• 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.

Cont: All things Trump + Russia Part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
CapelDodger said:
During Watergate the simple question was : What did the President know?

In this case the equivalent question is : what did Candidate Trump know?

If he "weighed in" on the original sketchy response when news of the Fredo meeting broke then he must have known all about it by then at least. Unless he was still being deceived, which is surely not a claim Trump would ever make. He might allow his lawyers to make it, but he'd tweet a denial right after and then bring it up at his next rally. "I so knew who was at that meeting, there were some great people at that meeting, on many sides, many sides".
Click to expand...

They've already admitted this. With this, he's confessed at least twice to committing obstruction of justice (the Comey firing interview with Lester Holt being the other occasion).
 
phiwum said:
I suppose that if I had never read a newspaper in my life and hence didn't know how they used terms like "familiar with" when citing unidentified sources, then I'd be about as puzzled as you pretend to be.

ETA: Here's an article about Kaczynski (the unabomber) using the phrase "sources familiar with the investigation". Here's an article about the Hillary email investigation which repeatedly uses similar phrasing. Here's an article using the same phrase discussing the Martha Stewart insider trading investigation. Did your spidey senses tingle on each of these articles too?
Click to expand...

There's a difference though - all those articles you linked to include a significant number of identified and credible sources. The vast majority of the information is verifiable.

That's not the case with the prior article. It has ZERO identifiable sources for their claims.
 
varwoche said:
Here's a shorter version you can post next time... I take issue with investigative journalism as relating to high profile scandals. Woodward and Bernstein be damned. Deep throat anyone?
Click to expand...

I don't take issue with investigative journalism relating to high profile scandals. I take issue with anonymously sourced scandalmongering. Mostly, I take issue with a bunch of self-proclaimed skeptics hungrily consuming anything that kind of smells slightly like it might confirm their biases without even bothering to question whether the information is reliable or credible or even verifiable!
 
The Don said:
IMO it depends on the nature of the claim and the media through which it is presented.

If the National Inquirer claims that it has evidence of a Nazi moonbase from unnamed NASA sources then I think there should be considerable skepticism.

If the Washington Post carries a story relating to President Trump based on unnamed sources but where the claims are consistent with the President's known behaviour the some skepticism is still warranted (after all, the unnamed source could have their own reasons for making **** up) but rather less than for the first claim.

If the author of the story also has a string track record of reliably delivering from unnamed sources then whilst skepticism is still necessary, one again a lower threshold may be appropriate.
Click to expand...

d4m10n said:
We should proportion our trust in unnamed sources to the prior proven reliability of the news outlet and/or the individual reporter, especially their reliability with respect to unnamed sources. If they have a good record of quoting reliable sources who turned out to be correct, we have to factor that into our thinking.
Click to expand...

I agree with that approach, on the whole. But that doesn't appear to be the method employed recently.
 
Stacko said:
They've already admitted this.
Click to expand...
They've admitted Trump Sr was aware of something requiring a response from Fredo :

"The statement that Don Jr. issued is true," Sanders said. "There's no inaccuracy in the statement. The President weighed in as any father would, based on the limited information that he had."
Click to expand...
Which turns to mush if you try to pick it apart. Trump Sr may simply have weighed in on "how to lie deniably" (advice which could explain why Fredo's effort was such a fiasco).

Trump's information might have been limited to there being a thing, not any detail of the thing itself. Which wouldn't say much for his management skills nor his grasp of what's going on around him - so if pressed he'll deny it, mark my words. :cool:

With this, he's confessed at least twice to committing obstruction of justice (the Comey firing interview with Lester Holt being the other occasion).
Click to expand...
Those obstructions having failed Trump will surely throw up more, just as ineffectual and increasingly desperate.
 
Emily's Cat said:
I agree with that approach, on the whole. But that doesn't appear to be the method employed recently.
Click to expand...
One good thing about having taken the position that a Trump Presidency would be freak-show is not having to engage in tl;dr contortions to excuse ourselves. We can relax, kick back and munch our nothingbugers with lashings of relish.
 
Emily's Cat said:
No, if the reports are confirmed I'll still look like someone who waited until actual evidence surfaced before jumping to a conclusion.
Click to expand...


Perhaps, but you'll also look like an incoherent critic unless you are equally ready to dismiss any newspaper report using "sources familiar with the matter" and similar constructions, regardless of the topic.
 
Emily's Cat said:
There's a difference though - all those articles you linked to include a significant number of identified and credible sources. The vast majority of the information is verifiable.

That's not the case with the prior article. It has ZERO identifiable sources for their claims.
Click to expand...

How about this one? Aside from background facts, no identifiable sources I could find (correct me if I missed one).

Should this have been dismissed at the time? Should we have pretended that these sources might have been man-in-the-street know-nothings?
 
right about now, someone should tell that idiot trump that now is the time to get that wall albatross off his neck.

Rebuild Texas instead of building a wall. Liberal heads would implode.
 
Emily's Cat said:
No, if the reports are confirmed I'll still look like someone who waited until actual evidence surfaced before jumping to a conclusion.
Click to expand...

A report that several unnamed sources have said something is actual evidence. It's just the weighing of that evidence that matters.
 
NoahFence said:
right about now, someone should tell that idiot trump that now is the time to get that wall albatross off his neck.

Rebuild Texas instead of building a wall. Liberal heads would implode.
Click to expand...

If he had built his wall it would have keep the illegal immigrant Harvey in Mexico where such climate changes belong.
 
Emily's Cat said:
I don't take issue with investigative journalism relating to high profile scandals. I take issue with anonymously sourced scandalmongering. Mostly, I take issue with a bunch of self-proclaimed skeptics hungrily consuming anything that kind of smells slightly like it might confirm their biases without even bothering to question whether the information is reliable or credible or even verifiable!
Click to expand...

On the particular Trump Jr issue we have the case that the anonymously sourced reports have been far more accurate than the sourced denials from the Trump camp.

As has been pointed out there are many ways to assess anonymously sourced reports - reporter, publication, number and type of anonymous sources quoted, and types of claims made. You cannot dismiss them just because the sources are anonymous.

And most posters on here ARE filtering the reports - the ones released by Louise Mensch have not been getting much coverage, nor have the more salacious claims from the Steele dossier.
 
Emily's Cat said:
Ah, gotcha. So long as the context is Trump!!!!! then nothing solid is required. :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

No, not at all.

If an article in the National Enquirer says that an "unnamed UN source" says that Donald Trump has single-handedly brought about world peace but that they cannot go on the record because of a pinkie-swear they made then there are (at least) three good reasons to be highly sceptical about that story:

  1. The National Enquirer isn't a reliable source, it has a long history of making **** up and is known to be a Trump mouthpiece
  2. The reported story seems to run counter to observable facts - world peace is notable in its absence and Donald Trump doesn't seem to be good at making friends with foreign leaders outside a narrow group of despots and dictators
  3. The reason being off the record makes little sense

If an article in the Washington Post refers to multiple unnamed sources who are unwilling to go on the record for fear of losing their jobs saying something relating to the meeting between Donald Trump Jr, the meeting with the Russians and President Trumps knowledge thereof then there are good reasons to be be sceptical (such as the sources being unnamed and the Washington Post wanting to break news on President Trump) but the level of scepticism should be significantly lower because:

  • The Washington Post has a reputation for journalistic integrity and seems to actually care about that reputation. It is less likely to publish unverified smears than a media outlet renowned for making stuff up.
  • The reports don't run counter to known facts. We know that there was a meeting and we know that President Trump was actively invovled in managing the story after the fact. That he may have known, and approved of, the meeting beforehand is not incompatible with what has followed
  • It makes sense that people would be reluctant to go on the record because speaking out would result in them beign fired

....so not just "because Trump" :rolleyes:
 
NoahFence said:
right about now, someone should tell that idiot trump that now is the time to get that wall albatross off his neck.

Rebuild Texas instead of building a wall. Liberal heads would implode.
Click to expand...

More likely he will try to sneak in building the wall as part of the "rebuild Texas" bill should it come across his desk. :mad:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom