Those words are not difficult to define or understand. Only a nihilist claims nothing is inherently knowable.

It's possible to understand what treason is, just as it's possible for something to skirt the edge of it and require more nuance and thought.

The words Paul Davis used are defined in the constitution, it’s a legal document. Everything has a legal definition. Legal texts are interpreted by the judicial branch which sets the limits of nuance and thought. As Paul Davis showed, however, not everyone reads legal texts as a hobby.. so one should really delegate that work to someone who does (just like I won’t ask my plumber to create some ML models for me)

that's a load of phooey.

Trump got elected by the people, he can be judged by the people.

This argument you're making is the same mindset that causes people to argue that since freedom of speech is only applicable to the government, we shouldn't strive for the ideal in every aspect of our society.

It's looking at the problem exactly backwards.

Excuse me? I didn’t say he couldn’t be judged, I’m saying people are saying he has committed treason when he literally has not. Which is the difference between public opinion vs reality. I don’t consider my plumber an expert in AI, so I won’t expect him to have the best insight into my job. Likewise, folks who don’t wish to take the time to read legal texts should probably defer to someone a bit more knowledge than them. So call trump crooked, ugly, whatever.. but if you say he’s the nicest and happiest president ever would be just as false as saying he committed treason.

Just like OJ being not guilty based on facts (reality) but everyone already judged him as guilty. Same with Zimmerman. Same with Ulbricht.

Please don’t mistake my post for support of any particular view.

So you believe OJ and Ulbricht were innocent, and the respective civil and criminal court cases finding the opposite were mistaken?

Let me reiterate my disclaimer

>Please don’t mistake my post for support of any particular view.

A lot of America did. A lot of America was going off what the general public was thinking rather than following the actual case[0]. This thread was spawned from the love and desire to read legal texts which includes outcomes of cases which could set case/common law. I read all of the case data against Ulbricht, OJ Simpson, Zimmerman etc. As more and more information came to light it was becoming quite obvious what a reasonable jury would respond with. The prosecution showed a clear connection between Ulbricht, his bitcoin wallet, and they caught him red-handed. The LAPD completely huffed up on their police duties with OJ. The star witness the prosecution brought against Zimmerman flopped on the stand. There is believing one is innocent and then there is the actual court judgement of not guilty based on the case presented. The latter is what matters to me as a legal hobbyist.

[0] PS this is why juries are instructed to avoid discussing the case outside of court, reading news on the case, and sometimes are sequestered if it's a high profile case where such communications can't be avoided