Trump's Beatdown in the 11th Circuit (Cannon Rebuked)
From Legal Eagle.
My comment:
Trump's entire interest is in having communications with Rudy and Mulvaney regarding Ukraine, and any subsequent actions from that commumication, be considered privilege and thus shielded from SDNY/EDNY investigation of such actions involving Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman. This is the only intelligible privilege claim and everyone knows it but no one is willing to say so on the record.
The question is whether Trump's foreign policy can be criminalized. Whether he took consideration and the Hamdi decision answer that question. Dearie ruling on whether these documents are privileged is the heart of the matter.
Judge Cannon continues catering to Trump, shoots down Judge Dearie's req...
From Glenn Kirchner of Justice Matters.
My comment:
It was petty of Dearie to hold Trump's counsel for his off the cuff bloviations. He should ignore Trump, who is likely not competent to assist in his own defense. Judge Cannon was correct in telling the Special Master to stop grandstanding.
The teleological proof of God goes back to St. Thomas Aquinas in the 12th Century. Proofs for and against occur in language in either case.
Not only did we invent our vision of God (who exists or not regardless of our opinion), we also invented evil and cruelty and sin.
Arguments for and against the existence of God between apologists and atheists are inside baseball. It is more productive to argue about the Memes of God in theodicy - in other words, the history of how a god is understood through time.
For most who believe, it is because of personal experience of spirituality, not due to proof. For others, it is about group dynamics (as is atheism). Instead, assume God and then, like earlier philosophers, work out what a god should or must be. Focus on whether that god needs worship to exist or is satisfied in itself (theirself). If it is (and it must be), then they must be perfectly humble, which is also perfectly loving. This rules out being perfectly just - because justification implies making reasons and excuses. Any true god does not need to make excuses to love.
This argument is useful, because it can hold theists to account for what and how they believe in their idea of God, rather than believing at all. The end result is a humanistic ethics, whether it be secular or theists - the product would be the same.
Belief in God is chosen, not reasoned, speaking in existential terms. Many believers have existential "bad faith" meaning their faith is what they are told. Neuroscience has found a "faith center" which has as much to do with our sensitivity to others as a God. This cuts both ways - either it proves that belief evolved as a response to social cues or it could be an actual way to link to the divine. Either way, it is evolutionary. Neuroscience shows that those who are atheists don't have that particular nerve bundle.
Neuroscience showed that any soul consciousness occurs after the brain has acted - so DesCartes was wrong about the ghost in the machine. Indeed, the soul we can find is entirely materialistic - an amalgam of electrical and chemical processes that start with gastrulation and end in death. The organization that fends off entropy.
What happens after death cannot be known. Near death experiencers may be having neurological breakdown or may be seeing an afterlife. None have seen the note on top of a file cabinet in the operating room with a message to show they have been out of the body. The counter point is that, when someone has an NDE, their focus is directed elsewhere. At least one NDE (and for this purpose, it only takes one) has returned knowing someone else has died in a way that they could not have without having such an experience.
Either way it is a choice to believe or not, it is driven by social cues (and seculars can be as tribal as theists) and it matters not one bit as to the actual existence of the supernatural. What does matter is how we can lead theists to humanism by focusing on the necessary fact of divine humility. A god who depends on creatures in any way cannot be God. Worship is not needed for God's sake. Legend is that Lucifer thought their worship was essential and all that was needed for salvation (his worship was his song). He could not accept a human savior, thus becoming Satan. The legend of St. Michael was that he made the taunt - and who is like to God? (You, really?). If there are angels, their songs, like are worship, are art on God's theoretical refrigerator when compared to God's experience of theirself.
YHWH, or He Who Is, can be equated with Being itself - or if you prefer - the Universe. The Son is called the Word - but it can also be considered the Mathematics used to model the world, aka physics. Spirit, again, is love - which is entirely complex and complicated and exists for every person as they are. All very complex and all describable without that God being conscious. These concepts can exist in natural reality or ultimate reality and still be the same.
You cannot lie to Congress, even if not sworn in an open hearing. Ginni's Gitmo tweet comes under the heading of look at the interesting stuff I found (LOL). Doh!
In 2025, Trump will be rotting in House arrest or his golf course. Further, the fascists won't have incumbency. January 6th cannot happen again in that year.
Because God says so is an awful way to describe evil - but you nailed how sloppy theological reasoning can be. The only honest position is that we made God up from fleeting experience with spirituality.
The question is not whether God exists. We cannot know that. It is what kind of God do we want to make up, since people are going to make one up anyway, at least for conversation. Ultimate conversion is a personal, non-falsifiable thing (as mentioned).
When building a God, if it were to exist, it must be perfectly humble rather than perfectly just. Then, instead of simply arguing that God does not exist and relying on a humanistic morality, assume that God could have no need of man to be God, so that any God-given morality must be humanistic.
Then, instead of arguing whether God exists, we can argue how God should exist. This is useful in pointing out not the illogic of theology, but the actual abuses in practice of it. Doing that, we can design a win-win where theists cannot hide behind the pat you on the head OP theology that you correctly cite.
Like creating the idea of God, we created the idea of evil. If we take responsibility for doing so, we can take an adult perspective on the question. We also created good and sin. When a papa crocodile eats is kids, is it evil or do we make up that it is. The same is true of eating meat or having abortions. The question is whether something works. Anything else is hubris.
Watch "Why humans believe “everything happens for a reason” | Clay Routledge" on YouTube https://youtu.be/Kj6LvWYiBJA
Secularists can be as tribal as clergy. For purposes of ethics and sociology, the better question of whether there is a god but whether that God is just or humble. Secularists should join the debate on this. If we all agree on divine humility, both our group dynamics and our ethics grow out of our adolescence.
Bill Barr conned both Trump and the media on SDNY appointment
Watch "Bill Barr's abject corruption; 40 subpoenas & 2 seized cell phones; & Trump's special master pick" on YouTube https://youtu.be/Ih33jRbtIT0
Anything having to do with Trump's Ukraine papers needs Special Master review and a finding on executive and attorney client privilege. Once Trump loses this fight, expect a deal before Rudy can make one.
Best thing about 40 subpoenas is that they include congressional staff. This is more important than getting Trump.
If Barr were corrupt rather than being a distraction for Trump, all information unearthed in Mueller and SDNY investigations would have been sealed or destroyed. Think it through.
Barr was either incompetent or crazy like a fox. He made sure that the person Trump wanted was not approved and the career prosecutor left in charge. Corrupt? He made Trump think he was loyal while guarding integrity of SDNY.
Special Master can moot the question by reviewing 100 classified documents by noon on Friday. Trump does not want possession. He wants a get out of jail free card on Ukraine. Question is whether his appeals filing will mention that. On one side, such mention says "investigate me!" rather than expecting SM to exclude such things as deliberative privilege or policy. Like the rule on not indicting a sitting president, this is DOJ legal theory, not settled law.
On Ukraine, the controlling case law is Hamdi. Because Congress almost unanimously supported sanctions against Russia and aid to Ukraine, Trump cannot have a foreign policy that violates that policy so such discussions are not covered. Executive Privilege allows advisors to be candid. The privilege is as much the it's as the President's. When the President is acting illegally, advising him or her to do so cannot be protected. When the President has a freer hand, there is an argument for protection that needs to be litigated - although that does not apply in this instance.
The reason for a special master is to examine the facts and make an initial finding that can allow the law to be ruled on. This cannot wait for a jury.
The judge is not ruling corruptly. The DOJ position is not entirely tested. It may not be testable hear because of Hamdi. Also, Rudy was Trump's handler, not his attorney. He was also not a sworn member of the executive branch. There is no protection for Russian spies. Special Master review is needed to consider these 2 questions.
DOJ arguments should also mention Ukraine, but they don't want to tip their hand either. If both sides laid all of their cards on the table, Trump would be forced to make a deal and negotiate penalties. Unless the Government seeks capital punishment, using Walter Reed Bethesda as Arkham Asylum is where this is headed - or Bedminster with DoD psych doctors providing care to a house arrested Trump. No Warden wants him. Too disruptive.
Does any of this make sense to you? Are any of my positions or facts likely incorrect? Open your minds.
Conventions are unlikely because those who would call for the convention rub elbows with those who can otherwise introduce amendments. Also, there are no clear rules to call a convention. Do petitions run out with each Congress? Must they all be on the same issue? No one knows because the rules are deliberately vague.
The closest things we have had were the post-Civil War Radical Republicans, the Progressive Movement and the Civil Rights coalition under LBJ. These days had their Hamiltons and Madisons.
Constitutional issues are mostly about government structures, like the Electoral College or creating regional government to overcome the ungovernability of a continental nation.
The problem of Catholic bishops having sour grapes on Obamacare and marriage equality need to be dealt with internally, as they are sure to be as more pastoral bishops appointed by Francis displace St. John Paul's reactionary cadre (whose constitution was Veritatis Splendour).
Until a just God is replaced with an absolutely humble one, the Church and world will continue in its adolescence.
Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on this site. Google's use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to your users based on their visit to your sites and other sites on the Internet.
We use third-party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our website. These companies may use information (not including your name, address, email address, or telephone number) about your visits to this and other websites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you.
