Cont: All things Trump + Russia Part 3

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I think Flynn has traded contact with the Russians, this provides a safety net for the investigation that there is something there, but perhaps not collusion.

This seems unlikely. Proving contact hasn't exactly been difficult, as we've been seeing over the past year. And we know some of the things Flynn has admitted to that he hasn't been charged with, and they're more significant than what he has been charged with.

You don't offer that kind of avoidance of justice for proof of mere contact. Flynn likely had already convinced the investigation that he has something much more significant.

It may not be direct collusion, but it's definitely more than just contact.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Prove that is a strategy that prosecutors pursue and how often. Until you do, it is simply anecdote.

Well, he keeps being brought up in these threads because he's covering aspects of this case that nobody else is and in a way that nobody else is, and he's been doing it long enough that months after he's predicted things they have come to pass, so here's Seth Abramson again. From the day the news about Flynn broke and from a couple of weeks later.

And why Abramson knows what he's talking about when it comes to US law, how investigators build cases, and how prosecutors work:

A 2001 graduate of Harvard Law School, Seth worked for nearly a decade as a criminal defense attorney and criminal investigator, and is now a professor of Communication Arts & Sciences at University of New Hampshire. His several teaching areas include digital journalism, legal writing, and legal advocacy. Trained as a criminal investigator at Georgetown University (1996) and then the Harvard Criminal Justice Institute (2000-2001), Seth is a current member in good standing of the New Hampshire Bar and the Federal Bar for the District of New Hampshire. He has worked for three public defenders—two state, one federal—representing over 2,000 criminal defendants over that time in cases ranging from juvenile delinquency to first-degree murder.

 

[Zambo]

It may not be direct collusion, but

That's it

 

[BobTheCoward]

Well, he keeps being brought up in these threads because he's covering aspects of this case that nobody else is and in a way that nobody else is, and he's been doing it long enough that months after he's predicted things they have come to pass, so here's Seth Abramson again. From the day the news about Flynn broke and from a couple of weeks later.

And why Abramson knows what he's talking about when it comes to US law, how investigators build cases, and how prosecutors work:

All that leads me to think he has no clue how frequently prosecutors pursue which strategy. Human beings are notoriously bad at understanding the percentages of their activity. For example, doctors are unable to accurately assess their own c section rates.

Not to mention, criminal investigators do not use the appropriate skeptical and scientific methods. They employ crime scene investigation technology with no basis in science.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

All that leads me to think he has no clue how frequently prosecutors pursue which strategy. Human beings are notoriously bad at understanding the percentages of their activity. For example, doctors are unable to accurately assess their own c section rates.

Are you seriously saying that his expertise in these matters is what makes him ignorant of these matters? Presumably people without expertise in these matters wouldn't be an acceptable source because they don't have expertise in these matters. What would you consider a good source?

 

[CapelDodger]

@ Zambo *:

My conclusion was there is Russian interference, the rest was prediction.

Be sure to claim your Told You So points if you're right, you won't be credited automatically.

I think Flynn has traded contact with the Russians, this provides a safety net for the investigation that there is something there, but perhaps not collusion.

You say that as if the purpose of the investigation is to justify itself. It isn't. Its purpose - and Mueller's remit - is to find out what went on. Flynn has a lot to offer in that regard and will have been expertly squeezed for it.

Let's speculate that the Russian Oligarchs bought 100 × USD3 million condo units at a premium of 20%. Is it money laundering or an investment and is that amount enough to bring the President down?

It certainly ought to be. Who pays a premium on a poperty investment? Or do you mean a less substantial kind of investment, such as having something on Trump he wouldn't want known about?

It's about Trump fired Comey which could be obstruction of justice. Then Comey was weakened by the "leaker" jabs and time. We are left with an investigation that I predict fizzles out and we are left with let the voters decide with a second term or not.

If Trump fired Comey to obstruct the investigation it was obstruction of justice. The case for that isn't "weakened" by Trump's twitter jibes.

Trump said he fired Comey for his handling of the Clinton email server investigation, but he's said other stuff we know about and perhaps yet more stuff we don't know about but Flynn does.

One thing's for certain : Trump is getting very twitchy.


* (I find the Quote button doesn't work on some posts and never have worked out why not)

 

[BobTheCoward]

Are you seriously saying that his expertise in these matters is what makes him ignorant of these matters? Presumably people without expertise in these matters wouldn't be an acceptable source because they don't have expertise in these matters. What would you consider a good source?

Peer reviewed research.

An expert without research is no expert at all.

 

[WilliamSeger]

But Democrats pack themselves into a small area.

Suppose you set up a bunch of different methods to redistrict that did not consider party affiliation. Traditionally, this is by geography, compactness, and communities of interests. If you apply these principles, you will naturally pack Democrats into fewer districts.

Nope, that still doesn't compute. If districts are based on numbers, then geographic density doesn't matter because denser districts are just smaller. If Democrats are disproportionally concentrated in some districts (which is really what you're referring to), then the other districts will have disproportionally more Republicans. But if you define districts strictly by geographic proximity, compactness, and communities of interests, you will have districts that are fairly immune to the effects that can be artificially produced by gerrymandering.

Take a look at this Wikipedia illustration and assume that the green voters are Democrats geographically concentrated in cities. "Packing" is illustrated by the top right diagram, and it's what Democrats could do to win 60% of the districts even though they are a 40% minority: Without regard for geographic proximity, Republicans have been "packed" into districts where they have large majorities, but Democrats win more districts with small majorities. "Cracking" is illustrated in the top center diagram, where the urban area is deliberately split up and the small pieces and added to rural districts where they are outnumbered by Republicans, leaving Democrats no districts at all instead of their fair share of 40%. The bottom two diagrams are more like what would happen without such engineering.

As to the electoral college, if an electoral vote was proportional to population like it was in the 1790s and early 1800s, it would create outcomes more likely to mirror a democratic result.

Again, nope, not unless you drop the two extra electoral votes each state gets. That's the source of the unequal representation.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Again, nope, not unless you drop the two extra electoral votes each state gets. That's the source of the unequal representation.

You can set the size of the house such that the electoral college is proportional with those two specific ones factored in. It is a variant of the Wyoming rule.

 

[WilliamSeger]

* (I find the Quote button doesn't work on some posts and never have worked out why not)

I have that problem with Firefox but not Chrome, IE, or Edge. Firefox also seems to have other Javascript and plugin issues, and after the last release where most of my favorite plugins aren't supported, I'm about ready to abandon Firefox. It was nice back when IE was a clunker, but times have changed.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Peer reviewed research.

And do you know of any?

An expert without research is no expert at all.

This is equivocation. Abramson has, of course, done research. He's researched the subject by learning about it at Harvard, participating in it for over a decade, and now teaching it. If you think that the law department of Harvard doesn't teach its students what the standard procedure for prosecuting a case is, then you're dreaming. What do you think they do teach them?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I have that problem with Firefox but not Chrome, IE, or Edge. Firefox also seems to have other Javascript and plugin issues, and after the last release where most of my favorite plugins aren't supported, I'm about ready to abandon Firefox. It was nice back when IE was a clunker, but times have changed.

Since opening any page with any kind of script on it appears to make Firefox disappear down a memory hole, and the next update (which I haven't yet installed) is likely to make a whole bunch of extensions obsolete, I might be joining you in an exodus. I just don't know what I'm going to change to. I hate Chrome and have disliked Edge the times I've used it (and I'm wary of being more reliant on Microsoft than I have to be).

Anyway, that seems like a discussion for another thread, so I won't derail this one further.

 

[WilliamSeger]

You can set the size of the house such that the electoral college is proportional with those two specific ones factored in. It is a variant of the Wyoming rule.

That's a convoluted solution to an artificial problem, when you could just drop the two extra votes. Better yet, go by national popular vote.

 

[BobTheCoward]

That's a convoluted solution to an artificial problem, when you could just drop the two extra votes. Better yet, go by national popular vote.

Which is why I described it with a lukewarm "fine."

 

[Zambo]

@ Zambo *:


Be sure to claim your Told You So points if you're right, you won't be credited automatically.


You say that as if the purpose of the investigation is to justify itself. It isn't. Its purpose - and Mueller's remit - is to find out what went on. Flynn has a lot to offer in that regard and will have been expertly squeezed for it.


It certainly ought to be. Who pays a premium on a poperty investment? Or do you mean a less substantial kind of investment, such as having something on Trump he wouldn't want known about?

If Trump fired Comey to obstruct the investigation it was obstruction of justice. The case for that isn't "weakened" by Trump's twitter jibes.

One thing's for certain : Trump is getting very twitchy.

Told you so is of no interest to me, but I do worry when I see people sidetracked by a non critical story.

My suggestion is that the truth is hard to determine and that this investigation does end up in an exercise of justifying itself.

On the Russian Oligarchs I was responding to a post that suggested money laundering. I did a simple calculation to show the scale is not there to chase after. Look at all the foreign buyers of condo units in USA and consider where their money comes from. We don't know but money laundering might be difficult to prove.

The strength for Comey is his honesty and believability. Rightly or wrongly that is weakened by the "leaker" accusations.

Is Trump getting "twitchy"?

 

[BobTheCoward]

And do you know of any?



This is equivocation. Abramson has, of course, done research. He's researched the subject by learning about it at Harvard, participating in it for over a decade, and now teaching it. If you think that the law department of Harvard doesn't teach its students what the standard procedure for prosecuting a case is, then you're dreaming. What do you think they do teach them?

They teach them how to be great lawyers. Since being a good lawyer is not dependent on good science (as shown by willingness to use forensic evidence that does not withstand scientific scrutiny), we should not trust their ability to reach accurate conclusions of probability.

 

[BobTheCoward]

That's a convoluted solution to an artificial problem, when you could just drop the two extra votes. Better yet, go by national popular vote.

Even better, have state legislatures choose the electors.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

They teach them how to be great lawyers. Since being a good lawyer is not dependent on good science (as shown by willingness to use forensic evidence that does not withstand scientific scrutiny), we should not trust their ability to reach accurate conclusions of probability.

You don't think part of teaching someone to be a good lawyer is teaching them how to build and prosecute a case?

This is stupid.

Being British, I can drive a manual (what Americans would call "stick"). I learnt how to do that by being taught. If I say that in order to change gears you have to depress the clutch, would you doubt me because I've not read any peer-reviewed research on the subject? Would you say that my opinion has less value than someone who's never driven a manual because the fact that I change gears in a manual means that I don't know how to change gears in a manual?

Of course you wouldn't, because it would be a patently ridiculous thing to say. But that's what you're saying about Abramson. Because he's been taught how to build and prosecute a case, he doesn't know how to build and prosecute a case.

It doesn't become a non-ridiculous thing to say because we're talking about the law rather than driving a car.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Even better, have state legislatures choose the electors.

That's probably the worst idea I've ever heard. That would make the Presidential election as subject to gerrymandering (and therefore as undemocratic) as the House is now. Trump would have won by an actual landslide even though more citizens wanted Clinton.

 

[BobTheCoward]

That's probably the worst idea I've ever heard. That would make the Presidential election as subject to gerrymandering (and therefore as undemocratic) as the House is now. Trump would have won by an actual landslide even though more citizens wanted Clinton.

So?