For those of you who haven't seen it, I would recommend watching Adam Schiff's opening remarks on Wednesday. He lays out the founding father's arguments about why we needed impeachment as an option. The words of Alexander Hamilton are a frightening portent of the future that is our present:
When a man unprincipled in private life desperate in his fortune, bold in his temper, possessed of considerable talents, having the advantage of military habits—despotic in his ordinary demeanor—known to have scoffed in private at the principles of liberty—when such a man is seen to mount the hobby horse of popularity—to join in the cry of danger to liberty—to take every opportunity of embarrassing the General Government & bringing it under suspicion—to flatter and fall in with all the non sense of the zealots of the day—It may justly be suspected that his object is to throw things into confusion that he may ‘ride the storm and direct the whirlwind.
Hamilton's words transverse centuries as if they were spoken yesterday. Today is history, and Hamilton and Schiff are speaking not only to the 100 Senators in the room, but to Americans not yet living. His speech did not make me proud to be a Democrat. It made me proud to be an American.
At this point in time, I honestly don't know if soaring oratory, dramatic witness testimony or dry resitation of facts could reach the hearts and minds of those insulated from such things. But there are words and actions that will reverberate far beyond today.
"The great problem of any civilization is how to rejuvenate itself without rebarbarization." - Will Durant "We've kept more promises than we've even made" - Donald Trump "Of what meaning is the world without mind? The question cannot exist." - Edwin Land
Seek freedom and become captive of your desires...seek discipline and find your liberty I can tell if a person is judgmental just by looking at them what is chaos to the fly is normal to the spider - morticia addams If you're not upsetting idiots, you might be an idiot. - Ted Nugent
Trump is bribing Republicans again, offering to give them what they desire most:
WASHINGTON — President Trump suggested on Wednesday that he would be willing to consider cuts to social safety-net programs like Medicare to reduce the federal deficit if he wins a second term, an apparent shift from his 2016 campaign promise to protect funding for such entitlements.
The president has already proposed cuts for some safety-net programs. His last budget proposal called for a total of $1.9 trillion in cost savings from mandatory safety-net programs, like Medicaid and Medicare. It also called for spending $26 billion less on Social Security programs, the federal retirement program, including a $10 billion cut to the Social Security Disability Insurance program, which provides benefits to disabled workers.
It's like waving a bag of heroin in front of an addict.
MeDotOrg wrote:For those of you who haven't seen it, I would recommend watching Adam Schiff's opening remarks on Wednesday. He lays out the founding father's arguments about why we needed impeachment as an option. The words of Alexander Hamilton are a frightening portent of the future that is our present:
When a man unprincipled in private life desperate in his fortune, bold in his temper, possessed of considerable talents, having the advantage of military habits—despotic in his ordinary demeanor—known to have scoffed in private at the principles of liberty—when such a man is seen to mount the hobby horse of popularity—to join in the cry of danger to liberty—to take every opportunity of embarrassing the General Government & bringing it under suspicion—to flatter and fall in with all the non sense of the zealots of the day—It may justly be suspected that his object is to throw things into confusion that he may ‘ride the storm and direct the whirlwind.
Hamilton's words transverse centuries as if they were spoken yesterday. Today is history, and Hamilton and Schiff are speaking not only to the 100 Senators in the room, but to Americans not yet living. His speech did not make me proud to be a Democrat. It made me proud to be an American.
At this point in time, I honestly don't know if soaring oratory, dramatic witness testimony or dry resitation of facts could reach the hearts and minds of those insulated from such things. But there are words and actions that will reverberate far beyond today.
Very well said! I wholeheartedly share those sentiments with you!
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison
One of the not so obvious and often unsaid things about American trials. They aren't about the truth. I know, Atticus Finch and all that romantic stuff. Most Americans have a difficult time with that fact, as they should. The proper attitude to have towards trials I believe should be the truth. But, in our country it is about burden, theatre and persuasion, procedure and rules, money for resources and unfortunately, almost all of the serious brain biases and prejudices we humans are so adept at displaying. Most cases are complex and require a keen eye towards evidence in several forms. But people want simple and presentations that are quick and get to the core. Even in the grand scale of the United States Senate they are human, just all too human. And obviously political.
I actually don't have the answers to this grave difficulty. Other than we have to accept a lot more pragmatism over definitive statements of TRUTH. After practicing defense work for nearly 18 years I saw innocent people convicted and guilty people go free. And neither of those as just outliers, both are quite common.
I think most young trial lawyers learn this brutal lesson in a difficult way. You can even see the trial techniques taught in law schools across the country on display in the Senate trial. Making distinct points, 1).. 2)... etc. and attempting to articulate the facts in a straight and definitive fashion. I was hit in the miss in the Court room for several years. I couldn't understand sometimes why I lost. Couldn't really analyze what I was really doing right and really doing wrong because I was following the techniques taught to me. I then attended Jerry Spence's trial lawyer's college. Nothing about the law was discussed or learned. Nothing about procedure was emphasized. Nothing about real evidence as we think about that in philosophical discussions or logic etc.. such as the many discussions on Mormon apologetics on this board. Just the humans in that jury box and what they respond to. Often the techniques taught remove a lawyers sincerity and genuineness in how they present. I don;t know if this something to share or if it puts me in too much of a poor light. My success after that trial college went through the roof. Picking jurors was a huge part of this increased success. I analogize that to these political proceedings. There just isn't enough in a Senate trial to move the human mind past their preconceived ideas. Drama persuades.
The one thing I am surprised by is the Nadler retributions towards the Senate. That was a bit of drama but the wrong kind. That kind of patronizing and insulting language never persuades the audience your trying to persuade. I understand he was talking to the American people as his audience and not necessarily the Senate, but people generally don't like that condescending crap. And they love it when he gets told off for it. I thought Schiff's demeanor was much better and he performed eloquently. Just too much to present. Gives too much room for general criticism that the human mind clings to, like, "why the hell are you arguing for docs and witnesses when what your showing is so damn persuasive and already proved." It's those places even Senator's hold onto whether or not Schiff is right or not. The American people, just emboldens those who already agree with him and pisses off those who don't.
It is what is. Not as riveting as Clinton was.
mikwut
All communication relies, to a noticeable extent on evoking knowledge that we cannot tell, all our knowledge of mental processes, like feelings or conscious intellectual activities, is based on a knowledge which we cannot tell. -Michael Polanyi
"Why are you afraid, have you still no faith?" Mark 4:40
mikwut wrote:One of the not so obvious and often unsaid things about American trials. They aren't about the truth. I know, Atticus Finch and all that romantic stuff.
?!
Did you read To Kill a Mockingbird? The truth doesn't win in that story, Mikwut.
I'm just talking about his character E, c'mon. Have a conversation.
mikwut
All communication relies, to a noticeable extent on evoking knowledge that we cannot tell, all our knowledge of mental processes, like feelings or conscious intellectual activities, is based on a knowledge which we cannot tell. -Michael Polanyi
"Why are you afraid, have you still no faith?" Mark 4:40
mikwut wrote:One of the not so obvious and often unsaid things about American trials. They aren't about the truth. I know, Atticus Finch and all that romantic stuff. Most Americans have a difficult time with that fact, as they should. The proper attitude to have towards trials I believe should be the truth. But, in our country it is about burden, theatre and persuasion, procedure and rules, money for resources and unfortunately, almost all of the serious brain biases and prejudices we humans are so adept at displaying. Most cases are complex and require a keen eye towards evidence in several forms. But people want simple and presentations that are quick and get to the core. Even in the grand scale of the United States Senate they are human, just all too human. And obviously political.
I actually don't have the answers to this grave difficulty. Other than we have to accept a lot more pragmatism over definitive statements of TRUTH. After practicing defense work for nearly 18 years I saw innocent people convicted and guilty people go free. And neither of those as just outliers, both are quite common.
I think most young trial lawyers learn this brutal lesson in a difficult way. You can even see the trial techniques taught in law schools across the country on display in the Senate trial. Making distinct points, 1).. 2)... etc. and attempting to articulate the facts in a straight and definitive fashion. I was hit in the miss in the Court room for several years. I couldn't understand sometimes why I lost. Couldn't really analyze what I was really doing right and really doing wrong because I was following the techniques taught to me. I then attended Jerry Spence's trial lawyer's college. Nothing about the law was discussed or learned. Nothing about procedure was emphasized. Nothing about real evidence as we think about that in philosophical discussions or logic etc.. such as the many discussions on Mormon apologetics on this board. Just the humans in that jury box and what they respond to. Often the techniques taught remove a lawyers sincerity and genuineness in how they present. I don;t know if this something to share or if it puts me in too much of a poor light. My success after that trial college went through the roof. Picking jurors was a huge part of this increased success. I analogize that to these political proceedings. There just isn't enough in a Senate trial to move the human mind past their preconceived ideas. Drama persuades.
The one thing I am surprised by is the Nadler retributions towards the Senate. That was a bit of drama but the wrong kind. That kind of patronizing and insulting language never persuades the audience your trying to persuade. I understand he was talking to the American people as his audience and not necessarily the Senate, but people generally don't like that condescending crap. And they love it when he gets told off for it. I thought Schiff's demeanor was much better and he performed eloquently. Just too much to present. Gives too much room for general criticism that the human mind clings to, like, "why the hell are you arguing for docs and witnesses when what your showing is so damn persuasive and already proved." It's those places even Senator's hold onto whether or not Schiff is right or not. The American people, just emboldens those who already agree with him and pisses off those who don't.
It is what is. Not as riveting as Clinton was.
mikwut
So what you seem to be arguing is that in the American legal system (or, by implication, any other legal system) the questions of what is true or false, fair or unfair, even just or unjust is almost totally irrelevant. The only thing that really matters is which side controls the most wealth, power or influence. We should give up even the pretense of striving for truth, fairness or justice?
No precept or claim is more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
“If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; but if you really make them think, they'll hate you.”
― Harlan Ellison