This is New York Attorney General Letitia James’ star witness.

"NEW YORK (AP) — Michael Cohen, Donald Trump’s onetime personal lawyer and fixer, says he unwittingly passed along to his attorney bogus artificial intelligence-generated legal case citations he got online before they were submitted to a judge.

Cohen made the admission in a court filing unsealed Friday in Manhattan federal court after a judge earlier this month asked a lawyer to explain how court rulings that do not exist were cited in a motion submitted on Cohen’s behalf. Judge Jesse Furman had also asked what role, if any, Cohen played in drafting the motion.

The AI-generated cases were cited as part of written arguments attorney David M. Schwartz made to try to bring an early end to Cohen’s court supervision after he served more than a year behind bars. Cohen had pleaded guilty in 2018 to tax evasion, campaign finance charges and lying to Congress, saying Trump directed him to arrange the payment of hush money to a porn actor and to a former Playboy model to fend off damage to his 2016 presidential bid."

https://apnews.com/article/michael-cohen-donald-trump-artificial-intelligence-777ace9cc34aa0e56398fd47a1d6b420

Whether Trump has engaged in insurrection has already been decided by the senate. Acquitted. And the plain language of the constitution tells us what an officer is, those who have previously taken the oath to support the constitution. Nonetheless, it will be interesting to see these charades tried in the Supreme Court.

The Colorado Supreme Court is wrong.

The 14th amendment applies to those listed who engaged in insurrection, neither of which is true in Trump's case. You're reading into something that just isn't there.

This ludicrous assertion demonstrates that the conspiracy theory continues, in minds of the cult members.

Again, no conspiracy, just a confluence of stupidity.

He was acquitted of insurrection by the Senate, with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presiding. He cannot be removed from office and disqualified to enjoy any Office of Honor. You and the Dems in the Colorado Supreme Court are denying this…for what reasons again?

"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

He was acquitted. So he is not liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law.

The Colorado Supreme Court disagrees.

They're wrong.

I didn't realise that the Senate was the ultimate authority and final arbiter on the matter.

It says right there in the constitution.

They're not her own processes.

Well, she's certainly not following the constitution, or else she would not have violated anyone's rights.

It mentions "officer of the United States" and the President is an officer of the United States.

There is no indication the president is considered an Officer in the constitution. He is the Commander in Chief. The constitution says he appoints officers. The wording of the 14th insurrection clause clearly points to those who take the oath under Article 6. The president takes a different oath. Everyone else takes a different oath, and only their oath adopts the wording found in Article 6 and the 14th.

The Colorado Supreme Court disagrees.

Then they do so against the constitution. Senate has already acquitted him of such charges.

Under Maine law it is the Secretary of State who must make any initial rulings on a candidates eligibility. She is simply following the established legal process. The next step is for an appeal to be made to the Superior Court.

She's following her own process, to be sure, and it's marred by political bias and anti-Trumpism.

He is eligible under Article II Section 1, which explicitly uses the word "president". The 14th doesn't mention presidents. Second, there is no indication of any insurrection, or that he engaged in it. The Senate acquitted him of such charges long ago. Lastly, this lady isn't a lawyer and used youtube videos for her case. It's just tragic nonsense all around.

If that's what you want to call contesting an election, that's fine, but then it all comes off as bogus as they illegally prevent a legitimate campaign, disenfranchise voters, violate due process and other rights.

No, I wouldn't doubt it. The "tongue-in-cheek" attitude on such a grave and unprecedented matter gives more evidence to the malice and delusion of their intention. They don't like that Trump contested the election, that much is clear.

Oh, he said "I won this election". Therefor he says and believes he was elected to the office of the President twice, therefor he should be kept off the ballot. Pretzel logic.

But the constitution also says:

"Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:— "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Did Trump say somewhere he was elected to the office of president?

I’m afraid Trump was not sworn in, so the notion is ridiculous, though I can see how such pretzel logic will work wonders on pretzel-shaped brains.

It just goes to show the lengths they are willing to go and the contortions they are willing to commit themselves to in order to disguise their malfeasance. The sad part is they are abusing their power, disenfranchising voters, corrupting their office, and throwing doubt on what they have always claimed were free and fair elections.

They really said that Trump believes he won the election and if that were true, which they argue it's not, then he's ineligible because he's won twice. It’s just a troll at this point for their foamy-mouthed base.

They must be pretty frightened to go to such lengths to keep their opponent off the ballot. The judicial malfeasance explains why few of the election fraud claims were heard—they themselves were in on the steal. And so it continues.

So this is just begging the question.

Well no, I haven’t assumed any conclusion in any premise. I merely observe what is there and derive my conclusion from those grounds. What I cannot observe are the non-physical aspects of any object I’ve ever come into contact with, in direct contradiction to the claims of those who do.

Are abstract qualities physical? If not, are they real?

Abstract terms are certainly real. But it cannot be shown they refer to anything real, physical, or unreal and non-physical.

Everything you just said is vague. What lie did the inteligence experts tell? "The White House" was the Trump administration at the time. What specific lie did Biden tell at the time? Provide quote and point to evidence that shows he knowingly made a false statement.

He lied about his knowledge regarding his son’s dealings, he used the fabricated talking point in the debates. I’m not well informed so perhaps you can come up with quotes yourself.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/05/hunter-joe-biden-business-testimony-00125056

You forgot to give me the evidence Brennan & Morrell knew the NY Post story was true. What's wrong with providing talking points for a debate?

It was misinformation as developed by former spies, some of whom fumbled the Russia hoax and defrauded the United States electorate. Biden used it to lie in the debates. Media used it to suppress the story.

What makes you think their concern is fake? It's established Russia interfered in 2016, and that their efforts had been continuing.

Their reasons for the letter was to give a talking point to Biden, to help him whim the election as Morell stated. That’s a far cry from the reasons stated in the letter itself.

I have no idea what you're asking here.

Dualists claim that humans are a collection of physical and non-physical (mental) stuff. The term "biology" is used to refer to the physical stuff and the term "consciousness" is used to refer to the non-physical (mental) stuff. To say that a human is conscious is to say that it has this non-physical (mental) stuff.

Whereas materialists claim that humans are a collection of physical stuff alone and that the term "consciousness" refers to some subsection of that physical stuff. To say that a human is conscious is to say that it has this subsection of that physical stuff.

I’m just asking what the word “consciousness” refers to. I have to Imagine a string going from the word to what it is in the world the word refers to. The dualist would have nowhere to put it because it would either attach to some biology, or nothing. Non-physical stuff is just a roundabout way of saying “nothing”, in my view, because nothing indicates such stuff exists.

Yes, if. But either way, there undoubtedly seems to me a hard problem, hence the existence of substantial contemporary philosophical literature on the nature of consciousness and of substance and property dualism. So either it is the case that consciousness is a physical thing, but significantly more complex than every other physical thing in the universe, or it isn't a physical thing.

Or it isn’t a thing at all. Maybe it’s an abstract term denoting abstract qualities of physical things, particularity conscious organisms.

I don't think it's circular. If you asked me what "physiology" describes, the answer is physiology.

"Physiology" isn't an adjective. "Physical" is an adjective, and physical physicalness is circular.

What does physiology apply to? The question doesn't make sense. Physiology is just its own thing. Similarly, if dualism is correct then consciousness is just its own thing.

Physiology applies to an organism and the way it functions. Consciousness applies to what?

There's certainly something peculiar about consciousness given that a "hard" problem of consciousness is even considered. We don't consider a "hard" problem of electricity or water after all. Of course, that might just be because consciousness is significantly more complicated than every other natural phenomenon in the universe. Or it might be because consciousness really is non-natural and that there really is a "hard" problem.

There is no hard problem if the term "conscious" describes the concrete. It brings us back to the easy problems. But lifting the term from the concrete and applying it to the abstract leads the dualist directly into hard problems, probably because there is nothing to examine under under its own premise.

Your vague reference to "they" suggests you are conflating actions by a variety of people and organizations. Point to an individual who knowingly stated a clear falsehood.

The so-called intelligence experts, the whitehouse, and Biden himself, as I've already said. There is nothing vague about it.

The Russian investigation was not a "hoax", because it was initiated as a result of a clear crime (Russians stealing information from DNC servers). A Trump campaign had knowledge of the crime before the emails were made public, and he lied about it. Additional lies were told by other campaign officials during the investigation - it would have been derelict to ignore this. Russian active measures to help Trump were well known during the 2020 campaign, and this was a major factor in wariness of media outlets at reporting it, and in the judgement of the former intelligence officers. It's pretty ironic that Russia's assistance in 2016 backfired on Trump's desire to spread irrelevant dirt in 2020.

Julian Assange denied the emails came from Russia. Shawn Henry of Crowdstrike admitted under oath that there was no evidence the information was exfiltrated. The US government dropped the case against the Internet Research Agency. It was a bunch of hokum, a hoax, and you're still falling for it.

None of the signatories of the letter lied. The letter said they were "suspicious of Russian involvement", that it was "consistent with Russian objectives", and "We do not know whether these press reports are accurate". Of course the Biden campaign would use this analysis to maximum advantage, just like the Trump campaign would try to maximize the NY Post story to their maximum advantage.

The author of the letter, Former acting CIA Director Michael Morell, asking John Brennan to sign the letter in an email said that he wanted to give Joe Biden a talking point in the debate.

"Trying to give the campaign, particularly during the debate on Thursday, a talking point to push back on Trump on the issue."

https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2023-05/MorellBrennanEMailOct2020.pdf

Given this activity in light of their fake concern that "each of us believes deeply that American citizens should determine the outcome of elections", it appears they lied. It was clearly a political operation used to influence the election, to help the Biden campaign and cripple Trump. I'm interested to hear how you'll spin it.

I’m only arguing that if consciousness does not apply to the physiology, there is no other object to which it can apply. The circularity begins when you promise that “ when we describe ourselves as being conscious we're describing that non-physiological aspect of ourselves”, and when asked which non-physical aspect of ourselves we’re describing, you answer “consciousness”.

The reason I would say no such aspects exist is because there is no indication such aspects exist.

I was hoping the term could be used to describe an aspect of ourselves. The term "conscious" cannot describe "consciousness", I'm afraid.

What non-physical aspect of ourselves does the word "conscious" describe?

What non-physiological aspects are you speaking of?

When I describe John as being the winner of the race I'm describing John, but being a winner is not the same thing as being John. In fact, nothing about John's base biology has anything to do with him being the winner of the race. Of course, his base biology obviously plays an explanatory role in how he won, but they are still independent things.

When I describe John as being conscious I'm describing John, but being conscious is not the same thing as being John. And, like above, it may be that nothing about John's base biology has anything to do with him being conscious. Of course, his base biology obviously plays an explanatory role in why he's conscious, but they are still independent things

“Winner” is a noun. I was talking about the switch from adjectives to nouns, for instance “happy” becomes “happiness”. Try describing “happy” without referencing an object. It’s difficult. Luckily language permits us to make of the adjective a noun, treating it as if it was concrete and its own thing, where we can start to apply more adjectives to it. It becomes a “quality”, “state”, or “condition”. This raises the question: a quality, state, or condition of what thing? In the case of human consciousness, the answer is the human, which is physiological. If we cannot answer that question, we just start compounding adjectives, describing really nothing.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that anatomy is the reason why someone engages in activities. A full account of why I, let's say, go for a jog, seems to require consideration of the subjective conscious experience, not just my physiology. If asked why I did this, I wouldn't say "because I have functioning limbs" or "because of my brain states prior to and during the jog." Rather, the reason I went for a jog is because I wanted to get some exercise.

It’s the reason why such an organism can jog, and the reason why other organisms, like invertebrates, cannot. The anatomy determines the full range of motions and activities any given organism can do in any given environment.

That’s exactly what it means. The adjective describes the thing, which in the case of an organism is wholly physiological. It does not nor cannot describe anything else.

Adding the suffix “-ness” only serves to abstract the description away from the thing it describes, for whatever reason. At any rate, it cannot be shown that any such thing called “consciousness”, physical or non-physical, is produced or possessed by the organism.

I like that.

Personally I think the hard problem occurs only when we speak about the abstract. For instance, the hard problem asks how physiology (the concrete) gives rise to "conscious experience" (the abstract). Here the description "conscious" is lifted from the concrete and placed upon some abstract entity or substance, which we are then forced to think about. But how can "experience" be conscious? How can any abstraction be conscious? Further thinking proves this adjective is inapplicable and inexplicable to that noun, yet I'm supposed to wonder how such a phenomenon can be explained.

Chalmers often says that "conscious experience" "arises", as if it was the morning sun. He asks why these concrete things and concrete functions are "accompanied by experience", as if one walked in the door holding hands with the other. But concrete entities are never accompanied by, nor give rise to, abstract entites. So once the dualist switch occurs thinking is naturally muddled.

That a person is conscious for biological reasons isn’t necessarily that consciousness is physiological. Consciousness may be a non-physical product of certain physical processes. Disrupting those physical processes will disrupt consciousness, but they can nonetheless be distinct things.

The adjective “conscious” describes the organism, which is physiological. So why would we even approach anything non-physical with the word?

I believe turning the adjective into a noun-phrase does the heavy lifting for the dualist. But appending the suffix “-ness” to the word “conscious” doesn’t make a description of the thing a thing itself. Though an abstract noun, which gives it the air of extension and substance, allowing us to treat it as if it was a thing, the word still just denotes a quality of the organism, namely, that it is conscious. Given that there is no indication of any non-physical products, nor even the possibility of them, one needn’t even need to consider anything of the sort.

It’s evident, to me at least, that a person is conscious for biological reasons. For instance a strike to the head can render someone unconscious. The reason why he is conscious one moment, unconscious the next, is purely physiological. The anatomy involved, the action of the brain, the damage, the loss of functions, etc. are all physiological. You can literally point to all of it. There is no thing nor process involved that isn’t physiological.

So though an anatomical description of an organism may be unable to describe the activity of an organism (its full range of motions, for example), the anatomy is nonetheless the reason why it can and does engage in such activities. The anatomy of a rock is the reason a rock isn’t conscious.

I haven’t conflated anything. Serious analysis of the drive itself and the contents therein contradicted everything they claimed about it. That’s just a fact.

We found out from the laptop that Joe Biden met with Burisma executive Vadym Pozharskyi In 2015, something the Whitehouse has repeatedly lied about. We learned that Biden’s denials he knew anything about his son’s business dealings was a complete lie. Hell, it turns out he was in there like a dirty shirt.

Such a good father was the elder Biden that he let his son accompany him to China in 2013, and days later Hunter is appointed director of a new investment boutique backed by CCP money.

The disinfo and censorship of this info was less a conspiracy as it was a confluence of stupidity, just like the Russia hoax. They actually believed it was Russian disinfo, just like they believed Russian bots won Trump the election and Trump himself was a Russian agent. They’re still trapped in that moral panic. But it was former disgruntled CIA director John Brennan who delivered the letter to a politico writer known for pushing the Russian hoax, and the writer served it up on a propaganda platter for unsuspecting Americans getting ready to vote. It was even passed around on here in order to discredit the laptop. And Secretary Blinken and members of the Biden campaign have their fingerprints all over it.

This may be above board for you but to many it reeks of corruption, collusion, election interference, and fraud.

I’m not sure why you’d defend misinformation and censorship of that sort unless it’s because you want to dismiss and minimize the information therein. Is there some other reason I’m unaware of?

Testimony has also confirmed, as have multiple news outlets and forensic analysis, that the laptop was legit, contradicting what has been said by so-called intelligence experts, the whitehouse, and Biden himself. That’s some dirty dirt.

Him dining with Burisma executives, for example, and this while he was heading U.S. anti-corruption initiatives in Ukraine. Hunter was jet-setting around the world on Air Force 2 while the deals were going on. Devon Archer testified that Biden was on at least 20 speaker phone calls with Hunter and his foreign associates. Biden's assertions that he never discussed Hunter's business dealings, or that they never profited off the Biden name, all turned out to be false.

It is relevant because Joe Biden knew about it all and lied to everyone that he did. He lied about it in the debates. Had that info not been censored, and had we not been kept in the dark about Biden's involvement, we might have made a more informed choice.

What "truth" was there to be afraid of? The NY Post article was available, and I read it at the time. It made Hunter look terrible, but he wasn't running.

Exactly. There was no point in censoring it. But besides the crack smoking and hookers, his laptop showed that from 2013 through 2018 Hunter Biden brought in about $11 million via his roles as an attorney and a board member with a Ukrainian firm accused of bribery and his work with a Chinese businessman now accused of fraud.

Your lot censored the NY post in the lead up to an election because they were so scared of the truth. Good look.

There is a reason the news, the politicians, the lawyers, the state, the experts, and the whole authoritarian gang are regarded as little more than something we wipe off our shoes. It’s because you’ve gotten everything wrong about every issue. Your reason is shit and we’re living in the results of it. That’s right; convicted felons are better than you.

We don’t have hungry, sad, or sleepy atoms either. These adjectives describe the organism as a whole. That’s what the word “conscious” does. We’re just describing the organism, the mode of his biology, what he’s doing, etc. It wouldn’t make sense if these adjectives, or any other derivative quality, can be applied to any other object like an atom.