Cont: Mueller Investigation pt3

[P.J. Denyer]

Jon Sopell Sky News reporter is tearing his hair out that Trump is not shy about verbally bashing foreign leaders (May, Macron, et al) yet never utters a bad word against Putin.

This was a news item tonight about Trump postponing his visit to Putin coincidentally just as Cohen 'fessed up to lying to Congress.

This would be the Jon Sopel one 'l') who is actually North America Editor for the BBC?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/correspondents/jonsopel

 

[The Big Dog]

Then he should talk about all the times he did it.

I can think of two reasons why that does not make sense, why don't you noodle through the issue and let me know if you can apply skeptical principles to your own claims!

Should be fun.

 

[dudalb]

You can make the case that in many ways this has gone beyond collusion to borderline, if not out and out, treason.
The nickname "Benedict Donald" fits more then ever.

 

[dudalb]

With the latest revelations, I think morally if not legally, it has gone from collusion to borderline treason.
The nickname Benedict Donald fits more then ever.

 

[Paul2]

Well, he is a former US Assistant Attorney and now focuses on federal criminal defense, and is considered an expert, so arguments from incredulity don't exactly move the big dog.

An argument from authority has its pitfalls, but is not totally worthless. I was looking for something more empirical. But see below.

And it bears noting that he did link to backup, including but not limited to the Barry Bonds case, but our correspondent sees no back up....

I didn't check the Barry Bonds case, as it applies to only the link's author's points, which I'm happy to grant for the sake of argument.

But the other link, to the National Review article, is much better written. Here's the money quote:

Hence, federal agents interrogating people always ask some questions as to which they already have irrefutable proof, hoping that the target will lie and hand the feds an easy conviction.

What are the pros and cons of this practice?

The other issue, of course, is that this doesn't really apply to the case of Trump, in which case Trump has not been woken up and immediately interrogated (as in the anecdote at the beginning of the N.R. article). If ever there was a situation that would minimize if not reduce the likelihood of being manipulated into lying, it's Trump's. He had plenty of time, had professional advice at the highest level, and because Trump is working at the highest level (being the leader of the free world [gasp]), can be reasonably expected to function at the level, and so should be held to the standard of telling the actual, real, truth. For once.

ETA: remove, not reduce the likelihood of being manipulated

 

[jimbob]

You have no evidence that there was a political guarantee.

Did you spot the word "probably"?

 

[Segnosaur]

Re: Trump's statement about a him offering no money and no guarantees with regard to building a tower in Moscow

8 probably true if you limit it to financial guarantees, not political.

You have no evidence that there was a political guarantee.

Actually we do have evidence. We have Trump's actions since becoming president where he has consistently gone "easy" on Russia.

Now, admittedly it is very circumstantial, and it is weak. But it is still evidence. (What we don't have is proof.) But if this ever did make it to court, I suspect that prosecutors may use Trump's failure to deal with Russian transgressions as part of the "guarantees" that were made.

 

[dudalb]

Interesting parrelles between Bendict Arnold's maneuvering to get command of the garrison at West Point for the express purpose of selling it to the British, and the possibility that Trump main purpose in seeking political power was to use it to further his obsession with setting up business in Russia.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

There is some confusion in the news about Junior's testimony. He referred to the Agalarov project separately from the Moscow project in question. But he still lied about it.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Actually we do have evidence. We have Trump's actions since becoming president where he has consistently gone "easy" on Russia.

Now, admittedly it is very circumstantial, and it is weak. But it is still evidence. (What we don't have is proof.) But if this ever did make it to court, I suspect that prosecutors may use Trump's failure to deal with Russian transgressions as part of the "guarantees" that were made.

There are also the denials of thinks we now know are true and the defense has morphed to assertions that what was done was not illegal.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Actually we do have evidence. We have Trump's actions since becoming president where he has consistently gone "easy" on Russia.

Now, admittedly it is very circumstantial, and it is weak. But it is still evidence. (What we don't have is proof.) But if this ever did make it to court, I suspect that prosecutors may use Trump's failure to deal with Russian transgressions as part of the "guarantees" that were made.

I'm not sure that is evidence. I think those are just premises. The issue is one of a quid pro quo. You have the quid (the property) and the quo (going easy on Russia). Those are two premises that are essential for a quid pro quo. But their mere existence is not evidence in support of the "pro."

If I argued that Mayans built the Egyptian pyramids, and I present that they Mayans and the Egyptian pyramids exist, I have presented no evidence they built them. I have only established the most basic requirements.

 

[dudalb]

There is some confusion in the news about Junior's testimony. He referred to the Agalarov project separately from the Moscow project in question. But he still lied about it.

Yup, look as if Fredo is headed for an indictment.....

 

[The Shrike]

Well, he is a former US Assistant Attorney and now focuses on federal criminal defense, and is considered an expert, so arguments from incredulity don't exactly move the big dog.

Appeal to authority no worries, though?

And it bears noting that he did link to backup, including but not limited to the Barry Bonds case, but our correspondent sees no back up....

Here's something really important that y'all are wrong about.
Really?
Yeah, really.
How so?
Here's a link that explains how, so I'm off the hook from explaining it even though I'm the one making the unsupported claim.
Your link, in fact, does not explain that.
Yeah, but there's a link in that link . . .

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Very cool is kinda weird.

Repeating pattern:

I didn't do it.
I did it but it wasn't illegal.​

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Just a small bit of extra information, but it's being reported that emails show that Ivanka Trump suggested the architect for Trump Tower Moscow

 

[Lurch]

Repeating pattern:

I didn't do it.
I did it but it wasn't illegal.​

Soon of density and regularity to begin to resemble a moire pattern.

 

[Giordano]

Repeating pattern:

I didn't do it.
I did it but it wasn't illegal.​

Just like the legendary defense in court against an accusation that the defendant's dog bit a neighbor:

My dog is incredibly friendly - he would never bite anyone. He doesn't even have any teeth. We keep him muzzled and chained all the time. And I don't even have a dog...

 

[Aridas]

Actually we do have evidence. We have Trump's actions since becoming president where he has consistently gone "easy" on Russia.

Now, admittedly it is very circumstantial, and it is weak. But it is still evidence. (What we don't have is proof.) But if this ever did make it to court, I suspect that prosecutors may use Trump's failure to deal with Russian transgressions as part of the "guarantees" that were made.

More than that, when many, if not most, of his foreign policy choices seem to end up benefiting foreign countries to the expense of the US (especially, but not limited to Russia), that's some evidence right there. When Trump and a bunch of the people closest to him can be reliably counted on to try to fulfill Russian requests (sanction removal and ending SK military exercises for a couple of the more egregious examples), that's evidence. It's certainly true that those things aren't direct poof, though. It just means that the chances are at "extremely high," when combined with all the rest of the relevant information.

I'm not sure that is evidence. I think those are just premises. The issue is one of a quid pro quo. You have the quid (the property) and the quo (going easy on Russia). Those are two premises that are essential for a quid pro quo. But their mere existence is not evidence in support of the "pro."

If I argued that Mayans built the Egyptian pyramids, and I present that they Mayans and the Egyptian pyramids exist, I have presented no evidence they built them. I have only established the most basic requirements.

Mmm. If facts are taken in isolation, you do have a bit of a point. On the other hand, we've got plenty to indicate the "pro," too. From the numerous lies that fairly consistently keep changing in that direction when publicly shown to be false to the numerous documented attempts by Russia to make it happen to the stuff like Jr.'s "I love it" that shows clear intent... there's more than enough to pass the bar for "reasonable doubt."

 

[Sideroxylon]

Just like the legendary defense in court against an accusation that the defendant's dog bit a neighbor:

My dog is incredibly friendly - he would never bite anyone. He doesn't even have any teeth. We keep him muzzled and chained all the time. And I don't even have a dog...

And if I did, the neighbor was on my property and provoked it. And besides their cat ran a private email server while in office.

 

[The Shrike]

Just a small bit of extra information, but it's being reported that emails show that Ivanka Trump suggested the architect for Trump Tower Moscow

Good heavens, the sweet irony of the butthurt that could ensue should emails be the thing that topples the Trump crime family.