VNAKS - tomorrow's event and a call for proposals.

 

Dear David McDonald, Three quick items from NAKS: (1)   Tomorrow (June 30) at 1pm-3pm Eastern we have a "Classic Format" VNAKS talk by the Head of the Kantian Rationality Lab in Kaliningrad, Thomas Sturm (Barcelona).  His topic is "The Unity and Uses of Reason" and his commentator will be Saniye Vatansever (Bilkent). Huaping Lu-Adler (Georgetown) will chair this session.  More info here:  https://northamericankantsociety.org/VNAKS (2)  There is a conference that may be of interest next week in (virtual) Potsdam on "Language and Aesthetic Judgment in Kant."  Details here:  https://www.uni-potsdam.de/fileadmin/projects/phi/Dokumente/Language_and_Aesthetic_FFP_copy.pdf (3)         Call for Proposals: VNAKS VNAKS is well underway and so far there have been good crowds and lively discussions. We are planning to continue (with some recesses) through Summer 2022, or as long as there is sufficient interest. We invite NAKS members to propose sessions for the Fall 2021, Spring 2022, and Summer 2022 series. Each proposed session must have a unifying theme. It can use any of the following formats: Format 1: Two speakers on a unifying theme (from different perspectives); no commentators. Each speaker gets a little under one hour (up to 30 minutes of presentation time, followed by Q&A). Format 2: Two speaker-commentator pairs with a unifying theme. Each pair gets a little under one hour (25min/speaker, 10/commentator, 5/response, followed by Q&A). Format 3: A panel of three speakers with a unifying theme (20-20-20, followed by Q&A for all the panelists). Format 4: Incubator-style poster sessions: four speakers with a unifying theme (10-15 min talks followed by 15-20 min Q&A). Other formats, including "Choose-Your-Ideal-Commentators," may also be possible upon request.  Proposals should specify each participant’s institutional affiliation and status (PhD candidate, post-doctoral researcher, lecturer, and so on). Please include all participants’ tentative titles, making it salient that the session has a unifying theme. We suggest that you model your proposal on similar sessions already listed on the VNAKS webpage.   Eligibility: All participants included in the proposal must be NAKS members. If you are not sure whether someone is a NAKS member, you can check our member directory. You can always encourage a non-member to join NAKS. No one can take part in VNAKS as a speaker/commentator/panelist more than once. See the VNAKS webpage to see who is already part of the ongoing series. Each participant must have a track record of working on the proposed theme. The person who submits the proposal can recommend themselves as a speaker/commentator/panelist (the application form will not reveal the identity of the person who has submitted the proposal).   How to apply: please fill out this application form.  The proposals are due on August 1. They will be blindly considered by a panel composed of members of the Executive Committee and the Board of Trustees. Notification: end of August. (4) It is time for us to start organizing NAKS sessions at the 2022 APAs and we would welcome suggestions and nominations from members.  For Eastern and Central, the primary contact person is Andrew Chignell.  For the Pacific, the primary contact is Huaping Lu-Adler. The "North American Kant Society" is a 501(3)(c) non-profit organization, registered in MO. https://northamericankantsociety.org/

BREAKING DOWN THE MUELLER REPORT...ONE STEP AT A TIME.

(Remember, this re-posting of articles on the Mueller Report is in response to what former  Trump DOJ spokesperson Sarah Isgur said on ABC’s This Week on Sunday. THIS IS WHAT SHE SAID:

"The SCO was charged w investigating whether the Trump campaign criminally colluded with Russians to influence the 2016 election. They did not find sufficient evidence to bring charges—that’s exonerating. My larger point was that Trump didn’t care—hence the acts of obstruction!"

My analysis of the Mueller report continues...

BREAKING DOWN THE MUELLER REPORT...ONE STEP AT A TIME. 

THE FOLLOWING IS MY PERSONAL REVIEW OF THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS CONTAINED WITHIN THE MUELLER REPORT. GIVEN ITS EXTENSIVE LENGTH, I WILL ATTEMPT TO BREAK IT DOWN SECTION BY SECTION. (IT'S OVER 400 PAGES.) THE ANALYSIS WILL ATTEMPT TO STICK TO THE MOST PERTINENT POINTS, ADDRESSING WHAT I FEEL TO BE THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUES IN TERMS OF A LASTING IMPACT ON OUR LEGAL SYSTEM, AND THE DANGEROUS PRECEDENTS BEING SET BY IGNORING OR DENYING CONCLUSIONS THAT CAN BE REASONABLY DEDUCED OR INFERRED FROM THE DATA.




INTRODUCTION TO VOLUME 1.

In a very telling and dramatic way, this section begins with the following Statement:

"The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion..."

This is an unqualified conclusion that tells us that the RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT had an active role in attempting to influence and determine the outcome of the 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. It does not say "...could have interferred..." or "...may have interferred...", it's a direct accusation that the MUELLER REPORT MAKES, arrived at by the evidence that was uncovered.

Further on, the following is stated in the report.

"As set forth in detail in this report, the Special Counsel's investigation established that Russia interfere~ in the 2016 presidential election principally through two operations. First, a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Second, a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations against entities, employees, and volunteers working on the Clinton Campaign and then released stolen documents." 

Part of what was uncovered, and prompted the FBI to begin an investigation into possible TRUMP CAMPAIGN coordination with the RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT in its activities, is the following taken from the REPORT:

"...a foreign government contacted the FBI about a May 2016 encounter with Trump Campaign foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos. Papadopoulos had suggested to a representative of that foreign government that the Trump Campaign had received indications from the Russian government that it could assist the Campaign through the anonymous release of information damaging to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton."

What is interesting about this revelation, because it was a major reason why the FBI began its initial investigation into possible ties between the RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT and the TRUMP CAMPAIGN, was the fact that it became known to the FBI from an outside source, and not from any member of the TRUMP CAMPAIGN. 

TO BE CONTINUED...

THE MUELLER REPORT. (BARR SUMMARY LETTER). PART 4.

THE FIRST 4 POSTS EXAMINING THE MUELLER REPORT, WERE ARTICLES CRITIQUING ATTORNEY GENERAL BARRS SUMMARY LETTER ANALYZING THE FINDINGS. NEEDLESS TO SAY, IT WAS WHAT YOU WOULD EXPECT FROM A TRUMP APPOINTEE. 

As we examine the Summary Letter provided by ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR. IT IS JUST AS IMPORTANT TO FOCUS ON WHAT IT DOES NOT TELL US, AS MUCH AS WHAT IT DOES TELL US.

When speaking of RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE in the 2016 election, we have a problem:
There is the wording in the report, made public, which we can analyze. However, when we talk about information that has not been released, we only have the ATTORNEY GENERALS INTERPRETATION OF WHAT SUCH INFORMATION REVEALS.


QUESTION #1. RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE- IT SEEMS THERE IS A NOTICEABLE LACK OF INFORMATION CONCERNING WHICH RUSSIAN GROUPS, ATTEMPTING TO INFLUENCE THE 2016 ELECTION, CAN BE CONSIDERED SANCTIONED AND DIRECTED BY THE PUTIN GOVERNMENT, AND THOSE WHO ACTED INDEPENDENTLY.

QUESTION #2. HOW DO WE MEASURE THE INVOLVEMENT OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN, IN TERMS OF WHO HAD THE AUTHORITY TO COORDINATE OR REPRESENT THE REPUBLICAN NOMINEES INTERESTS. IN OTHER WORDS, WHO HAD THE CAPACITY TO LEGALLY SPEAK OR ACT FOR THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN?

WHY ARE THE TWO ABOVE QUESTIONS SO IMPORTANT?

ACCORDING TO THE SUMMARY LETTER, THE FOLLOWING IS THE DEFINITION USED BY THE SPECIAL COUNSEL IN DETERMINING POSSIBLE CHARGES AGAINST MEMBERS OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN.

The Special Counsel defined "coordination" as an "agreement-tacit or express-between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference."

IF THIS IS THE ONLY DEFINITION USED, THE SPECIAL COUNSELS REPORT CLEARS UP NOTHING, AND OPENS UP SOME DISTURBING POSSIBILITIES.

HOW SO?

IF WE ACCEPT THAT THE ABOVE DEFINITION IS THE 
SOLE MEASUREMENT FOR PROSECUTION, IT LEAVES US WITH  THE FOLLOWING POSSIBLE SCENARIOS:

SCENARIO #1- A RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT OPERATIVE ENLISTS A TRUMP CAMPAIGN WORKER WITH A PLAN TO AID DONALD TRUMP, BY GATHERING AND DISTRIBUTING INFORMATION THAT IS ANECDOTAL IN NATURE, AND FULL OF INNUENDO AND UNSUBSTANTIATED INFORMATION.

SCENARIO #2- A TRUMP ELECTION OFFICIAL APPROACHES A RUSSIAN NATIONAL,WHO CONDUCTS BUSINESS IN THE U.S. THE REASON? HE ASKS THE BUSINESSMAN IF HE COULD OBTAIN "SPECIAL INFORMATION" THAT WOULD AID DONALD TRUMP IN WINNING THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

THESE ARE EXAMPLES, NOT ACCUSATIONS. THE POINT IS THIS: IF SCENARIOS LIKE THIS, OR OTHER SIMILAR ONES DID OCCUR, NO LEGAL ACTION WOULD BE TAKEN BY THE SPECIAL COUNSEL. WHY? BECAUSE IN NEITHER CASE WAS THE DEFINITION OF PROSECUTORIAL CONDUCT MET.

REMEMBER, IN THE ABOVE DEFINITION, THE "TRUMP CAMPAIGN," AND THE "RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT" HAD TO
BOTH BE INVOLVED, NOT JUST ONE. THE EXAMPLES OF A TRUMP CAMPAIGN WORKER, OR A RUSSIAN BUSINESSMAN,
SHOW US THAT "COLLUSION," OR "ELECTION INTERFERENCE" COULD OCCUR. HOWEVER, THE CONCLUSION OF THE TRUMP CAMPAIGN BEING INNOCENT OF SUCH ACCUSATIONS, AS THE SUMMARY LETTER IMPLIES, WOULD BE VALID, EVEN IF CRIMINAL ACTS WERE PRESENT IN BOTH SCENARIOS.

THE MUELLER REPORT. BY ANY OTHER NAME. (BARR SUMMARY LETTER). PART 3.

THE FIRST 4 POSTS EXAMINING THE MUELLER REPORT, WERE ARTICLES CRITIQUING ATTORNEY GENERAL BARRS SUMMARY LETTER ANALYZING THE FINDINGS. NEEDLESS TO SAY, IT WAS WHAT YOU WOULD EXPECT FROM A TRUMP APPOINTEE. 

The main problem with Attorney General Barrs summary of the Special Counsels report, when relating information about Russian Interference in the 2016 election, and possible collusion with members of the Donald Trump Campaign, is a failure to clarify Terms and Definitions. This is especially important when the summary letter quotes actual parts of the Special Councels Report dealing with POSSIBLE RUSSIAN INVOLVEMENT IN THE 2016 ELECTION.

This occurs twice:

 As the report states: "[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian Government in its election interference activities."

 The Special Counsel defined "coordination" as an "agreement-tacit or express-between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference."

As you can see, when the Report itself is quoted, the term "RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT" IS USED with no qualifications, it is clear and consise.  However, the Barr Summary letter uses multiple terms that creates confusion as to what is actually being discussed, and the exact nature of who and what is being accused or exonerated.

FROM THE SUMMARY LETTER WE GET:

- "...the results of the Special Counsel's investigation into Russia's interference..."

- "... persons associated with the Russian government in connection..."

- "... joined the Russian conspiracies..."

- "... Special Counsel found that Russian government actors..."

- "... Russian military officers for conspiring to hack into computers..." 

-"... Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.

What this doesn't tell us is if these were RUSSIAN NATIONALS
WORKING:

-  WITHOUT THE KNOWLEGE OF THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT.
-  WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT.
-  ON BEHALF OF THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT.
-  INDEPENDENT OF THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT.
-  AS A MEMBER OF, OR EMPLOYED BY, THE
   RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT. 

THIS WOULD INCLUDE MEMBERS OF THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT WHO WENT "RENEGADE."

TO BE CONTINUED...

HOW BADLY DOES GOOGLE WANT TO HURT MY WEBSITE?

 IF YOU CLICK ON THE DAVID MCDONALD - PHIL...LINKDEN.COM, THAT IS DIRECTLY BELOW THE PICTURE OF THE YOUNG LADY, GUESS WHERE IT TAKES YOU? 

SURPRISED? I KNOW I WAS. (FOR THE RECORD, I DO NOT KNOW WHO IS IN THE PICTURE, AND SHE MAY NOT BE AWARE THAT SOMEONE IS USING HER IMAGE TO HURT ME.) I WONDER WHAT THIS COSTING SOMEONE?

David McDonald - Philosopher\Publisher ...

linkedin.com

David McDonald

gf.org

David McDonald

davidsinternetwebsite.com

The Adventure of Happiness: Dr. David ...

amazon.com

The Adventure of Happiness: Dr. David ...

amazon.com

THE MUELLER REPORT. COLLUSION OR DELUSION. (BARR SUMMARY LETTER). PART 2.

THE FIRST 4 POSTS EXAMINING THE MUELLER REPORT, WERE ARTICLES CRITIQUING ATTORNEY GENERAL BARRS SUMMARY LETTER ANALYZING THE FINDINGS. NEEDLESS TO SAY, IT WAS WHAT YOU WOULD EXPECT FROM A TRUMP APPOINTEE. 

(THE INFORMATION CONTAINED WITHIN THIS 

ARTICLE IS TAKEN FROM ATTORNEY GENERAL

BARRS LETTER TO CONGRESS SUMMARIZING 

THE FINDINGS OF THE MUELLER REPORT, AND 

PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED MATERIAL THAT

APPEARS ON THIS WEBSITE.)

Well, it seems that a "MYTHOLOGY" has already developed around

the contents of Attorney General Barrs Summary Letter detailing

the Special Councels findings of 2016 Election Probe about possible

COLLUSION,INTERFERENCE, CONSPIRACY etc., that provided the

TRUMP CAMPAIGN WITH PRIVILEGED OR PRIVATE INFORMATION THAT

THEY USED AGAINST HILLARY CLINTON,TO INFLUENCE THE FINAL

OUTCOME.

MYTH #1.-  DONALD TRUMP, AND HIS CAMPAIGN,WERE CLEARED FROM
ACCUSATIONS THAT THEY WERE INVOLVED IN ANY TYPE OF COLLUSION
OR INTERFERENCE WITH THE ELECTION.

NOT TRUE- Contrary to what has been said by over the airwaves, what follows is taken from the summary letter:

THE SUMMARY LETTER SAYS THE FOLLOWING- "The Special Counsel’s investigation did not find that the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election."

THIS STATEMENT WAS FOLLOWED BY THIS QUOTE, WHICH WAS TAKEN FROM THE BODY OF THE SPECIAL COUNCELS REPORT-  “[T]he investigation did not establish that members of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

The Difference? THE SUMMARY LETTER, (WRITTEN BY ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR), USES THE FOLLOWING WORDING: "Conspired or coordinated with Russia in its efforts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election."

THE ACTUAL QUOTE THAT IT REFERS TO SAYS: "Conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.”

THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SAYING:

"...WITH RUSSIA..." INSTEAD OF ..."WITH THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT...",

THIS DIFFERENCE IS ESPECIALLY TELLING IF WE LOOK AT 
SPECIFIC CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES THAT WERE UNCOVERED 
DURING THE INVESTIGATION.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SHOULD KNOW THAT.

SEE PART 3.