates the USA!” — NOS4A2

I'm curious if you see anything wrong with this statement of Trump's. I count 7 things.

An effect (order) is distinct from its cause (the operation of the laws). Looked at differently, order is evidence for a source of order. — Dfpolis

We perceive order, and infer laws of nature that account for it. So I agree our perception of order is a critical step in our understanding of nature, but the law exists with or without our perception and inferences.

Separate issue: have you read Thomas Nagel's "Mind and Cosmos"? Like you, he makes a case for teleology, and it's based on philosophy of mind issues.

whether it[order] is an intrinsic property cannot be determined until a definition is agreed upon. — Dfpolis

It seems superfluous to try and construe order as an intrinsic property, because laws of nature fully account for the perceived order.

If altering election laws in the run up to a contentious election is “democracy” and “making it easier for voters to vote”, what is threatening mass protest should their opponent win and advocating for the censorship of opposing views? — NOS4A2

There's nothing wrong with threatening mass protest if there's a defensible reason for that mass protest. However, making knowably false assertions about election fraud is indefensible. Even though demagoguery is legal to practice, it ought to be kept within the strictest legal boundaries to minimize its risk.

To judge that a system has order, it has to be capable of eliciting the concept <order>, which means that order is, by definition, intelligible. How can something unintelligible elicit any concept? — Dfpolis

It seems to me, the reason we can sometimes perceive order is because the laws of nature result in patterns and order. Conceivably, there are laws of nature that we we may never become aware of, and thus a sort of "order" we can never perceive. More importantly, I think "order" is too fuzzy (and subjective) to treat as an intrinsic property of a state of affairs, whereas the perception of order is explainable with laws of nature- which do seem to reflect something intrinsic.

Premise 1: The concept of a designer necessarily requires a starting point.
Premise 2: If the designer was designed, then there must have been another designer that preceded it, leading to an infinite regress.
Conclusion: Therefore, the designer must have been the starting point, and not designed by another entity. — gevgala

The "who designed the designer" question arises from the premise that complex organization is best explained by a designer. The design argument goes something like this:

1. Complex organization entails designer (or at least: is best explained by design).
2. The universe displays complex organization
3. Therefore the universe is designed (or at least: is best explained by design)

The problem with this is that #1 also applies to a God, because this God has an infinitely complex and organized mind. If an infinitely complex mind can exist without having been designed, then #1 isn't true.

About a year ago, Trump actually said: " I’ve been investigated by the Democrats more than Billy the Kid, Jesse James, and Al Capone, combined.”

They’ve sent the entire perverted and corrupt American justice system after him. District Attorney Alvin Bragg, for instance, is trying to raise a misdemeanor to a federal crime, all while telling his staff to avoid prosecuting crimes like resisting arrest in his own state. It’s purely political. It’s a show trial. — NOS4A2

I'm sympathetic to some of this. Based on the publicly available information, I don't think a felony charge is warranted. However, while everyday crimes, like resisting arrest, may be over-prosecuted, the same can't be said about white-collar crime - so I disagree there's a relevant inconsistency. I can't disagree that there's political motivation, but there's also political backlash from Trump supporters - which reflects an inconsistency for anyone who simultaneously argued that Hillary should have been locked up (which would have meant treating her differently than anyone else who committed similar security violations).

rump torpedoed the deal Iran has moved closer to nuclear weapons. — Benkei

Yep. And we should remember that when he was running for President in 2016, he promised he'd negotiate a better deal with Iran, "A Trump presidency will force the Iranians back to the bargaining table to make a much better deal." Of course, this didn't happen.

He also said, "no deal is better than a bad deal" - and I don't see how anyone could claim we've been better off by abandoning the deal.

Question. Is it true that even the president can't declassified documents that contain information about our nuclear arsenal? Might require congressional approval also maybe? — TiredThinker

The Trump team has asserted the Constitution imbues a President with absolute control over document classification. If prosecution came down to this, it would need to be decided by SCOTUS. But as Michael said, the official classification status is irrelevant to the laws in question.

wouldn't say the God hypothesis is untestable. An intelligent being would, since intelligence & order are correlated, ensure that their creation (the cosmos) is ordered rather than chaotic. I had a muslim acquaintance who attempted to convince me of Allah's existence in this way. — Agent Smith

That sounds more like post hoc rationalization than hypothesis testing.

Is the multiverse science fiction only? Sabina seems to think so. — TiredThinker

It's not a testable hypothesis, and it's not even entailed by accepted physics - so no, it's not Science.

In some sense religion is science (god hypothesis) — Agent Smith

It's not a testable hypothesis, so explain what you mean.

Here's the thing: even if she actually did it for corrupt reasons, it's impossible to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt. On the other hand, it should be easy to show the judgment is legally flawed.

I would like to know what people think of C.S. Lewis's argument for the divinity of Christ — Dermot Griffin

It's a terrible argument, because it treats elements of Gospel narratives as established fact. Anyone who accepts the Gospels is already convinced. Anyone who doesn't accept them will reject the premises that Jesus made the statements.

IMO, all this judge has done is expose herself as a Trumpanista tool. The DoJ, I have no doubt, will find one or more viable work-arounds to this court-ordered delay and won't bother taking the bait with an appeal (contra Barcr).TBD. — 180 Proof

I prefer not to go there, because it feeds the Trumpian narrative that judge's are either biased for, or against him. The (bad) decision is explainable as incompetence. Even Trump apologists Judge Napalitanoand Bill Barr consider it a bad opinion.

I agree.

Even if there is relevance to the documents, they need to compare the associated delay of a Master's review with the alternative delay of the appellate process- likely to go to SCOTUS.

The fine tuning argument amounts to saying that if things were different they would not be as they are. It does not preclude the existence of a very different universe, a universe without us and our attempts to prove the existence of a god who has created a just so world for us. — Fooloso4

Yep.

The argument appeals to those who believe there must be a reason for our existing. i.e.those who don't like the idea that we're accidents.They overlook the improbability that they are the improbable product of a particular sperm fertilizing a particular ovum, each produced by parents produced in the same improbable way (all the way back through an improbable specific evolutionary history).

All of it, it turns out, was misinformation and propaganda. — NOS4A2

IMO, information leaked to the press should always be taken with a grain of salt, treated more as an allegation than a fact.

That said, the latest allegation is that there were secrets about a foreign government's nuclear capability among the papers illegally held by Trump. This is a bit different from the prior leak, but still in the ballpark. Regardless of the truth of that allegation, it's well established that Team Trump* violated the letter of the Espionage Act by retaining highly secret documents related to national defense. Further, there's clearly evidence of obstruction of justice. We'll have to wait and see if there are indictments.

*Team Trump = Trump and his legal team.

Trump is a buffoon, but with each passing day this ordeal is looking more and more politically motivated. — Tzeentch

You must be unfamiliar with the facts. Trump has been treated better than anyone else would possibly be treated.

For starters, he violated the Presidential Records act on Jan 21, 2021. Chalk that up to carelessness, due to his failure to plan his departure. But the National Archives requested their return in May 2021, and that's when they should have been returned. Had this been anyone other than a former President, the docs would have been retrieved within hours. This was just the beginning of his special treatment, but I'll leave it there for now.

There's no question that Individual-1 committed tax fraud, it's just a matter of time before he personally is criminally indicted. — 180 Proof

I agree there's a near certainty that tax fraud was committed, but it remains to be seen if a sufficiently strong case can be made against Trump, specifically. Trump avoids putting his orders/requests/expectations in writing, which gives him some degree of deniability. My money is on the civil suit succeeding, where his pleading the 5th can be used against him, and the burden of proof is lower.

The Fermi paradox depends on the questionable premise that the development of technologically advanced intelligent life is inevitable. I see no reason to think that.

We don't know how abiogenesis occurred. We have a good idea about some of the necessary conditions: 2nd generation star (so that heavy elements, including carbon) are present; rocky planet (not a gas giant) in the goldilocks zone of a start; An atmosphere of appropriate composition; liquid water;...These were necessary, but not probably not sufficient conditions for life to ensue. Alien-optimists suggest it's myopic to think that more exotic forms of life might develop in completely different circumstances. Perhaps so, but how does one assign a probability to something that is no more than a speculative possibility? Based on what we know, the probability of life developing on any random planet is low.

Prokaryotes are considered some of the earliest forms of life - single celled organisms with cells that lack a nucleus and mitochondria. Evolution generally entails response to environmental pressures. In the development of life, the life forms themselves become key parts of the environment. Genetic mutations are the engine, and there's a lot of randomness to this. This means there's no inevitable line of development for any particular species, and this also implies the composition of any particular ecosystem (the full complement of competing life forms in an environment) is even less probable. So looking back on the evolutionary history of humans, I don't see how anyone could claim we're inevitable.

But suppose beings with human-like complexity develop.Will they necessarily develop science and technology? Consider the Sentinelese: they have the same evolutionary history as we have, but haven't developed science. Clearly, the development of science is not inevitable. Developing science is another necessary, but not sufficient, condition.The inclination to explore planets beyond their own is not inevitable because scientific curiosity leads in a large number of directions. But some might indeed have the inclination, but there's also a dependency on resources. This includes physical resources like raw materials, but also on the collective desire to direct the society's efforts that way instead of others. This further highlights the dependency on particular paths of cultural development. And of course, we're discussing the development of working technology that surpasses anything we've done.

Finally, there's the limitations of what is physically possible. It will never be possible to travel to another galaxy (fantastic speculations about space warps or faster-than-light travel notwithstanding). There's a limit to how far a civilization can and would travel for interstellar travel. The technology would have to be sufficiently robust to survive for many years and to sustain life for those years. What fraction of a lifetime might creatures be willing to expend to make an interstellar journey? Suppose a 20 year-old humanoid would be willing to spend 50 years of a 75 year life span on such a journey, and he could travel close the the speed of life. This means he could travel 50 light-years. How likely is it for there to be a technologically-advanced civilization within 50 light years of here?

Bottom line: the likelihood of an alien civilization visiting earth is extremely low.

And yet the conclusion has been met with such resistance. Why is that? — Michael

I haven't read every post, but the posts I read seem due to a lack of understanding of modal logic. I explained the problem in my first post.