• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged USAID: is it really a bunch of crazy leftists? / Trump Was Absolutely Right to Shut Down USAID

theprestige said:
She does if she's making claims.
Click to expand...
No. A burden of proof arises when there is a presumption that must be overcome.

theprestige said:
One of the jobs of the appeals court is to determine whether a judge's ruling is supported by law. Judges have the same burden of proof as anyone else who says "this is how it is."
Click to expand...
No, that's not what "burden of proof" means in law. Not everyone who says, "This is how it is," is doing so under a burden of proof.

Here, the judge has made a ruling on a motion for a preliminary injunction. Both sides were compelled to present evidence and arguments. The judge sided on some points with one party and on other points with the other party, depending on the evidence that was presented. Deciding which of two arguments is the most legally persuasive is not a case of the judge incurring a burden of proof. There is no default outcome here if a judge does nothing. The judge cannot do nothing. The judge must decided one way or another, without the ability to rely on any sort of presumption governing his actions. Burden of proof governs the parties' actions in presenting their case for adjudication. A judge must demonstrate sound reasoning no matter the outcome; this is not the same as an outcome that would hold by default due to another's insufficiency.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
Why would you think that? This isn’t a criminal trial, it’s a civil suit.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but acting under color of law without proper authority (i.e., impersonating a government officer) is a separate criminal offense. Facts uncovered during a civil trial may lead someone to be charged criminally, which is why it's allowed to invoke the Fifth Amendment in a civil proceeding.
 
theprestige said:
So how did USAID know they were supposed to shut down, if nobody ordered them to shut down?
Click to expand...
According to the court's findings, they received emails, in one instance from DOGE team member Gavin Kliger and in other instances from USAID email addresses not directly tied to a single individual but nevertheless conveying the air of authority (e.g., "hr_announcements@usaid.gov"). The de facto shuttering of the USAID headquarters on the day and time promised in the emails is evidence the emails had authority, but no person can be identified who authorized the action or who sent some of the emails. That is what is being debated in court.

Evidence was presented that Elon Musk was publicly taking credit for it and publicly implying that it was upon his authority that the entire organization was dismantled. The government disputes that evidence on affirmative grounds, but is unable to substantiate the actual chain of command that led to both the notification to USAID employees and to the actual shuttering of the physical location. If they could do that, they would enjoy a stronger presumption of regularity that would place a greater burden of proof upon the plaintiffs to demonstrate that the orders were nevertheless improper. Plaintiffs argue that the ambiguity in the directives issued to USAID employees is a deliberate attempt to conceal the true chain of command and prevent its lawfulness from being adjudicated in court. In these circumstances the judge is justified by the evidence on record in ruling that the plaintiffs' claims have merit. It is a general principle of law that ambiguity does not inure to the benefit of a party that labors to create it. Had Musk not shot his mouth off, the plaintiffs would have been in a much tighter spot. But he did, and it's admissible as evidence.
 
Last edited:
angrysoba said:
Christ! I bet they must have been extremely grateful for this kind of commissariat Doublethink coming from their daughter. Or did they stare dumbfounded at the effort you put in to ease the cognitive dissonance?
Click to expand...
It's similar to Musk's own argument that it isn't the leaders who commit genocidal atrocities, but rather the apparatchiks below them.
 
Foster Zygote said:
It's similar to Musk's own argument that it isn't the leaders who commit genocidal atrocities, but rather the apparatchiks below them.
Click to expand...
Yep. It's hard for me to believe that Musk thinks he can claim the credit for umpteen billion dollars in government savings by his actions, even when they're only "recommendations," and avoid the blame for the effects of those actions. The "party of personal responsibility" seems to have a pretty elastic definition of what the operative words mean when their convenience is more important than the reality.
 
Emily's Cat said:
You not believing it doesn't mean I'm making it up, plague.
Click to expand...

You just saying things without any form of evidence to back it up is what means you're making it up. It's sad this has to be explained.
Emily's Cat said:
There were efforts to legalize pot pretty much from the moment it was made illegal.
Click to expand...

Probably, it has many, many uses. Especially when you include the entirety of the plant from hemp paper, rope, and of course the buds. So, yeah, that makes sense. It never should have been made illegal in the first place, but this has no relevance to your claims.
Emily's Cat said:
They were ongoing efforts, with the pretty clear intent of getting it decriminalized.
Click to expand...

Such as? This is what I'm saying. Support your claim. You might be right, but so far I don't see it.

I'm also not claiming that people didn't want it decriminalized. I'm saying using it for medical reasons was just that, to use something with medical properties for it's medical use. As we've agreed on now, it has medicinal properties that help people. Medical usage is a valid reason that can stand on its own.
Emily's Cat said:
Sometime in the 90s (give or take by state), most of the advocacy shifted to focus on efforts to get it approved for medicinal use. This was fairly successful, and a good foot in the door toward legalization.
Click to expand...

Correlation doesn't equal causation. Pretty basic stuff here. Some in the medical community have been begging for it to be rescheduled just so it can be studied for its medical use. Something that administrations, Dems included, have ignored for a long time.

That the ability to use it for medical purposes opened the door for legalization doesn't mean that was the intent. That's why I'm saying you're claiming ◊◊◊◊ without evidence, because you are. The desire to get it approved for medical use could be for a myriad of other reasons that don't include recreational use. The group NORML had a list of reasons.
Emily's Cat said:
Once there was sufficient adoption for medicinal use, it was pretty clear that the sky didn't fall and we didn't all devolve into crazy killers ala Reefer Madness. After that, decriminalization and legalization have followed relatively fast.
Click to expand...

Decriminalization, sure. Legalization, meh. I think we're at about half the states have recreational. As you said, medicinal use showed that there are positive side effects of weed that make it so people don't have to take a pill all of the time.

I didn't quote the other part where you talked about dosage, and all that but weed is broken down exactly the same. When I go in to get my weed it has the THC %, side effects, amount contained within the package, and my medical chart shows me how much I have available to take and in what form (plant, oil, etc.). Hell, prescription medicine doesn't even tell me what side effects the meds I'm prescribed have and they are many.
Emily's Cat said:
Why does this bother you?
Click to expand...

Because you're simply making claims that aren't true and aren't supported by anything on a topic I happen to know a metric ◊◊◊◊ ton about. I have helped get our law passed here in North Dakota, including guidelines on usage, dosage, etc. I don't suffer people making ◊◊◊◊ up just for the sake of doing it. Do better or get called out.
Emily's Cat said:
Why are you so adamantly opposed to me referencing the tactics employed to attain legalization and acceptance?
Click to expand...

See my aforementioned statement. Don't be shocked if I call ◊◊◊◊ out whenever you make unsupported statements.
 
TellyKNeasuss said:
"Ninety percent of conservative outrage is from not knowing how things work." - author unknown
Click to expand...
I attribute it to Franklin Veaux (on Quora) but you may be quoting me quoting Franklin

Actually, the line is, "90% of conservative outrage is from learning how things work for the first time"
 
turingtest said:
Yep. It's hard for me to believe that Musk thinks he can claim the credit for umpteen billion dollars in government savings by his actions, even when they're only "recommendations," and avoid the blame for the effects of those actions.
Click to expand...
Politicians have been playing coy and disguising their machinations since the age of the Caesars—often successfully. But for the imprudent public statements of Pres. Trump and Elon Musk, this ploy might have succeeded. The government normally enjoys a presumption of regularity that places a burden of proof on those seeking to challenge its actions. When the President says, "Elon Musk is the head of DOGE," and when Elon Musk says, "I as the head of DOGE am tearing down USAID this weekend," and berates Sec. Marco Rubio in public for failing to follow orders, that creates enough ambiguity to militate against the presumption of regularity. The burden then shifts to the government to show it has acted lawfully. Normally that would be easy, and normally the mere nominal approval of Sec. Rubio would have ended the matter. But now there is evidence that Sec. Rubio is not acting independently, but rather under the direction of Elon Musk. Now there is evidence that other actors are exercising de facto authority at USAID without Sec. Rubio's knowledge or control. These don't go away simply because the administration declares otherwise.

Defenders of the administration's actions here are trying to berate Judge Chuang for not taking all of the government's dubious representations at face value without question when deciding what to do pending trial. They want the presumption of regularity to hold even when the government cannot satisfy the ordinary prerequisites for its imposition, and in the face of credible evidence that would overcome any such presumption anyway. The notion of an executive being effectively challenged in court over the lawfulness of its actions seems to be a foreign concept to some.
 
Emily's Cat said:
I kept trying to get across that they're perfectly entitled to be angry at that many people losing their jobs - I'm not particularly happy about it either. I was trying to make sure that their anger is focused at the right target. Be angry, but don't be angry about false information.
Click to expand...
In your opinion, what is the right target?
 
angrysoba said:
Christ! I bet they must have been extremely grateful for this kind of commissariat Doublethink coming from their daughter. Or did they stare dumbfounded at the effort you put in to ease the cognitive dissonance?
Click to expand...
JFC, the dishonest snipping is tiresome.

Emily's Cat said:
It was very frustrating. I kept trying to get across that they're perfectly entitled to be angry at that many people losing their jobs - I'm not particularly happy about it either. I was trying to make sure that their anger is focused at the right target. Be angry, but don't be angry about false information.
Click to expand...
 
plague311 said:
Because you're simply making claims that aren't true and aren't supported by anything on a topic I happen to know a metric ◊◊◊◊ ton about. I have helped get our law passed here in North Dakota, including guidelines on usage, dosage, etc. I don't suffer people making ◊◊◊◊ up just for the sake of doing it. Do better or get called out.
Click to expand...
I'm not making ◊◊◊◊ up for the sake of doing it. At this point, I'm starting to think you'd swear a lot and argue against me saying the sky was blue.

My sister, and two very close friends have all been involved in decriminalization and legalization bills and efforts in WA, OR, and NV. So if you think I'm making things up, take it up with them and stop being adversarial for no good ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ reason.
 
Chris_Halkides said:
In your opinion, what is the right target?
Click to expand...
Trump is the right target for the overall slash and burn approach. Musk is the right target if you think the recommendations are bad recommendations. The heads of the various agencies are the right targets for not making informed decisions on how to implement the recommendations.

And media is the right target for the irresponsible reporting and misrepresentation intended to stoke anger and incentivize further partisan divides.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom