• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Trump runs for POTUS / Trumped Up! Part V

Status
Not open for further replies.
BobTheCoward said:
Because there are three different arguments here and I have various levels of concern.

First, is Trump's use of the word thug which I strongly object to and have no intention of defending.

Second is the use of thug by prosecutors which my initial response was I bet I could find it. I am only mildly interested in that.

The third one I actually care about. This one Minoosh's concern about a presumption of innocence. I strongly believe the president doesn't need to exercise a presumption of innocence greater than the officers and attorneys below.
Click to expand...

Also, if a cop or lawyer calls someone guilty and thar influences, you are an idiot. That isn't some bigger point or defense of anything. I just want to be on the record on that.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I think the best example I have, both as an interesting case and the extreme of what cops can say, is the Boston Marathon bombing.

http://www.salon.com/2013/04/20/boston_police_we_got_him/

Consider what the police said here. Is it okay for the cops to say this? If yes, Is it okay for the president to say this (assuming it was the FBI)?
Click to expand...

Okay, let's talk about what the cops said.

“CAPTURED!!! The hunt is over. The search is done. The terror is over. And justice has won. Suspect in custody.”​

This was directly after a day's search for Tsarnaev, after a police gunbattle. The hunt was over, the search was done.

Is "The terror is over" presumptuous? Not so much, if it refers to the gunbattle and fear that Tsarnaev's flight caused. "Justice has won?" A little ambiguous, but appears to be presumptuous.

But look at that very last line. "Suspect in custody." Not the bomber, but a suspect.

In fact, there's lots of ambiguity in the message, and it's not obvious that the cops really asserted that Tsarnaev was guilty of the bombing (the reference to "terror" is certainly suggestive).

I don't find this all that comparable to what Trump said.

"Today, we have caught this evil thug who planted the bombs."

And then he talks about what a shame that doctors will tend to him, he will be fed in his hospital room, and he will have a lawyer.

ETA: From the same article, note the official statement from then commissioner:
“We believe this man to be a terrorist,” said Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis. “We believe this to be a man who’s come here to kill people.”​
Very reasonable.
 
Last edited:
phiwum said:
Okay, let's talk about what the cops said.

“CAPTURED!!! The hunt is over. The search is done. The terror is over. And justice has won. Suspect in custody.”​

This was directly after a day's search for Tsarnaev, after a police gunbattle. The hunt was over, the search was done.

Is "The terror is over" presumptuous? Not so much, if it refers to the gunbattle and fear that Tsarnaev's flight caused. "Justice has won?" A little ambiguous, but appears to be presumptuous.

But look at that very last line. "Suspect in custody." Not the bomber, but a suspect.

In fact, there's lots of ambiguity in the message, and it's not obvious that the cops really asserted that Tsarnaev was guilty of the bombing (the reference to "terror" is certainly suggestive).

I don't find this all that comparable to what Trump said.

"Today, we have caught this evil thug who planted the bombs."

And then he talks about what a shame that doctors will tend to him, he will be fed in his hospital room, and he will have a lawyer.

ETA: From the same article, note the official statement from then commissioner:
“We believe this man to be a terrorist,” said Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis. “We believe this to be a man who’s come here to kill people.”​
Very reasonable.
Click to expand...

As I said, this doesn't have anything to do with what Trump said.

"We believe this man to be a terrorist". Should the president be allowed to say that?
 
Trump claiming some kind of predictive victory over the bombings is deplorable, opportunistic behavior. However, it isn't much of an issue to me in itself. It just adds to the sum of evidence that Trump is a disgusting individual who will dance on graves and inspire hatred just to win the hearts of bigots and xenophobes.
 
BobTheCoward said:
As I said, this doesn't have anything to do with what Trump said.

"We believe this man to be a terrorist". Should the president be allowed to say that?
Click to expand...

Yes, I see nothing wrong with that.

When speaking about suspects, I would be concerned if the police said, "This is the man who set the bombs," unless context made clear that this is their best theory.

The president, who is not at all involved in actual investigations, should be even more circumspect. See this example:

The investigation is moving rapidly, and as is my practice, I’m going to leave it to the FBI and law enforcement to provide details. I think everybody is aware at this point that there is a person of interest who is the focus of the investigation. And the FBI can give you further details in terms of how that is proceeding.​

Obviously, that was before the arrest, but that is a good example of how a president (or a candidate) ought to speak about ongoing investigations.
 
phiwum said:
Yes, I see nothing wrong with that.

When speaking about suspects, I would be concerned if the police said, "This is the man who set the bombs," unless context made clear that this is their best theory.

The president, who is not at all involved in actual investigations, should be even more circumspect. See this example:

The investigation is moving rapidly, and as is my practice, I’m going to leave it to the FBI and law enforcement to provide details. I think everybody is aware at this point that there is a person of interest who is the focus of the investigation. And the FBI can give you further details in terms of how that is proceeding.​

Obviously, that was before the arrest, but that is a good example of how a president (or a candidate) ought to speak about ongoing investigations.
Click to expand...

Why should the president be more circumspect than subordinates? All executive authority is vested in them. The police are speaking for the office (if FBI).
 
BobTheCoward said:
The third one I actually care about. This one Minoosh's concern about a presumption of innocence. I strongly believe the president doesn't need to exercise a presumption of innocence greater than the officers and attorneys below.
Click to expand...
But it's not really about presuming innocence. Obviously POTUS doesn't need to presume innocence; s/he can presume whatever the hell s/he wants. The problem is that a president can exert influence by her or his choice of words, as can (obviously) a presidential candidate.

Just for the sake of a hypothetical, let's say that a president goes on TV to declare that s/he believes <X> is absolutely guilty of the high-profile crime, <Y>. How can <X> now get a fair trial after said president has used the office's free and easy access to the media to tell the whole country what s/he thinks? Even the people who think that everything this hypothetical president says is a lie will end up influenced. Such a president's lawyer would tell that president what a foolish thing it was to say and warn that it's possible any case being developed will be dead on arrival. Such a president would be a *********** fool and any presidential candidate who does the same wouldn't be acting presidential.
 
Last edited:
Babbylonian said:
But it's not really about presuming innocence. Obviously POTUS doesn't need to presume innocence; s/he can presume whatever the hell s/he wants. The problem is that a president can exert influence by her or his choice of words, as can (obviously) a presidential candidate.

Just for the sake of a hypothetical, let's say that a president goes on TV to declare that he believes <X> is absolutely guilty of the high-profile crime, <Y>. How can <X> now get a fair trial after said president has used the office's free and easy access to the media to tell the whole country what s/he thinks? Even the people who think that everything this hypothetical president says is a lie will end up influenced. Such a president's lawyer would tell that president what a foolish thing was to say and warn that it's possible any case being developed will be dead on arrival. Such a president would be a *********** fool and any presidential candidate who does the same wouldn't be acting presidential.
Click to expand...

We agree. That isn't what I'm arguing. If it is wrong for an FBI agent or attorney to say it, It is wrong for the president. I am saying if the hypothetical is something okay for them to say, it is okay for the president to say it.
 
BobTheCoward said:
We agree. That isn't what I'm arguing. If it is wrong for an FBI agent or attorney to say it, It is wrong for the president. I am saying if the hypothetical is something okay for them to say, it is okay for the president to say it.
Click to expand...
Yeah, if an FBI agent or attorney goes out in public and declares someone guilty before trial, it's wrong. It's why they refer to people as suspects and often talk about an ongoing investigation. Sometimes, they'll foolishly talk about the evidence they've found. What they're not supposed to do, and what they generally do not do, is talk about the conclusions they've drawn. They don't tend to call suspects "evil" or "thugs." And even if you managed to find a hundred instances of lawyers and cops doing so, it wouldn't mean that they were right to do so and I'd bet money that their ill-considered remarks usually saw them called on the carpet.

You do get that something doesn't have to be illegal to be wrong, right?
 
Babbylonian said:
Yeah, if an FBI agent or attorney goes out in public and declares someone guilty before trial, it's wrong. It's why they refer to people as suspects and often talk about an ongoing investigation. Sometimes, they'll foolishly talk about the evidence they've found. What they're not supposed to do, and what they generally do not do, is talk about the conclusions they've drawn. They don't tend to call suspects "evil" or "thugs." And even if you managed to find a hundred instances of lawyers and cops doing so, it wouldn't mean that they were right to do so and I'd bet money that their ill-considered remarks usually saw them called on the carpet.

You do get that something doesn't have to be illegal to be wrong, right?
Click to expand...

I still am not making myself clear.i don't care how we construct the hypothetical. I am not asking about a situation where it is wrong for the cop and wrong for the president. I also don't have any questions about situations where it is right for the cop and right for the president. Right for the president and wrong for the cop is outside the scope. I am asking if you think there are any situations where it is right for the cop to make a public comment but wrong for the president to make the same public comment.
 
BobTheCoward said:
The potus is executive and not the judicial branch.
Click to expand...

We may have different interpretations of the word "Justice". You seem to think it means prosecution. The Department of Justice reports to the president, granted. Prosecuting crimes is not the sole function of that department, though.
 
Stacko said:
Seth Meyers brings the heat and Donald's racist lie.

Click to expand...

That CNN reporter at the end is quite beautiful. I decided to start stalking her, but quickly discovered she was in a relationship with Keith Olbermann for three years.
 
Stacko said:
Seth Meyers brings the heat and Donald's racist lie.

Click to expand...
I missed that Trump had clearly accused Christie of being complicit in Bridgegate.

How on earth is it not an issue that he picks that guy to head his transition team?
 
Firestone said:
I missed that Trump had clearly accused Christie of being complicit in Bridgegate.

How on earth is it not an issue that he picks that guy to head his transition team?
Click to expand...

Criminals often put their differences aside in order to profit in joint "ventures."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom