"the beginning of wisdom is to call things by their proper name,"

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Oh, Saul, Alinsky your way out of it, Putin’s proud of you
Remember collusion, you’re playing that game again, now it’s insurrection, what matters in criminal law is the facts, not the precise terms used to describe what happened.

Actually, in criminal law, precise terms are necessary. Calling things by their proper name is necessary in all law, or else the law is too vague and unreliable to be considered an actual law. Without precise terms in criminal law, all kinds of prosecutorial hanky-panky and trumped up charges, even more than now occur, will abound.

And in politics, more hanky-panky, false allegations and character destruction in order to defeat opponents are done by the use of imprecise language. Even "fundamental transformations" of a nation, its laws and culture and history and foundational principles are made possible simply by misnaming, mislabeling, twisting language, creating new meanings for words, such as "racism" or "gender" or "insurrection" simply in order to sway or brainwash the public into defeating opponents or passing legislation. Naming me Saul Alinsky rather than my proper name and saying that Putin is proud of me is a cheap dishonest way of trying to discredit what I say.

Saying the president is off the hook because there is no crime called “collusion” is akin to claiming the president could shoot someone on 5th Avenue and escape prosecution because the criminal statutes prohibit “homicide” not “shooting.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Unfortunately, it was common practice, even in the media, to call it collusion rather than conspiracy. I often did refer to conspiracy, but sometimes to collusion to fit the common practice. A good example of not calling something by its proper name. Which muddies up language and trivializes the law. The law would not have prosecuted him for collusion. If proven, it could have done so for conspiracy.

And, indeed, the law would not have prosecuted him for merely shooting. But for homicide if the shooting was not justified.

And the J6 rioters will probably be prosecuted for crimes other than "insurrection." But the difference here between your "collusion" and "shooting" analogies is that using the wrong term in this case has a political motivation. It is not merely sloppy, imprecise language.

It is an intentional calling it by the wrong name because that word can imply the larger narrative tied to the President. Painting him as a deliberate traitor who attempted to destroy the nation.