accidentally pulling a fire alarm — Mikie

This doesn't look like an accident. Unless either he's an idiot or it doesn't say it's a fire alarm.

The full quote is:

“Fraud is a crime but prosecutors refused to pursue the case. I wonder why? “Liable” is becoming the common theme because guilt escapes you. New York is a banana republic. See what SCOTUS says. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯“

Any reasonable person can infer from this that you are suggesting that James lacks the evidence to prove guilt and so didn’t pursue a criminal case, resorting only to a civil case where the standard of proof is lower.

However, if your “I wonder why?” wasn’t rhetorical and if the subsequent sentence was not you answering your own question then I answered your question for you: she doesn’t have authority to pursue a criminal case, only a civil case, which is why she didn’t pursue a criminal case, only a civil case, instead referring allegations of criminal wrongdoing to the relevant authorities.

I didn't say she chose not to bring a criminal case. — NOS4A2

I didn’t say you said it. I said you suggested it. Much like with Trump there’s much implicit in what you say.

Explaining that the AG doesn’t have authority to bring a criminal case in this matter but referred it to those who do is propaganda? I don’t think so.

But you trying to suggest that she does but chose not to because she lacks sufficient evidence certainly is propaganda.

No need to scurry around and gather disparate quotes and authors, which I never read in any case. — NOS4A2

Yeah, I've known for a while that you don't discuss these matters in good faith. My replies to you are never really replies to you. I'm providing a public service as a fact-checker for others who read your posts.

Fraud is a crime but prosecutors refused to pursue the case. I wonder why? — NOS4A2

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-could-letitia-james-civil-lawsuit-against-trump-turn-criminal-1745479

"The Attorney General of New York does not have the authority to bring a criminal case against these defendants for this conduct in New York, not does she have the authority to bring a federal criminal case.

"It is not uncommon for a state official working on a civil case to make a referral to the relevant state and federal criminal authorities when the official's investigation uncovers evidence of a crime.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/trump-sued-by-new-york-attorney-general-fraud-2022-09-21/

The lawsuit was civil, meaning it did not involve criminal charges. But James said she was referring allegations of criminal wrongdoing to federal prosecutors in Manhattan and the Internal Revenue Service for investigation.

So she has authority to bring a civil case but not a criminal case but referred the case to those who do have the authority.

“Liable” is becoming the common theme because guilt escapes you. — NOS4A2

The term "liable" was used because it's a civil case, not a criminal case.

See what SCOTUS says. — NOS4A2

I don't think SCOTUS has jurisdiction over this. I believe the New York Court of Appeals would be the last resort.

Judge rules Donald Trump defrauded banks, insurers while building real estate empire

A judge ruled Tuesday that Donald Trump committed fraud for years while building the real estate empire that catapulted him to fame and the White House.

Judge Arthur Engoron, ruling in a civil lawsuit brought by New York’s attorney general, found that the former president and his company deceived banks, insurers and others by massively overvaluing his assets and exaggerating his net worth on paperwork used in making deals and securing financing.

Engoron ordered that some of Trump’s business licenses be rescinded as punishment, making it difficult or impossible for them to do business in New York, and said he would continue to have an independent monitor oversee the Trump Organization’s operations.

Sorry, but judges aren’t the commander in chief of the armed forces. — NOS4A2

They are the ones who interpret the meaning of the words in the constitution.

You’re just quoting disparate paragraphs from all over the internet. You’re not pointing out much. — NOS4A2

I'm pointing out that there's every reason to believe that he followed standard procedure. He's not guilty of treason and certainly not deserving of the death penalty.

Clearly I was speaking about the unnamed official, not the named one. — NOS4A2

You were being facetious, implying that we shouldn't trust the reporting because the official was unnamed. I'm pointing out that the Defense Secretary corroborated the anonymous official's claims.

We heard it here first. Lawyers get to determine what an “enemy” is. — NOS4A2

Judges get to.

Thanks, unnamed official. — NOS4A2

In an interview Wednesday, Miller told POLITICO that Milley almost certainly told him he was going to call his Chinese counterpart

He gave aid and comfort to the enemy behind the back of the president. — NOS4A2

https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F.Cas/0026.f.cas/0026.f.cas.0018.2.pdf

The term “enemies,” as used in the constitutional clause defining treason (Const, art. 3, § 3), applies only to subjects of a foreign power in a state of open hostility with us

Milley, broken with a moral panic, went around the back of duly elected president and informed the CCP about Trump in order to cool tensions. — NOS4A2

Claims that Milley made ‘secret’ calls to Chinese leaders exaggerated, sources say

A defense official familiar with the calls said that description is “grossly mischaracterized.”

The official said the calls were not out of the ordinary, and the chairman was not frantically trying to reassure his counterpart.

The people also said that Milley did not go rogue in placing the call, as the book suggests. In fact, Milley asked permission from acting Defense Secretary Chris Miller before making the call, said one former senior defense official, who was in the room for the meeting. Milley also briefed the secretary’s office after the call, the former official said.

“We discussed beforehand and after his call with his Chinese counterpart,” the person said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive topic.

In an interview Wednesday, Miller told POLITICO that Milley almost certainly told him he was going to call his Chinese counterpart, but he didn’t recall getting a detailed readout of the call after.

“Looking back, I imagine there was a perfunctory exchange between us and our staffs about coordinating phone calls and messages for the day,” he said. “I don’t recall the specifics and it certainly wasn’t in a detailed or more formal way. It was more perfunctory/routine.”

A Joint Staff spokesperson said all of Milley’s calls with his counterparts, including those with Chinese leaders, “are staffed, coordinated and communicated with the Department of Defense and the interagency.”

“His calls with the Chinese and others in October and January were in keeping with these duties and responsibilities conveying reassurance in order to maintain strategic stability,” said Col. Dave Butler.

He violated his oath, ran contrary to the will of the people, and arguably committed treason. — NOS4A2

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

I really hope you're not suggesting that making a phone call warrants the death penality.

Also Trump Goes Full Deranged, Suggests Charging People He Doesn’t Like With Treason

Bet he'd love to be a dictator.

Yeah, I think that's the ruling that Hunter Biden's lawyers are using in their defence.

From the next section of the article you linked to:

The GCA at 18 U.S.C. § 922(n) also makes it unlawful for any person under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year to ship, transport, or receive firearms or ammunition.

Further, the GCA at 18 U.S.C. § 922(d) makes it unlawful to sell or otherwise dispose of firearms or ammunition to any person who is prohibited from shipping, transporting, receiving, or possessing firearms or ammunition.

As the news article says:

That law is why anyone buying a gun from a licensed dealer must fill out what's called an ATF Form 4473, which asks: “Are you under indictment or information in any court for a felony, or any other crime for which the judge could imprison you for more than one year, or are you a current member of the military who has been charged with violation(s) of the Uniform Code of Military?”

Answer “yes,” and no gun shop can legally sell you a gun. Trump, who is facing criminal charges across the eastern seaboard, would have to answer in the affirmative.

Trump would have had to lie on the form (much like Hunter Biden lied on his) to buy a gun.

Of course, perhaps this is all moot and Trump never bought a gun. Perhaps his spokesman was lying. This was probably just propaganda to appease the gun nuts.

Indicted Trump Asks to Buy a Glock at Campaign Stop—Which Would Be Illegal

In a PR stunt gone terribly wrong, former President Donald Trump went gun shopping on Monday with Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene and asked to buy a Glock pistol on camera—which would have brazenly violated the very same law that recently landed Hunter Biden criminal charges.

Federal law prohibits anyone under indictment from attempting to buy a firearm. Trump has been criminally indicted four times in as many jurisdictions—Atlanta, Miami, New York, and Washington—facing dozens of felony charges that could land him in prison for decades.

“I wanna buy one,” Trump said while taking a tour of Palmetto State Armory, a federally licensed gun dealer in South Carolina that's widely revered by firearm enthusiasts.

“Sir, if you want one, this one’s yours,” a person on the tour said, seeming to divert the president away from making an actual purchase.

“No, I wanna buy one,” Trump insisted.

It only added to the fiasco when those present pulled South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson into the photo op—as well as his brother, Julian Wilson, an executive at the private equity company that owns the gun dealer. They are both Republican Congressman Joe Wilson’s sons.

The disaster started when Trump's campaign spokesperson, Steven Cheung, tweeted that his boss actually went through with the sale.

"President Trump purchases a @GLOCKInc in South Carolina!" he posted Monday afternoon.

But the campaign went into damage control mode as soon as firearms journalist Stephen Gutowski and others pointed out that the entire transaction would be blatantly illegal.

“Did he actually go through with the purchase?” Gutowski asked openly in tweet.

Cheung later claimed to CNN that Trump never actually went through with the purchase—and deleted his original statement. The Daily Beast could not immediately independently confirm whether Trump finalized the deal.

:lol:

I heard it becomes more true the more you repeat their spin. — NOS4A2

You heard wrong.

to set favorable voting conditions — NOS4A2

Making it easier for people to vote isn't a bad thing.

pressures social media to suppress unfavorable information — NOS4A2

Removing disinformation isn't a bad thing.

and opposes one candidate’s efforts at every single step — NOS4A2

Ensuring that legitimate votes are counted and preventing an unlawful attempt to overturn the legitimate results of the election isn't a bad thing.

Unless you're going to argue, with evidence, that there was widespread voter fraud in favour of Biden, or that legitimate votes for Trump weren't counted, then you have no leg to stand on. You're just engaging in sophistry.

Biden was the legitimate winner of the election.

Of course, it all favored one candidate. — NOS4A2

If making it easier for people to vote favours one candidate then that candidate just has more popular support.

The notion that we should allow voter suppression and disinformation so that the less favoured candidate has a better chance at winning is absurd.

Joe Biden's Impeachment Falls Apart

Republican efforts to impeach President Joe Biden suffered a blow after fresh evidence emerged showing his bid to remove Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin in 2015 represented U.S. government policy.

Then-Vice President Biden met Petro Poroshenko, the Ukrainian president at the time, in December 2015, after which he claimed he'd threatened to withhold $1 billion in U.S. aid to Kyiv, unless Shokin was removed from his post, which he subsequently was.

Some conservatives have suggested Biden was attempting to protect Ukrainian energy company Burisma, the board of which his son, Hunter Biden, had joined in 2014, by moving against Shokin. However a pre-meeting memo prepared for Biden by the State Department, dated November 25, 2015, made it clear that removing Shokin was the Obama administration's policy.

https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2023-08/VPBidenTPUkraineMeetingShokin.pdf

You should recommend that he give a state of the nation speech to the Rada in which he reenergizes that effort and rolls out new proposed reforms. There is wide agreement that anti-corruption must be at the top of this list, and that reforms must include an overhaul of the Prosecutor General’s Office including removal of Prosecutor General Shokin, who is widely regarded as an obstacle to fighting corruption, if not a source of the problem.

He fired them because they were not willing to do their job. — javi2541997

Their job is to advise him on legal matters, and they were advising him that he had no legal basis to challenge the results of the election.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-whistleblower-ukraine-buris-idUSKBN1WC1LV

A Ukrainian investigation of gas company Burisma is focused solely on activity that took place before Hunter Biden, son of former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, was hired to sit on its board, Ukraine’s anti-corruption investigation agency said.

...

The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) said an investigation was ongoing into permits granted by officials at the Ministry of Ecology for the use of natural resources to a string of companies managed by Burisma.

But it said the period under investigation was 2010-2012, and noted that this was before the company hired Hunter Biden.

...

The NABU’s investigation related to the 2010-2012 period is not particularly active, Kholodnytsky added.

“At the moment, this case is up in the air, so to speak. Up in the air means that there is no active investigative work ongoing. At the moment, detectives and prosecutors do not understand what they are supposed to be investigating,” Kholodnytsky said.

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/CPRT-116-IG00-D009.pdf

THE CHAIRMAN: So let me ask you a little bit more again about this false narrative since recanted. Just to be absolutely clear about this, when the Vice President was asked to make the case, or help make the case for Shokin's firing, this was the policy of the State Department, and the State Department was asking the Vice President to assist with the execution of that Policy?

MR. KENT: That would be a correct assessment, yes.

THE CHAIRMAN: And it was the policy of other international organizations as well that recognized that Shokin was corrupt?

MR. KENT: Correct. He was not allowing for reform of the prosecutor general Service, and in contrast, he actually was actively undermining reform of the prosecutor general service and our assistance.

What if it is not merely not the case, but is also physically impossible that we could be brains in a vat? — Janus

They might be physically impossible, but if we are brains in a vat then we cannot trust our experience to show us what is physically possible, and so to use what we experience as evidence that brains in a vat are impossible is to beg the question and assume that we are not brains in a vat and so can trust what we experience.

Sure, but according to the metaphysical realist the truth is independent of any kind of falsification or verification, and so even if something like brains in a vat are impossible in principle to prove or disprove, it is nonetheless either true or false.

And that’s precisely why Putnam’s argument is an attempt at refuting metaphysical realism. If metaphysical realism is true then we might be brains in a vat, but we can’t be brains in a vat, and so therefore metaphysical realism is false.

since everything would then be an artificial construct — Janus

Yeah, we would experience fabricated evidence that either brains in a vat are possible or aren’t.

The point is that we can’t know whether or not what we see is real or the product of a scientist’s (or evil demon’s) manipulation. So to use what we see as evidence that brains in a vat are impossible is to beg the question and assume that we are not brains in a vat and so can trust what we see.

How does it show that you’re in 2 and not 4?

These are the logically possible scenarios:

1. We are not brains in a vat and the evidence suggests that brains in a vat are physically possible

2. We are not brains in a vat and the evidence suggests that brains in a vat are physically impossible

3. We are brains in a vat and the evidence suggests that brains in a vat are physically possible

4. We are brains in a vat and the evidence suggests that brains in a vat are physically impossible

If the evidence suggests that brains in a vat are physically possible then we are in either 1 or 3.

If the evidence suggests that brains in a vat are physically impossible then we are in either 2 or 4.

We can’t have empirical evidence that rules out 4.

If a physicist says it is physically impossible for something to travel faster than the speed of light, are they begging the question? — Richard B

No, because he’s not addressing the argument that we are brains in a vat.

However, as you put it, this does not refute the possibility that this experience of “scientists demonstrating the BIV cannot function” was not fabricated in some BIV. But why should we say logical possibility trumps physical impossibility? — Richard B

If we are brains in a vat then us being a brain in a vat isn't a physical impossibility, even if our fabricated world suggests otherwise.

To use the world we experience as empirical evidence that brains in a vat are physically impossible is to beg the question and assume that we are not brains in a vat.

This is where this type of metaphysical reasoning fails, it starts out trying to say something about the world in which we live in, but quickly degrades into phantasm where it logically excluded any verification, falsification, confirmation gathered by our experiences. — Richard B

At least according to metaphysical realists, something can be true even if it can neither be verified nor falsified. This is central to Putnam's argument. Metaphysical realism entails global skepticism ("we could be brains in a vat"), and so if he can prove that we cannot be brains in a vat then he can disprove metaphysical realism.

When I shake someone’s hand I believe I experience the situation with my entire body, since the entire thing is being used to perform the act. My trouble is with the biology of it. My question is: How can one take every experience of a handshake, from standing to grasping someone’s hand to leaning forward etc, and put all that as an experience in the brain? — NOS4A2

That seems to be what our study of human biology shows. Much like with the case of phantom limb syndrome, the human brain is able to make it seem as if the experience extends beyond its actual location.

The nerves in my fingers might send signals to the brain, but it is brain activity that produces the actual tactile percept. That same tactile percept can be produced artificially by direct stimulation of the somatosensory cortex without the need to stimulate touch receptors in the skin.

Stimulating the visual cortex with electrodes in the blind is a far cry from mimicking reality. — NOS4A2

Maybe it doesn't. Perhaps we are brains in a vat and actual reality is nothing like the world we experience. That's really the entire skeptical hypothesis.

I'm not following this. If you accept semantic externalism, the object language "I am a brain in a vat" does not and cannot speak to the meta language assertion that the speaker is a brain in a vat. — hypericin

Exactly.

I am a brain in a vat iff “I am a brain in a vat” is true (Tarski’s T-schema).

“I am a brain in a vat” is only true if such a sentence refers to a state of affairs that is “outside” the world I experience.

“I am a brain in a vat” doesn’t refer to a state of affairs that is “outside” the world I experience (semantic externalism).

Therefore “I am a brain in a vat” is false.

Therefore I am not a brain in a vat.

I think the fact that both Putnam and Descartes remove the senses and the rest of the body from their thought experiment is telling, as if experience could occur without blood and bones and lungs.

Other more fundamental perceptual and sensual cues would be absent, for instance the perception of up and down, the effects of gravity, wether one is standing or sitting, or the fact that he forever has to see his own nose in his periphery, not to mention that such a being could never be alive in the first place. — NOS4A2

I don't see a problem with it. I think experience happens in the brain, albeit usually as a response from stimulation by signals sent from the rest of the body. I think it's plausible that we can bypass our sense organs and artificially stimulate the appropriate areas of the brain to elicit the relevant experiences.

For example, see Dynamic Stimulation of Visual Cortex Produces Form Vision in Sighted and Blind Humans.

Or in the more complex case consider Boltzmann brains, which physicists seem to accept as physically possible.

Should this be, "If semantic externalism is true then we cannot claim to be brains in a vat"? — hypericin

Much like with Tarski's theory of truth, to make sense of this we need a meta language and an object language.

The meta language is the language of the scientist and the object language is the language of the brain. In the meta language the sentence "this is a brain in a vat" is true and in the object language the sentence "I am a brain in a vat" is false because the words "brain" and "vat" in the object language do not refer to what the words "brain" and "vat" refer to in the meta language.

No words in the object language can refer to what the words "brain" and "vat" refer to in the meta language (if semantic externalism is true).

Given this, it must be that the sentence "I am a brain in a vat" in my language is false, and so I am not a brain in a vat (this is simply Tarski's T-schema).

I suppose a simple modus tollens would be:

1. If it is possible that we are brains in a vat then a brain's language can refer to objects outside its simulation
2. A brain's language cannot refer to objects outside its simulation (as per semantic externalism)
3 .Therefore, it is not possible that we are brains in a vat

Personally, I reject 2.

I am curious, do you all believe that a "BiV" is possible? If so, why do you believe it is possible? Just because you can imagine it? — Richard B

I certainly think it’s logically possible, and so if semantic externalism entails that it isn’t logically possible then semantic externalism is false.

I think it may even be physically possible. It is in principle much like a Boltzmann brain, and physicists seem to accept that they are physically possible.

But of course if we are brains in a vat then it may be that “real” physics isn’t exactly like the fabricated physics that we are being programmed to experience, and so one cannot really use physics to disprove the physical possibility of brains in a vat without begging the question.

I was being overly simplistic. It’s not just vision that’s being fabricated but all the senses. You don’t really seem to be addressing the actual hypothesis.

There’s just no prima facie reason to suggest that experiences like ours cannot be elicited artificially. There’s nothing magic about the workings of the brain or the body as you seem to agree.

But wouldn't he be referring directly to the light and the patterns, even if he mistook them for a real tree? — NOS4A2

Sure, in that case he can refer to light and shapes and colours just as we can. But he can’t refer to trees and brains or truthfully claim that the things he sees are fabrications.

If the person is awake, they are aware that they are BiV. — NotAristotle

Not necessarily. You’ve been arguing that we might be brains in a vat despite the fact that we’re not aware that we are.

Even awake, the brain and/or body only experiences what the computer makes it experience. The brain and/or body is cut off from every other kind of external sensory stimulation.

It’s logically possible, and that’s enough for the hypothesis to have philosophical significance.

In that case, he would directly see the headset — NOS4A2

No need for a headset. Just shoot beams of light into the eyes in various shapes and patterns and colours that generate the image of a tree.

To be the same principle the body would in some way need to be silenced, or asleep, or unconscious, as in the movie Matrix. — NOS4A2

Sure. The point is that its experiences are elicited artificially by a computer directly manipulating the sense organs.

It never sees a tree or a brain or a vat and as such no words in its language can refer to these things.

I agree with you, but that's different than saying that if semantic externalism is true then we cannot be brains in a vat. — NotAristotle

It entails it. No sentence in the brain’s language can refer to the fact that it is a brain in a vat.