They make excuses that Martin was referring to this or that, and Carroll simply forgot about her outside funding, that they were not scheming to get Trump despite using the word “scheme”.

“Relevant in establishing his character”. Again, not a single fact to support your beliefs and claims, in contradiction to everything you say.

Emails showing the two wanted to scheme and do their patriotic duty in reference to Trump are facts. And another fact is an email from Martin to someone else stating about Carroll: “It’s too hyperbolic. Too much celebratory stuff over something that hasn’t really happened. She said next she’s gonna sue T when adult victims of rape law is passed in new York State or something. WTF.” These are “established facts”, as you call them. What facts do you have? None.

Yes much unrelated evidence was submitted, none of which have been proven. And that’s all you have is unproven allegations and irrelevant recordings.

I don’t care what I appear like to anti-Trjmpists, especially because you have no evidence for what you claim is a fact.

You're making excuses. The litigation was funded, not the allegation and witnesses.

And then there’s the emails between Jean Carroll and her friend Carol Martin, one of the two women who corroborated her story. Emailing Carrol, Martin wrote in 2017 in reference to a Trump article:

“This has to stop. As soon as we're both well enough to scheme, we must do our patriotic duty again."

“TOTALLY!!!,” wrote Carroll. “I have something special for you when we meet."

This is shortly before she starts writing her book accusing Trump. Martin later said “scheme” was a reference to supporting Democratic party causes. Right.

You have poor understanding of both the law and epistemology. Legally, it would be absurd to avoid prosecuting cases that lacked thoroughly conclusive evidence - like DNA or video. It is legally correct, and morally fair, for a jury to pass judgement based on a preponderance of evidence. It is also reasonable epistemology to conclude that the evidence shows it more likely than not, that Trump committed the act. I asked you to provide a basis for considering Trump's denial to be credible. You obviously had nothing. This was a case of 3 women vs one habitual liar with a history of immoral behavior.

I don’t care what you think because it’s uninformed and one-sided. You have zero facts while claiming his alleged assault was a fact. This is your “reasonable epistemology”: accept any accusations of the political opponents of Donald Trump. Do away with the statute of limitations so you can punish people for allegations from a quarter of a century ago, where any and all evidence against the allegations have been lost. Your understanding of law and epistemology is to get rid of legal statutes so you can get the verdict you like.

Focusing on a single action can never suffice;it is the collective set of activities that establish his crime. The superceding indictment (here) outlines the case. Read it, then get back to me.

You’re sure he’s committed a crime but cannot name a criminal act.

ROFL! A victim would obviously hate her attacker, and so would her confidants. Does that mean their testimony shouldn't be considered? Trump alleged she was politically motivated based on hearsay (someone, he didn't remember who, told him Carroll was a Hillary supporter and was "political"), so of course - you treat that as established fact. However, her article alleging the assault was published in June 2019, rather late for a political hit job for the 2016 election.

On what grounds do you give credibility to Trump's denial? You know he lies all the time; and nearly every criminal claims they're innocent.

I said “politically-funded”. I treat this as established fact because it is established fact. It appears you’re not even aware of this, among others, once again deflecting to something unrelated. Neither was Carrol, apparently, because she lied and said she did not receive outside funding. Once it was revealed that she did in fact receive outside funding, her lawyer claimed she forgot. In other words, she could not remember that someone else was funding her lawsuit, but in your mind is credible enough to accuse someone of an event from 30 years ago—as far as we know because she can’t even remember the year it happened—long past the statute of limitations for your so-called crime.

Why does it matter that it's appealed? The facts speak for themselves, irrespective of whether or not Carroll will receive a payout from Trump.

The appeal matters because he did not get a fair trial. The facts do not speak for themselves because you haven’t given a single fact. DNA, video, an entry in her diary, witnesses, medical examinations—you’ve given no such thing while claiming otherwise.

He was within his legal rights to file those 63 court cases that he lost, and to ask for recounts. It's illegal to try to overturn an election through fraud, which is what he tried to do after losing those court cases.A nexus of his election fraud case is his many lies about election fraud, a lie you said you don't care about.

What fraud? You keeping making accusations or otherwise repeating them, but then leave it there. I just want to read one action he took that constitutes fraud according to you.

The primary evidence is the testimony of E. Jeane Carroll, and the two women she confided in just after it occurred. So it's the word of 3 women, who a jury judged to be credible, against that of a man who routinely tells self-serving lies, including the lie that Carroll wasn't "his type" - during a deposition, he misidentified a picture of Carroll as his wife.

On the Access Hollywood recording, Trump bragged that as a celebrity - he could get away with grabbing women by "the pussy". He doubled down on this during his deposition. This is among the reasons to believe Trump has no moral compunction against doing what he was accused of.

The politically-funded words of a batch of Trump haters and an unrelated recording 10 years removed from the alleged event is your evidence. Your “crime” is a civil case still under appeal. That’s it.

The appellate court rulings on the constitutionality of the special counsel statutes remain binding within their jurisdictions, while Canon's ruling is binding on no court (not even her own). Thomas' comment also has no bearing because it was not part of a majority opinion.

Regardless, whether or not SCOTUS would overturn the statutes is a red herring; it has zero bearing on Trump's guilt or of the ability of DOJ to prosecute with staff already employed. The AG has the authority to hire people, so he could easily get around Canon's issue if he chose to do so (I mentioned this before, but -as usual- you ignored it).

You can mention it a thousand times. The AG doesn’t have the authority to hire special counsels. As usual you skirt around the arguments and simply repeat your conclusions, or at least the conclusions you’re taught to repeat.

The changes were legal, but they indeed helped Democratic turnout- and this may have helped them win. Likewise, Russia's assistance may have helped Trump win in 2016. Both issues are moot, and have no bearing on Trump's attempting to illegally overturn the 2020 election.

There is no law against contesting an election.

The most straightforward is the sexual assault case. I pointed you at the jury's ruling. They found him liable for sexual assault and defamation against the woman he assaulted.

What evidence do you have that Trump committed sexual assault?

She didn’t claim, she ruled. And you cannot tell me why she’s wrong. Her argument’s, Justice Thomas’ arguments, and former attorney general Edwin Meese’s arguments forever remain untouched by your criticism.

I don’t care what Trump said about the 2020 election. The massive changes to the way people vote warrant scepticism. Besides, all of it pales in comparison to the massive fraud perpetrated against the American people (and indeed, the world) in the 2016 election and beyond.

Tell me in your own words one criminal act Trump committed. Pointing me to some anti-Trump publication just doesn’t work anymore.

He was unlawfully appointed and illegally funded. Your lie is ludicrous because it was on this basis that his classified documents case was dismissed. I never said he was guilty of some crime.

What crime did Trump commit again?

A historical nothing-burger put out by an unlawful counsel before an election. It’s a good reminder of the DOJ’s election interference.

Jack Smith said he wanted American people to have the benefit of his evidence for the election. Well, the jury decided, and no one cared about any of it.

Sure they will. They had years to do it. What’s another four?

Hilarious. A waste of money and a perversion of justice. A witch hunt, a hoax, a scam on Americans.

With D.C. case dismissed, Trump is no longer under federal indictment

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/11/25/trump-cases-motion-to-dismiss-jack-smith/

Speaking as someone who has studied physics, when I first saw the argument, I thought it was obvious that nature was "determined" by the laws of physics. All natural laws described by physics prior to the discovery of quantum mechanics are deterministic laws. You can take the equations of parabolic motion taught in high school as an example. If you know the initial conditions of the ball, then you know when and where it will end up.

How does physics, or natural laws described by physics, determine your actions? Do equations of some law of motion decide which direction you will walk, for example?

Note the passive voice: everything in nature is determined. Determined by what? If human behavior is determined then it needs to be determined by something other than ourselves, or else it is determined by us, which entails free will.

To get around this determinists often posit an abstraction of ourselves to be the determiner of our actions. But it's just a roundabout way to say we determine our actions. For example, if our behavior is determined by our "emotional responses", then it is determined by ourselves, because we are our emotional responses. If it is determined by neurons, then it is determined by ourselves, because we are our neurons. If it is determined by a "certain state of mind", then it is determined by ourselves, because we are our states of mind.

We have to consider the ultimate source of our actions, and rarely is this source something other than ourselves. If the source of our acts and behaviors are an abstraction of ourselves, then it is invariably determined by us, unless some other force in the world can be shown to produce such an act.

Biden has until now resisted Ukraine’s pleas to ease the limits on the use of U.S. ATACMs missiles, and then shifts to allowing their use during the presidential transition in which his regime and party lost. Why would he do that, you think?

Some claim it is because North Korean troops entered the engagement, others mention it is to “Trump-proof” United States Ukraine policy. In any case, it’s a political move, and it looks like a cynical ploy to stifle the incoming administration, or worse.

Hostile talk against China? Do you mean talk of tariffs? I don’t know; peace through strength comes off as a better principle than war through political conniving. It’s no strange wonder that Biden has been involved in that theatre since before it all started to kick off.

Sure, but this escalation is a complete flip-flop from Biden’s earlier policy. Americans were lied to again, and here we are closer to nuclear war.

Biden ramped it up for no other reason than politics. No press conference, no nothing. Given the chicken-little approach of anti-trumpism, I fear it’s a sinister ploy to knee-cap the incoming administration for political reasons.

We’ll have to see what Trump does. In any case, whatever they do, it will be an order of magnitude greater in transparency.

What scandal will they manufacture?

Well, it’s appointment time, and we all know what that means: time to trot out sexual allegations. They say Matt Gaetz was “credibly accused”, but they won’t mention the DOJ never brought charges because the accusers had credibility problems. Of course the opposite is the case: he was incredibly accused.

The 17-year-old at issue in the investigation was also on that trip, though by that time she was already 18 or older, people familiar with the matter have said. She has been a central witness in the investigation, but people familiar with the case said she is one of two people whose testimony has issues that veteran prosecutors feel would not pass muster with a jury.

Greenberg’s credibility would be a significant challenge for any prosecution of Gaetz, in part because one of the crimes Greenberg admitted to was fabricating allegations against a schoolteacher who was running against him to be a tax collector.

https://archive.ph/3HK6F

Oh well, it seemed to have worked. Innocent or guilty, The Machine will chew them up and spit them out.

As we’re winding down the one-term presidency, the demented Joe Biden gives Ukraine the go-ahead and the weaponry to fire ballistic missiles into Russia, further escalating the war and leaving a mess for the next administration and the world.

Not a single word from Trump detractors who are no doubt busy doing god’s work psychoanalyzing their folk devil.

The mueller investigation took over crossfire hurricane. They took jurisdiction over the investigation. They employed people who were involved in crossfire hurricane. The report doesn’t mention any of the failures, omissions, the disparate treatment of the two campaigns, and the bias the subsequent investigations uncovered. That might have been pertinent info, you’d think.

I’m glad Trump fired comey. It was a made up story, an incompetent investigation, and Comey lied to the president, his boss, that he wasn’t under investigation. Both subsequent investigators rebuked him.

The only victims are those they targeted and the millions of Americans they defrauded with your conspiracy theory for years on end. You don’t care about nor mention any of this, but we all know why.

Anyways, lying by omission doesn’t service your argument well. You can’t just keep sweeping this stuff under the carpet, especially when we all know what’s under there. You let yourself be duped by a corrupt political investigation because it affected people you didn’t like. Worse, President Trump is the most investigated person in human history and you still have nothing on him.

Maybe that explains why non-MAGA cultists voted for The Clown but does not explain why about 13 million Democratic voters who haf voted for Biden in 2020 did not vote for Harris (or The Clown) this year.

Perhaps it was a little harder to pull off a steal this time.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico%E2%80%93United_States_border_crisis#

Is it a mental health crisis? Anyone feeling these symptoms?

My Rage Against Trump Supporters Is Killing Me

I worry, though, that before some disaster wipes us out, my rage will kill me first. At 68, I’m not sure my body can withstand another four years of the anxiety, stress, and sleep deprivation like I experienced during Trump’s first term. Just hearing his voice makes my head pound, reminding me that my mother and grandmother were both felled by strokes. Wishing his supporters a slow painful death will have no effect on them and will only raise my blood pressure. Besides, this kind of useless outrage only breeds despair and apathy — and that’s what our enemies are counting on.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2024/11/18/my-rage-against-trump-supporters-is-killing-me/

That party’s politics don’t translate well to social media because it’s one large attempt at play-acting. They require studios and actors. Just watch what happened when Harris’ teleprompter stopped working, for example, or clips of Biden’s demented behavior once he’s stumbled away from his handlers.

All of it is so contrived that to try it on social media is to expose them as fakes and frauds. Harris makes a call from a voter but when she shows her phone the camera app is open. Little things like that accumulate in that space and avoiding it is an imperative for a campaign premised on fakery.

First Trump was Hitler, now they’re kissing the rings. Ratings must be in the tank.

Out of respect I read all you’ve wrote but for future reference don’t bother. I already understand your characterization of the events, not only because you’ve told me, but because many people believe the same thing. It is a one-sided story. Everyone is already aware of it.

However it’s main flaw is that it leaves a lot out, purposefully. Anyone can find it. I’ve read the Mueller report, for example. It has become a sort of bible for truthers, even if they didn’t not find the coordination that everyone lied about for so long. But what I never read about is the subsequent reports concluding that they should not have started the investigation in the first place, or the details of how poorly the investigation was predicated and conducted, the significant errors and omissions, lies to the FISA courts, the unmasking, the Clinton plan, the anti-Trump bias, the suppressing of exculpatory evidence, and the odd reliance on investigative leads provided or funded by Trump's political opponents.

Every time this info is added to the one-sided story it paints a clearer picture, and all of it looks absolutely evil and corrupt.

So don’t waste your energies on old news that no one is buying. We’ve got four more years and there will be lots to talk about!

You say that what he wanted Pence to do was illegal, but don’t mention that they change the electoral count law after the fact to “clarify” that the vice-presidents role is strictly ceremonial. You won’t mention Dems doing trying the same thing in 2016.

He “clearly” obstructed justice but he was never tried nor convicted for such a crime.

Jack Smith was a private citizen unlawfully appointed to prosecute a former president. How’d that work out? Smith himself stated he wanted the prosecutions to influence the election, and that’s all it turned out to be. The prosecutions failed and the election interference failed. No crimes were committed. You have nothing.

Exculpatory evidence was refused or otherwise not reviewed by the corrupt prosecution. Why would they do that? Why won’t you mention this?

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernard-kerik-donald-trump-records-may-not-have-been-reviewed-by-special-counsel/

As for the Raffensperger call, just read the transcript instead of the one-sided mischaracterization and out-of-context quotes.

All you’re doing is repeating the claims of prosecutors, all of whom have either failed in their prosecution or have been found to be corrupt. Still, the one-sided story prevails.

The Fabian Strategy.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_strategy

One of the benefits of facing a deluge of anti-Trump propaganda is that one is forced to know what Trump haters believe. This helps eliminate the one-sided story and a great deal of confirmation bias.

Your own one-sided story has to weave a precarious thread. The appeals to authority no longer work when the authority doesn't rule in a way you like, so you have to discredit an authority in some cases while glorifying them in others. Without mentioning how unprecedented the case is or that the DOJ admitted to messing up the evidence, you mention Judge Cannon was once vacated on appeal for requesting a special master, so I guess all her rulings are suspect. But there is no such criticism of Jack Smith, who was once rebuked 8-0 by the supreme court for an unjust conviction of a politician. It appears that everything Smith does is above board, not because he is right or has a history of being right, but because his target is Trump. Everything Cannon does is suspect, not because she is wrong, but because her ruling favored the defense.

So saying it is "glaringly obvious" that Trump committed crimes just doesn't work when all you will do is repeat the accusations and the arguments of prosecution, while remaining wholly ignorant or at least reticent of the defense.

Your speed? Nevah! But you are just a weasel. You wrote Jack Smith's appointment was illegal

So did many people. A US District Court ruled as much. It’s old news. I’m not going to fill in the mouse-holes you have left in your brain.

There was no corrupt prosecution. And when asked to clarify, as you usually do, you evade. You're a post-truth person, nos4, which means you lie, cheat, steal without scruple and should not be trusted even with a mop.

You didn’t ask to clarify. You fumed at the mere sight of an opposing opinion and demanded me to write in a way of your liking, as any spoiled censor would do. I love arguing about these things, Tim, but not with someone who has no basic manners. Instead, you get what you give.

Really? Do you know something no one else knows? Or is it just your usual?

You’re just not up to speed, Tim.

What corrupt prosecution? By whom? What charges?
I think, nos4, you need to get your mouth checked, disgusting things keep coming out of it.

There was a quote, link, and everything, describing which prosecutor and which charges I was writing about. Maybe the foam bubbling out of your face was hindering its legibility.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. Wow.

The brain has all the connections it had before it was removed from your body, so she will have your memories.

And I think that's absurd. It's not the case that Jane forgets her life and remembers yours; it's the case that Jane is dead and you're alive in her body.

You mean my brain is alive in her body. Every person you’ve ever met, and will ever meet, is more than a brain. So that’s large and ever-increasing body of observable evidence just left to the side. It’s why you cannot imagine yourself being a disembodied brain without some sort of mechanism to keep you alive while you’re outside the body. And here I thought persons were supposed to be autonomous, but we are treating the brain like a dependent fetus, something that needs to be kept alive through intervention.

I can't be a single person in two disconnected bodies with two disconnected brains, and neither half is somehow privileged such that one is me and the other isn't. So it must be that neither is me. Therefore I'm dead.

But your brain is still alive. If a person is a brain, and the brain is still alive, the person is still alive, no?

The rats are fleeing the ship, starting with illegally-appointed Jack Smith. The corrupt, political persecution has failed. Now he has only a few months to destroy all his evidence and communications, and milk his taxpayer-funded government payday until the last second.

Jack Smith Plans to Step Down as Special Counsel Before Trump Takes Office

Jack Smith, the special counsel who pursued two federal prosecutions of Donald J. Trump, plans to finish his work and resign along with other members of his team before Mr. Trump takes office in January, people familiar with his plans said.

Mr. Smith’s goal, they said, is to not leave any significant part of his work for others to complete and to get ahead of the president-elect’s promise to fire him within “two seconds” of being sworn in.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/13/us/politics/jack-smith-special-counsel.html

Crazy times. DOGE

That doesn't answer my question. Jane's brain is removed and replaced with yours. According to you, it's still Jane. But given that memories are stored in the brain, it would then follow that Jane no longer has her (original) memories and instead has yours. So she remembers growing up as a boy named [your name] rather than as a girl named Jane.

I doubt she remembers anything. She’d have to form new memories.

But there are two unconnected bodies. How can they be one organism?

You cut it in half.

"Split brain" patients aren't fully split. They are still joined at the stem. It's only the connection between the hemispheres that is removed.

So how did you as a person die if both halves of your brain survived and were placed in two different heads?

In this scenario it isn't extremely painful and debilitating. We're advanced enough that it's like a kidney transplant.

But my point is that it would be death, so it's not a choice between living (in pain) or dying; it's a choice between dying of brain cancer or dying of brain extraction-and-destruction, i.e. you're opting for euthanasia.

The body that's kept alive by a new brain just ain't you.

I just don’t see how I would die if I was still alive after such a procedure.

So, for you, a brain transplant is a memory and personality transplant? Jane receives your brain and with it loses her memories and personality but gains yours in their place?

I've never been a brain. My memories and personality have only ever related to a certain organism.

What counts as an organism?

We've mentioned before that there are five "vital" organs; brain, heart, lungs, liver, and kidneys. At the very least we both appear to accept that we can replace the heart and still be the same person, replace the lungs and still be the same person, replace the liver and still be the same person, and replace the kidneys and still be the same person.

So let's say we separate your body into two, one part containing the brain, liver, and kidneys, and another part containing the heart and lungs. Each part's missing organs are replaced with artificial alternatives, sufficient to keep them all alive.

Are there two living organisms? Which one are you? I say the one with the brain.

I would remain as one organism, except I'd be one that's been cut in half. So I guess I'd have to choose both sides as me.

I don't think either would be me. I'd be dead (even if the rest of my body is kept alive by machines), and there'd be two new people (assuming that half a brain is capable of supporting a sufficient level of consciousness).

How would you die? Split-brain patients can live through such a procedure.

I'm curious; let's assume that brain transplants are possible and easy and that you have been diagnosed with terminal brain cancer. Would you accept a brain transplant as a cure (with your diseased brain being destroyed)?

Because I certainly wouldn't. I understand that this would mean my death.

I wouldn't because it would be extremely painful and debilitating. I would choose death before that. But if I did I don't think I'd be numerically identical to someone else.

Sorry, I thought I hit “post” days ago.

Consider it from your perspective. You undergo the operation. When you wake up do you start identifying as Jane simply because you have her arms and legs and chest and organs? Or do you continue to identify as NOS4A2, having grown up in wherever it is that NOS4A2 grew up in, your (only) parents being NOS4A2's parents? You don't have Jane's memories, not because you forgot, but because you're not Jane.

I would be deceased. Jane would identify as Jane because it is Jane that is still surviving, still alive. I say this because one person’s body, via the immune system, would reject the other’s. I suspect that it would be Jane’s immune system rejecting my tissue, meaning my tissue is foreign, ie. not of the person.

What if it was just a limb transplant? What if it was just a heart, lungs, kidneys, and liver transplant? How much of the body (excluding the brain) would it take for you to "become" someone else?

All of it could be changed. So long as the survival of the organism or animal is maintained I remain the same organism or animal.

But to answer your question, the only "biological marker" that matters to me is the brain because that's where my consciousness is found, either reducible to neurological activity or as some supervenient phenomenon. The rest is incidental.

If we could split your brain, put one half in body A, the other half in body B, where is your location as a person?

Terrible choice of it happens.