Cont: All things Trump + Russia Part 2

[Emily's Cat]

That whole post already happened. It's what happened with Hillary.

How devastating was repeated investigations that turned up nothing? To Hillary, to our taxpayer dollars and all the things you describe. Its already happened, but you can't not investigate trump just because Hillary was viciously investigated.

That sort of reinforces my point. We're rapidly approaching a point where an accusation is sufficient to tie up resources to a point of immobility. We may have already crossed that point.

Is that where you want us to land? With accusations being a highly effective political tool? Where all one need to is make a plausible (not necessarily credible) accusation against a politician... and you can effectively nullify them, and prevent them from acting in any fashion? Do you think that's representative of an effective democracy?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Accepted: A bunch of stuff happened between Trump and his people, and the Russians during the campaign.
Uncertain: That this means anything.

It's easy to say you accept something when you then turn around and nullify all of it.

Holy hell. I haven't nullified it!

Can you seriously not distinguish between fact and narrative? Between known and verified events and motivations? Between definitive actions and impact? Are you seriously under the impression that a person's (or even a lot of peoples') opinion of what a fact might mean is not actually evidence of anything other than a hypothesis?

Do you accept hypotheses as true, without testing, simply because they feel right to you and agree with your belief?

 

[NoahFence]

That sort of reinforces my point. We're rapidly approaching a point where an accusation is sufficient to tie up resources to a point of immobility. We may have already crossed that point.

Are we not supposed to investigate accusations that clearly have a basis in fact?

Is that where you want us to land? With accusations being a highly effective political tool? Where all one need to is make a plausible (not necessarily credible) accusation against a politician... and you can effectively nullify them, and prevent them from acting in any fashion? Do you think that's representative of an effective democracy?

You can't not investigate Russian collusion because there was another farce investigation that was designed to hurt a party. If we go by that, then we can't investigate any crime, any where, anymore because it might be only for show. I don't buy that at all.

 

[Cabbage]

That sort of reinforces my point. We're rapidly approaching a point where an accusation is sufficient to tie up resources to a point of immobility. We may have already crossed that point.

Is that where you want us to land? With accusations being a highly effective political tool? Where all one need to is make a plausible (not necessarily credible) accusation against a politician... and you can effectively nullify them, and prevent them from acting in any fashion? Do you think that's representative of an effective democracy?

Well, let's not ignore the converse, either: Should we risk corruption potentially damaging our country for fear of an overly investigative state?

 

[Belz...]

Holy hell. I haven't nullified it!

Yes you did.

Here's a made-up example:

Accepted: Mr X was found with the murder weapon in his car and with his fingerprints on it.
Uncertain: That Mr X actually touched the murder weapon during the murder.

That basically means that what you've accepted is meaningless, since I just said that it doesn't mean Mr X committed the murder!

 

[Emily's Cat]

Right, but you can't simultaneously claim that all these reports add up to nothing at all and also are evidence that Mueller's investigation is leaking like a sieve.

Honestly, Cat, you're better than this. You snipped almost all of my post in order to ignore the basic inconsistency in your argument. I really do expect a better argument from you, dear miss/mister/feline.

phiwum, there is no inconsistency. Walk through this with me, if you will.

1) Unverified speculation is unverified. I don't accept that it is TRUE. I accept that the speculation has arisen and that someone has provided unverified information. I have no reference for the credibility of that information, thus I do not accept it as true, but neither do I assume it is false. Failure to accept as true is not the same as accepting as false. I have not made a decision that any of the information is false. It is simply not verified. It's in the category of plausible but uncertain.

2) Recognizing that a whole lot of supposedly confidential information has been provided to the media regarding this investigation is a separate issue. It is possible that all of it is completely made up by people with no actual knowledge. It's also possible that people with some knowledge have provided false, partial, or misleading information in order to shape the perception of events. It's also possible that the information is completely accurate. See item one above regarding lack of acceptance as true not meaning that I accept it as false. Either way, it has been claimed that the information came from inside sources, which would indicate that the ship is not tight.

Really, these are not dependent on one another, so there is no inconsistency, nor is there any contradiction. Consider the truth pairs possible:

1. The information came from inside Meuller's team AND the information is known true
2. The information came from inside AND the information is fabricated
3. The information came from outside Meuller's team AND the information is known true
4. The information came from outside AND the information is fabricated

Note that fabricated information isn't necessarily false - its truth is unknown by the provider of information. The information could be true, but the person providing it does not actually know. For example, I could make the claim that you have red hair. That claim is fabricated - I do not know what color your hair is. It is also possible that I'm correct by coincidence, and that you do have read hair... but the claim I made is still fabricated.

No matter how you cut it up though, 3/4 of those possible pairs suggest that the investigative team is NOT maintaining confidentiality.

For Items 1 and 2, if the information is coming from inside Meuller's team, then it's not a tight ship.

For Item 3, even if the information isn't being directly supplied by Meuller's team, it is being supplied by someone who received the information from Meuller's team... which also means it's not a tight ship.

Item 4 is the only possibility that would justify the claim that Meuller runs a tight ship... but that also leaves you in a position where the information is fabricated.

I have no problem saying that I have not accepted unverified speculation as true information. I also have no problem saying that it appears that Meuller doesn't run a tight ship.

I would also point out that those people claiming simultaneously that the information is coming from Meuller's team (inside knowledge on the condition of anonymity) AND that Meuller runs a tight ship are incorrect in their assessment - those two claims are mutually exclusive.

ETA: You didn't snip the post unreasonably, but took it out of context. Sorry for the claim that you snipped it. Here is the relevant context.

No worries. I didn't think it was out of context for you and I (we know the context), and I don't think I implied a different context.

 

[Cabbage]

No matter how you cut it up though, 3/4 of those possible pairs suggest that the investigative team is NOT maintaining confidentiality.

This seems to be a meaningless statement. It implies a probability measure when in reality we do not know the frequency of any of the events.

Tomorrow, either the sun will rise or it won't. Two possibilities. Therefore, there is a 50% chance the sun will not rise.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Assuming this case, there's also that bit about a Presidential candidate and campaign criminally conspiring with a hostile foreign power, then conspiring to obstruct justice with the help of pet Congressmen and the cheerleading of major media like Fox. Would you find that of any concern? Hypothetically, of course.

Of course it's a concern. Generally speaking, I don't have any disagreement with an investigation occurring. I am getting a bit leery of this one, because it keeps mutating. It's been more than 9 months now that there has been speculation and allegations of conspiracy on the part of Trump's campaign, including Trump himself. We have information directly from Comey that Trump was NOT under investigation himself while Comey was in the FBI... but also an unwillingness to release that information to the media - which allowed the media to continue speculation of Trump's direct culpability. We have seen several different paths investigated, which have no yielded fruit. And when each path seems to reach a dead-end, a new path is tried instead.

If you keep digging long enough and hard enough, you will find something. It may not be related to any of the allegations that are under investigation... but it will uncover something. The method in which this topic has been fueled by supposed insiders has begun to feel like a witch hunt.

I understand that a lot of people really hate Trump. It begins to look like they hate him enough to disregard their principles, and to use any means they can to destroy him. I don't have that level of hate for anyone. I dislike Trump enormously... but not enough to abandon my values and my principles.

And at the end of the day, I really think this approach is a distraction. It works to our disadvantage, and to the advantage of Trump's staff. We should be focusing on his performance, and his apparent mental decline, his inability to be diplomatic, and his complete unsuitability as president. We should be focusing on the 2018 election cycle, and we should be reaching out to our various congresscritters. We should be pushing for a psychiatric and health evaluation to determine whether he is fit for the job. We should be taking steps to block the legislation that he is backing that is detrimental to the US. And yes, we should be investigating the extent of foreign (not just Russian) influence on our election process and determining ways to mitigate it in the future.

What we should NOT be doing, is turning the US presidency into the newest reality TV show, where the whole nation is sitting on the edge of their seats, drooling in anticipation of what new drama will unfold in this episode!

 

[Emily's Cat]

Seems EC also missed all the "lock her up" chanting and that freaking lynch mob of a Republican convention. But what is a real shocker in general is how the GOP utterly wilts and collapses in a whining fit anytime a smidgen of the medicine they've been ditching out comes back their way. Thought it was a tough guy party; guess not. <shudders>

Holy hell. I'm sorry I didn't supply you with an itemized and exhaustive list of everything that could fall under the category of discussion. Please, consider it all in there, and don't let that distract you from the point.

Honestly people. "Here's a serious concern, with significant impact to our democracy..." "OMG, I notice you didn't include *specific event A*" "Yeah, I see she also didn't include *significant event B*!" "Oh totally, her point is just completely ridiculous, because it doesn't include these specific things that we want included!"

<Sigh>

 

[Emily's Cat]

Are we not supposed to investigate accusations that clearly have a basis in fact?



You can't not investigate Russian collusion because there was another farce investigation that was designed to hurt a party. If we go by that, then we can't investigate any crime, any where, anymore because it might be only for show. I don't buy that at all.

You know, it would be really refreshing if you actually read posts with an open mind and full intention to engage, rather than picking out whichever parts make you feel like you're going to win the internet.

On the other hand... let's assume there is collusion. If we stop investigating too early, what do we leave ourselves open to in the future? Is this something that is likely to be repeated? Or has the increased attention done enough to help reduce that potentiality?

I don't know the answer to either of those. I do know that the first scenario is the one that I find more concerning, in the long run.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yes you did.

Here's a made-up example:

Accepted: Mr X was found with the murder weapon in his car and with his fingerprints on it.
Uncertain: That Mr X actually touched the murder weapon during the murder.

That basically means that what you've accepted is meaningless, since I just said that it doesn't mean Mr X committed the murder!

That's an asinine example. Nothing we have is nearly as solid as that. Don't conflate your made-up, clear and definitive evidence with the allegations and speculations in question here.

If you want to make up an example, at least make up one that is a wee bit closer to the truth. For example:

Accepted: A weapon was found in Mr. X's car, with Mr. X's fingerprints on it, and Mr. X has no alibi for the time of the murder.
Uncertain: Whether the weapon is the one used in the murder.

 

[Emily's Cat]

This seems to be a meaningless statement. It implies a probability measure when in reality we do not know the frequency of any of the events.

Tomorrow, either the sun will rise or it won't. Two possibilities. Therefore, there is a 50% chance the sun will not rise.

I did not intend to ascribe any degree of likelihood to any of those scenarios. I don't believe it was implied, although I do understand how you inferred it.

 

[phiwum]

phiwum, there is no inconsistency. Walk through this with me, if you will.

1) Unverified speculation is unverified. I don't accept that it is TRUE. I accept that the speculation has arisen and that someone has provided unverified information. I have no reference for the credibility of that information, thus I do not accept it as true, but neither do I assume it is false. Failure to accept as true is not the same as accepting as false. I have not made a decision that any of the information is false. It is simply not verified. It's in the category of plausible but uncertain.

2) Recognizing that a whole lot of supposedly confidential information has been provided to the media regarding this investigation is a separate issue. It is possible that all of it is completely made up by people with no actual knowledge. It's also possible that people with some knowledge have provided false, partial, or misleading information in order to shape the perception of events. It's also possible that the information is completely accurate. See item one above regarding lack of acceptance as true not meaning that I accept it as false. Either way, it has been claimed that the information came from inside sources, which would indicate that the ship is not tight.

Really, these are not dependent on one another, so there is no inconsistency, nor is there any contradiction. Consider the truth pairs possible:

1. The information came from inside Meuller's team AND the information is known true
2. The information came from inside AND the information is fabricated
3. The information came from outside Meuller's team AND the information is known true
4. The information came from outside AND the information is fabricated

Note that fabricated information isn't necessarily false - its truth is unknown by the provider of information. The information could be true, but the person providing it does not actually know. For example, I could make the claim that you have red hair. That claim is fabricated - I do not know what color your hair is. It is also possible that I'm correct by coincidence, and that you do have read hair... but the claim I made is still fabricated.

No matter how you cut it up though, 3/4 of those possible pairs suggest that the investigative team is NOT maintaining confidentiality.

For Items 1 and 2, if the information is coming from inside Meuller's team, then it's not a tight ship.

For Item 3, even if the information isn't being directly supplied by Meuller's team, it is being supplied by someone who received the information from Meuller's team... which also means it's not a tight ship.

Item 4 is the only possibility that would justify the claim that Meuller runs a tight ship... but that also leaves you in a position where the information is fabricated.

I have no problem saying that I have not accepted unverified speculation as true information. I also have no problem saying that it appears that Meuller doesn't run a tight ship.

I would also point out that those people claiming simultaneously that the information is coming from Meuller's team (inside knowledge on the condition of anonymity) AND that Meuller runs a tight ship are incorrect in their assessment - those two claims are mutually exclusive.


No worries. I didn't think it was out of context for you and I (we know the context), and I don't think I implied a different context.

No, you multiply possibilities unnecessarily by analyzing matters in terms of "known true" or "fabricated" in order to pretend that there are four options when there are two.

Either the sources are authoritative or they are not. You have chosen to presume they are not authoritative, like all anonymous sources. Very well, but then we cannot presume that they are indicative of leaks either! You can't very well agree that the information comes (directly or otherwise) from the investigation because the source says so while simultaneously dismissing the claims of the source because anonymous sources are unreliable.

Sorry, Cat, but you are being transparently inconsistent here. (There's also the issue that enumerating possibilities does not help in discovering probabilities and this is, indeed, a novice fallacy, but let's focus on other matters.)

 

[sts60]

Of course it's a concern. Generally speaking, I don't have any disagreement with an investigation occurring...

I'm glad to hear it. Seriously; we have a Presidential candidate who openly invited a hostile foreign intelligence service to commit cyberespionage against an American political party; whose climb out of financial wreckage was, by his son's own boasting, funded heavily by Russian interests, some plausibly linked with the Russian government and/or mobs; who's repeatedly praised the murderous kleptocrat in charge of Russia; who's repeatedly denigrated and denied the intelligence reports indicating deliberate Russian interference in our core democratic processes, and the agencies that produced them; and, by his own admission, fired the FBI director because of the FBI's investigation into such matters. Oh, yes, he's also surrounded by people who have repeatedly lied about their foreign contacts and entanglements on their clearance applications (that's a felony, dontchaknow).

I'm glad to hear that you are concerned about that, of course assuming that actual malfeasance in the appropriately strict legal terms is found.

 

[Giz]

"Introduced"?

You think this is something new? Congressional investigations?

Missed that whole Benghazi thing, I guess.

And Whitewater.

(Not to mention HUAC.)

So far, as Congressional investigations go, this one is small potatoes. Give it time. You don't have anything to complain about yet.

The standard set by Congressional Republicans most recently is two years, nine investigations, $7 million, all to exonerate Hillary.

Wait 'til we get in that range, then worry.

The correct response to having a HUAC precedent is not to say "now it's our turn".

 

[phiwum]

The correct response to having a HUAC precedent is not to say "now it's our turn".

Absolutely agree, though I'd say that the current situation deserves careful investigation. Not a witch hunt, but due concern.

 

[Giz]

Absolutely agree, though I'd say that the current situation deserves careful investigation. Not a witch hunt, but due concern.

Yes, and I'd agree with your addition!

 

[phiwum]

Yes, and I'd agree with your addition!

Wait, I was geared up for a fight. What now?

 

[Giz]

Wait, I was geared up for a fight. What now?

There might still be Russians out there!

 

[Beelzebuddy]

We have seen several different paths investigated, which have no yielded fruit. And when each path seems to reach a dead-end, a new path is tried instead.

You see this, right here? This is what people are complaining about. How do you know they have not yielded fruit? How do you know they are dead ends?

You've flipped from saying that we just can't possibly make any inferences at all over what the bare facts are, no matter how opprobrious they may appear, to concluding that the investigation is running into dead ends, presumably because you personally haven't heard the story in the news for a while.

I'm sure you can think of a good reason for your sudden abundance of credulity, but it doesn't escape anyone's notice that it happens along partisan lines.