|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Trump Presidency | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Some might remember President Trump's recent pardon of Dinesh D'Souza for his 2014 conviction for making an illegal campaign contribution. D'Souza is a conservative commentator, writer and filmmaker. He has a new film titled Death of a Nation. Here's the trailer, just so people can get a clear idea of the kind of people Trump is friends with:
It's been in theaters since August 3rd. It's not in too many theaters, though. The closest to me is over an hour away. Sort of reminds me of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Tomorrow Michael Avenatti will be speaking at the Hillsborough County Democratic Summer Picnic in Greenfield, NH. I have a ticket and am thinking of going.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
NoNukes writes: re you referring to Zaid's remark in the headline or to his comments in the article? You didn't quote anything, so I can't tell what you're referring to.
I did not quote anything because you did not quote anything other than his conclusion. The idea that an NDA is only constitutional when applied to national security is ridiculous. You seem ticked off. Are you ticked off about something, or are you just perpetually ticked off. You certainly aren't very informative. Perhaps you could grace us with an explanation for why it's "ridiculous" or, as you said earlier "wishful thinking". Meanwhile, here's a few more quotes for you to ponder:
Should I have included you on the list, something like this:
--Percy Edited by Percy, : Typo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
I have just returned from the Hillsborough County Democratic Summer Picnic. Before Michael Avenatti spoke I shook his hand and spoke a few brief words to him. A national paper overheard me and asked me a couple brief questions. His speech was inspiring, which I video'd from about 15 feet away. I'll post it if I can figure out how to get it off my phone, up to the website, and embedded in a message.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
Here's the video I took of Michael Avenatti speaking at the Hillsborough County Democratic Summer Picnic:
Here's a YouTube video of the speech made by one of the local news outlets. They had a big camera and a tripod, but mine is better:
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
NoNukes writes: Maybe post it to YouTube and then link to it? I thought I might eventually end up having to upload to YouTube, but first I wanted to try embedding the video directly in a message. I started by uploading the video to the website, which was a circuitous route from my phone to my Mac laptop to my Windows development machine and from there uploading it to the website. The board software has a whitelist of HTML tags it allows in a message. Embedding a video directly requires the HTML5 <video> and <source> tags, and no HTML5 tags are permitted in a message because HTML5 didn't exist when I wrote that code some years ago. I added those two HTML5 tags to the whitelist and they now work in messages. If there are other "message safe" HTML5 tags that people would like they should just let me know. So now anyone wanting to embed a video directly in a message can use the HTML5 <video> and <source> tags. Just use Google to find online documentation for those tags. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
NoNukes writes: You seem ticked off. Are you ticked off about something, or are you just perpetually ticked off. You certainly aren't very informative. Perhaps you could grace us with an explanation for why it's "ridiculous"
I would think that most adults are aware that non disclosure agreements are very common and are routinely enforced in court in situations that do not involve national security. I've enforced them for my clients and I have signed them for clients who want extra assurance that I hold their trade secrets and inventions in confidence. You have things askew. Zaid's position is that NDA's in government are not enforceable except in matters of national security. I quoted 10 legal voices making roughly the same point. I didn't quote anyone saying anything like what you're objecting to. No one was arguing that NDA's in general aren't enforceable outside national security.
If all of that is news to you, then you are not going to be satisfied with my answer because I don't plan to expand on that. Why would I care whether you expand on your answer to a point no one made? There's still the open issue of how to classify a campaign. Is it part of government (the public sector) or not? You seemed to imply in your Message 2421 that it is part of the public sector, but most commentators seem to think that campaign NDA's are enforceable while government NDA's are not (except in matters of national security), implying that they don't believe campaigns are part of the public sector. But even private sector NDA's (particularly the Trump organization non-disparagement clause) have that pesky First Amendment to deal with. Can people really sign away their right to speak on certain topics in perpetuity? I don't know if there's a legal term for this, but aren't contracts too unfairly biased toward one of the parties routinely invalidated? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
NoNukes writes: You have things askew. Zaid's position is that NDA's in government are not enforceable except in matters of national security
1. Is that what the quote said? No. One of he many dangers of Trump is that his approach of just digging in and repeatedly and blatantly stating baldfaced falsehoods could become perceived as a legitimate debate device. It isn't. I quoted Zaid saying:
quote: So did my paraphrase correctly capture what Zaid said? Yes. Is your misinterpretation wrong? Yes.
2. Even after limiting the scope to the government, the quote is still nonsense and does not reflect the law. Voluble as ever. Do you think just declaring something so with no evidence or rationale makes it so? Maybe this is another thing you have in common with our president. Look, we get it, you have a legal background. Whoop-de-do. Your law degree doesn't absolve you from having to explain your positions on matters legal, especially when so many legal voices have expressed views opposite to yours. Ignoring all the quotes I presented in Message 2431 doesn't make them go away. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
NoNukes writes: Voluble as ever. Do you think just declaring something so with no evidence or rationale makes it so?
No. I am not making an argument. Yes, that's correct, you're not making an argument. You're just declaring something so based on the fallacy of argument from authority, in this case your own, as you state right here:
I am stating an opinion about something I know well because it is a part of the law that I practice. I did not have any intention of making an argument for my position. That's pretty much the epitome of the fallacy of argument from one's own authority. Or maybe it should be called the "Trust me I know what I'm talking about" fallacy.
I will say this, though. Will it be relevant to anything I quoted or to the Trump NDA's that are at issue?
Government officials discuss topics with private folks all of the time. Those discussions may involve policy, technology, and other things things that do not involve national security all of the time. The need for confidentiality does not require that national security is involved. For example, government officials review patent applications. They cannot reveal the contents of those applications to anyone even though the content may deal with a golf swing trainer made out of PVC piping. So a patent examiner must be bound by confidentiality even after he leaves government employment. Nope, no relevance. What you say is very interesting, but the discussion is about the Trump campaign and White House NDA's, not the patent office.
Similarly, a government official might want to reveal possibly policy details to a contractor to get an estimate. The contractor would reasonably expect to be bound by the same secrecy any other customer would require, and of course, that is exactly what does happen even if no national security secrets are involved. Still no relevance. Again, very interesting, but nothing to do with the Trump campaign and White House NDA's.
A moments thought ought to make the stupidity of the pundit's claim obvious,... What pundit? You mean Zaid? He's a lawyer expressing an opinion on the legal area in which he specializes, unlike you who have wandered way off your reservation. An expert commenting outside his area of expertise is just another layman. On this topic, and on many other legal topics, you should stop namedropping the fact that you're a lawyer. You mention the stupidity being obvious, but while I agree on the sentiment I disagree on the target.
...and for that reason, I am not going to bother with making an argument. Of course you're not going to make an argument. Better to remain silent and let it be thought that you're talking through your hat instead of attempting to explain yourself and removing all doubt.
You are welcome to dispute my statement. I will probably respond at that point. Dispute your statement? How? You haven't made any intelligent statement. You're "informed" legal opinion seems to be that Zaid's view and the view of the other nine legal voices I quoted was that they were "wishful thinking" and "ridiculous" and "stupid". What astute legal analysis led you to this conclusion? You won't say, so forgive anyone who decides to lend you no credence. Even if I desperately wanted to accept your position I still couldn't do so, for two obvious reasons:
You're commenting on things other lawyers have said. Don't you think you should accord them the same respect you no doubt believe you yourself are entitled to and critique their positions according to their legal merits or lack thereof? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
Trump has committed so many frauds on so many fronts that it is impossible to keep track, so based on several recent news articles here's a summary of some that are notable, with emphasis on the more recent:
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
NoNukes writes: That's pretty much the epitome of the fallacy of argument from one's own authority. No, it is not an argument from authority Percy. Yes, it's pretty much the epitome of the fallacy of argument from your own authority. Just listen to yourself in Message 2451:
NoNukes in Message 2451 writes: I am stating an opinion about something I know well because it is a part of the law that I practice. I did not have any intention of making an argument for my position. There you are baldly and unembarrassedly saying that you're stating an opinion for which you have no intention of advancing any supporting arguments. This is about NDA's and perpetual non-disparagement clauses, which definitely is not the part of the law that you practice, as is readily apparent. You're engaging in the "Trust me I know what I'm talking about" fallacy.
I am stating an opinion... You haven't really stated anything like an informed and useful opinion. It was more just denigration, stuff like "wishful thinking" and "ridiculous".
...and giving you the basis of my opinion. This you haven't done. You haven't even given an opinion on the topic of discussion. For example, tell us why the White House NDA non-disparagement in perpetuity clause is defensible against First Amendment concerns.
I am telling how I am in a position to know. If you were in a position to know then your area of specialty wouldn't be patent law but something more relevant, and you'd be clearly explaining things instead of covering over your lack of expertise with irrelevant verbiage. People who know stuff can't wait to explain what they know. People who don't know stuff but who want to be perceived as knowing stuff have to find other avenues and hope they find gullible enough people.
I am not using it to convince you. And obviously you're not convincing me, or probably anyone else. Who here is stupid enough to believe the "Trust me I know what I'm talking about" argument?
Are you rejecting my statement based on anything other than some dude you believe said the opposite? No, you are not. Since anyone can look at my Message 2431 and see that I cited ten legal voices contradicting your uninformed opinion, and since I've referred you to that message multiple times, and since that message is actually a reply to you, continuing to ignore it and to pretend it doesn't exist just shows you're involved in some kind of self-delusion.
Beyond that, I did cite a number of situations where government employees and contractors are subject to NDAs. Did any of them have anything to do with the Trump NDA's that are the topic of discussion? That's rhetorical.
Your claim that those things are irrelevant is inane. Your belief that they're relevant is just more self-delusion. You can only cite examples from areas of the law you're familiar with, namely patent law, and not with the area of the law actually being discussed.
Here is another example. If the government agency, say the post office, hires a patent attorney,... Oh, geez, patent law again. Is this in any way relevant to the Trump NDA's?
...something they do all of the time, would you expect that the NDA that attorney signs is unenforceable? Does this NDA have a non-disparagement in perpetuity clause? Is it an NDA signed by people working on a campaign or in the White House? No, I thought not. Your examples are fine but have no relevance to the topic. The way to convince people of your position (once you've expressed one that is relevant) is to provide them enough information to argue the position themselves. I don't know about you (well, on second thought, I guess we do know about you), but I would never be stupid enough to walk into a discussion about First Amendment versus national security issues and start citing concerns about keeping patents secret.
Let's stipulate that there are no national security issues and that we are talking about an invention related to sorting mail more quickly. How about let's stipulate that there are no national security issues and that we are talking about Alice falling down a rabbit hole. It would be as relevant.
In short, I have provided at least some support for my conclusion. Patent law has its own courts. I think your patent secrecy examples would be laughed out of court, such as one that might hear a case concerning these White House NDA's, like the DC Circuit Court. And concerning your conclusion, what conclusion? A conclusion implies some process of relevant deduction or induction or at least some kind of analysis, and you've provided none.
Do you have any support, whatsoever for the opposite idea? You haven't addressed the actual topic yet, so how could there be an on-topic opposite idea? I cited ten legal voices in Message 2431 that contradict your characterization of such positions as "wishful thinking" and "ridiculous". I wasn't trying to argue the point myself, just make clear that the fact that these NDA's are not enforceable isn't just one lawyer's uninformed opinion but is in fact widely shared. Go ahead, rebut 'em, give it a try. Stop trying to bluster your way through this. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
There are enough eulogistic editorials about John McCain's passing that citing one here is unnecessary, but it is fitting on this day to call attention to an editorial by a Republican who, perhaps inspired by McCain though he doesn't mention him, reveres the same issues of honesty and integrity as McCain. The New York Times has today published an editorial by Republican columnist Peter Wehner who served in the Reagan administration and in both Bush administrations. It's about how Trump has caused a turnabout in Republican values. I'm going to excerpt a lot of it:
quote: Before our nation can begin to heal from the deep wounds inflicted by Trump and reunite in seeing honor and value in committing to truth, to integrity, and to investing all human beings with worth, many more Republicans must also see the light. In his speech at the Hillsborough Country Democratic Picnic Michael Avenatti spoke of the importance of welcoming back into the fold *some* of those Republicans who supported Trump. I put the emphasis on *some* because it was one of the few things Avenatti said that I disagree with. We must welcome all Republicans back into the fold, back into the nation of humanity, whether they remain Republicans or not. By Republicans I mean true Republicans, not the Trump faux Republicans who hate anyone different, who value party above country, and who have descended into a cult of personality. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
NoNukes writes: You haven't really stated anything like an informed and useful opinion. It was more just denigration, stuff like "wishful thinking" and "ridiculous".
This is just an unsupported insult. No, it isn't. Unlike you I'm willing to support anything I say. I don't say things like, "Just trust me." Plus anyone can read the thread and see that you've been denigrating opinions you haven't informed yourself about while explaining nothing relevant to the Trump NDA's. If it feels insulting to you to have this called to your attention then don't do it. I can't carry on both sides of the discussion. You have to hold up your end, and so far you're not doing it. You're just telling us you know what you're talking about and we should just take you're word for it ("oh and by this way here's some examples from patent law"), despite that you're not giving us any reason to. Here's where you called Zaid's position "wishful thinking" in your Message 2421:
NoNukes in Message 2421 writes: Percy writes:
... My hope would be that the practice would be unheard of in the public sector. There's been a lot written in the press recently expressing doubt about their enforceability, e.g., Mark Zaid: 'Any NDA that extends beyond classified information would be unconstitutional.'As for the idea that an NDA extends beyond classified information being unconstitutional, that's simply bad legal advice. Perhaps there was some context to Zaid's remarks that makes then something other than wishful thinking. But all you read was the text to the link. Your excuse for just commenting on the link text? Here it is from your Message 2429:
NoNukes in Message 2429 writes: I did not quote anything because you did not quote anything other than his conclusion. Of course I didn't quote anything. I said (in Message 2421) that there's been a lot written in the press recently expressing doubt about the enforceability of the Trump NDA's, and I provided a link to an example of such an article. What in the world possessed you to express an opinion based only on a headline? You still haven't read the article, right? You'd rather engage in this stonewalling defense of your brilliance while feigning insult instead of discussing what lawyers with relevant experience have actually said about the Trump NDA's. Anyway, you called it "ridiculous" in Message 2429:
NoNukes in Message 2429 writes: The idea that an NDA is only constitutional when applied to national security is ridiculous. So in my Message 2431 I provided a list of ten legal voices basically saying the same thing as Zaid, and though I keep calling your attention to that message you keep ignoring it. Why is that? By the way, I'm not trying to send you off on reading assignments. You have every right to request that I quote the relevant portions of articles that I've cited to support what I say, but you never did, you just commented on the headline. So in case it helps move the discussion forward, here are the parts quoting Zaid from the article, which is most of it:
quote: Back to your current message:
My opinion is informed by my legal experience,... Opinions like "wishful thinking" and "ridiculous" aren't worth much if you can't explain why.
...regardless of the fact that you personally hold that in low regard. Don't put opinions in my mouth. Credibility is earned, not demanded. You're commenting on an area outside your expertise. Provide a well argued rationale for your opinion and I'll see what I think. Provide nothing and I'll tell you that you've provided nothing.
And my informed opinion is that the idea that NDAs are unconstitutional for government employees with the exception of national security is both contrary to established law, and leads to ridiculous results. You're not getting the context right. The context is not government employees in general. It is not the patent office. It is not the post office. The context is the Trump campaign and White House NDA's that contained a perpetual non-disparagement clause (among other things, but that was the outrageous clause in my opinion). Now, finally, keeping that context in mind, read through the list of ten legal voices in my Message 2431 and comment on them. I'm not asking you to follow the links because in most cases I provide a summary of what they say or a quote. We can get into more detail and follow the links later.
I have provided some examples which you don't find convincing. And I told you why they weren't convincing (they were about patent law, not the Trump NDA's), but instead of addressing that you've just ignored it and repeated yourself.
This is not personal, Percy. So why make it personal. Of course this isn't personal. I'm just describing what you're doing and you're taking it personally. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
i'd like to focus on the very recent words of a senator of integrity. I almost called this post "A Republican of Integrity", but that would have been wrong. Trump sycophants are not true Republicans (and should probably be considered unAmerican for the way they allow American institutions and ideals to be effaced and impugned), so when you refer to someone as a Republican are you calling them a genuine Republican or a just another liar for Trump. To call this senator a Republican would have invited confusion.
On Monday night Trump tweeted about the indictment of one Republican congressmen (Representative Duncan Hunter (R-CA) for improper use of campaign funds) and the arrest of another (Representative Chris Collins (R-NY) for insider trading):
quote: Senator Ben Sasse (R-NE), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, responded with this statement:
quote: Would that more senators and congressmen would stand up to Trump in this way, speaking truth to lies. By the way, of course Trump's tweet contains inaccuracies - what Trump tweet would be complete without them? Trump says both investigations began under the Obama administration, but the Collins improprieties were committed under Trump, and so of course the investigation also began under Trump. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
The biggest troubling development, and also the biggest surprise, has been how quickly Republicans in the House and Senate became complicit in the Trump takeover of government. Many either remained silently complicit while Trump attacked and coerced American institutions and eroded America's ideals and image abroard, others actively supported his actions and agenda. Those Republicans who have overtly stood against Trump deserve a Wall of Honor:
There are no representatives on that list, perhaps because it's harder to stand out in the much larger house, perhaps because of my own ignorance, but more likely because House Republicans have larger covered themselves in obeisant slime for Trump, beginning with Speaker Paul Ryan at the top. Here's what Democrats might look into were they to take control of the House:
When Trump fires Sessions that can be added to the list. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024