3 ms·

The Trump family are not likely criminals, they are criminals, guilty of perjury before congress (Jared), violation of the emoluments clause (Trump), intimidati

The Trump family are not likely criminals, they are criminals, guilty of perjury before congress (Jared), violation of the emoluments clause (Trump), intimidating witnesses (Trump), interfering with the AG (Trump), collusion with the Saudis (Jared), bribery (Trump), adultery (Trump), assault (Trump on his 1st wife). The only thing which is not out in the open (though highly likely to be at some point) is collusion with foreign powers like Russia.

prepend 8y ago
I think a qualification really helps here. By definition, criminal requires a guilty verdict. So while it can be productive to state opinion that someone may be guilty of criminal acts. The key part is a trial and conviction, before pronouncing someone guilty. Using precise language makes it less likely to be spun around and arguing with others who disagree, I think.
- ModernMech 8y ago
  So if you rob a bank but are never caught, you're not a criminal?
- grey-area 8y ago
  When they admit guilt, or it is done in plain sight, I don't think you need a court verdict. For example Jared did lie to congress (along with many other Trump appointments): https://www.justsecurity.org/61682/perjury-chart-trump-associates-lies-false-statements-russia-federal-authorities/ https://www.justsecurity.org/61682/perjury-chart-trump-assoc... Trump and his attorney Cohen did intimidate and bribe witnesses (to adultery): See the link below, and his admission that he paid off the prostitute Stormy Daniels. Trump did assault his first wife, and has been accused by multiple other women: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/24/documenting-trumps-abuse-of-women https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/24/documenting-tr... Trump has not properly divested himself of his businesses, and violated emoluments rules on multiple occasions. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/05/15/trumps-latest-violation-of-the-emoluments-clause/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.395acabd6aa7 https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/05/15... These are not opinions or speculation.
- MereInterest 8y ago
  I'm not sure if that qualification adds a useful distinction. The usual definition I hear is "a person who committed a crime". Suppose I were to come home and find that my door has been broken down and my home ransacked, I would be justified in saying that "a criminal did this". There was an act of crime, and therefore it was done by a criminal. That it is ambiguous who the criminal was and whether there is sufficient evidence to prove that they did it, it was still done by a criminal. Furthermore, even if I accept that criminality requires a guilty verdict to be a valid descriptor, it is something that applies retroactively. Once the conviction is given, it is retroactively correct to have called them a criminal between the time that the crime was committed and the time that the conviction was given. In this view, describing somebody as "criminal" prior to a verdict is an expression of belief as to what the verdict should or will be. In either case, it is not incorrect to refer to the actions of the Trump campaign as criminal, to use one specific example. We know (1) that it is illegal to receive foreign aid in a campaign, (2) that the Trump campaign openly requested foreign aid (campaign speech, 2016-07-26), and (3) that the Trump campaign were in active negotiation for foreign aid (self-released emails from Trump Jr, dated 2016-06-03). From these, I conclude that the Trump campaign has performed criminal acts.

prepend 8y ago

I think a qualification really helps here. By definition, criminal requires a guilty verdict. So while it can be productive to state opinion that someone may be guilty of criminal acts. The key part is a trial and conviction, before pronouncing someone guilty. Using precise language makes it less likely to be spun around and arguing with others who disagree, I think.

ModernMech 8y ago
So if you rob a bank but are never caught, you're not a criminal?
grey-area 8y ago
When they admit guilt, or it is done in plain sight, I don't think you need a court verdict. For example Jared did lie to congress (along with many other Trump appointments): https://www.justsecurity.org/61682/perjury-chart-trump-associates-lies-false-statements-russia-federal-authorities/ https://www.justsecurity.org/61682/perjury-chart-trump-assoc... Trump and his attorney Cohen did intimidate and bribe witnesses (to adultery): See the link below, and his admission that he paid off the prostitute Stormy Daniels. Trump did assault his first wife, and has been accused by multiple other women: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/24/documenting-trumps-abuse-of-women https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/24/documenting-tr... Trump has not properly divested himself of his businesses, and violated emoluments rules on multiple occasions. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/05/15/trumps-latest-violation-of-the-emoluments-clause/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.395acabd6aa7 https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/05/15... These are not opinions or speculation.
MereInterest 8y ago
I'm not sure if that qualification adds a useful distinction. The usual definition I hear is "a person who committed a crime". Suppose I were to come home and find that my door has been broken down and my home ransacked, I would be justified in saying that "a criminal did this". There was an act of crime, and therefore it was done by a criminal. That it is ambiguous who the criminal was and whether there is sufficient evidence to prove that they did it, it was still done by a criminal. Furthermore, even if I accept that criminality requires a guilty verdict to be a valid descriptor, it is something that applies retroactively. Once the conviction is given, it is retroactively correct to have called them a criminal between the time that the crime was committed and the time that the conviction was given. In this view, describing somebody as "criminal" prior to a verdict is an expression of belief as to what the verdict should or will be. In either case, it is not incorrect to refer to the actions of the Trump campaign as criminal, to use one specific example. We know (1) that it is illegal to receive foreign aid in a campaign, (2) that the Trump campaign openly requested foreign aid (campaign speech, 2016-07-26), and (3) that the Trump campaign were in active negotiation for foreign aid (self-released emails from Trump Jr, dated 2016-06-03). From these, I conclude that the Trump campaign has performed criminal acts.