Cont: All things Trump + Russia Part 3

[BobTheCoward]

That is beside the point. We are not speculating about the best approach to determine the truth in the light of obstruction - something that is not amenable to peer review anyway. We are speculating why an investigator with experience of investigating organised criminals is bringing lesser charges than he could against Flynn. Pointing out that this is how the FBI typically operates against organised criminals says nothing about whether this is the best approach.

If you want to discuss whether this is the best approach, that would be a derail, but given that the aim is to find out what happened, and the fact that this has worked in persuading lesser criminals to provide evidence against greater criminals, it does seem effective.

I'm not arguing what is the best approach. I'm arguing that without a study on what the FBI does, we don't actually know that the FBI does what they say. The claims they do X is anecdote.


ETA: the first piece you quoted was not an argument about quality of work. It was an example of how you can be a good prosecutor while having unreasonable positions not supported by evidence. That is why claims by an attorney that attorneys do X carries little weight. They suffer from the same biases as everyone else.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

From the Bill Moyer's link, this is worth reviewing:

1980: Roger Stone founds a lobbying practice with Paul Manafort, who is a childhood friend. Trump becomes one of Stone’s first clients. In the 1980s, Trump hires Manafort as a lobbyist on gambling and real-estate issues. By 1988, Stone is one of Trump’s closest advisers.

Didn't Trump make a big deal trying to distance himself from Manafort?

Remember, Manafort is charged with money laundering.

David Bogatin, a 38-year-old former Soviet Army pilot and Russian émigré who arrived in America seven years earlier with just $3 in his pocket, pays $6 million for five condominium units in a luxurious new Manhattan high-rise, Trump Tower. At the time, Russian mobsters were beginning to invest in high-end US real estate as a way to launder money from their criminal enterprises.

Knee deep in the Big Muddy but the big fool says to push on:

1987: In connection with Trump’s request to build a new casino in Sydney, Australia, the New South Wales Police Board issues its confidential report on whether Trump has the required “sound repute, probity and integrity” for the project. The report discourages working with Trump, bringing up Trump’s ties to the Mafia.

1991: Trump Is Deep in Debt
In the opening episode of The Apprentice on Jan. 8, 2004, Trump says, “About 13 years ago, I was seriously in trouble. I was billions of dollars in debt.”

Waist deep in the Big Muddy and the old fool said to push on.

In 1996, Trump visits Moscow with his longtime friend Howard Lorber, an American businessman who, according to Trump, has significant investments in Russia. There, the two men scout potential locations for a major Trump project.

“We are actually looking at something in Moscow right now,” Trump tells The New Yorker a few months later. “And it would be skyscrapers and hotels, not casinos… And we’re working with the local government, the mayor of Moscow and the mayor’s people. So far, they’ve been very responsive.”

The same year as that visit — 1996 — Trump applies for his trademark in Russia. Discussing ambitions for a Trump hotel in 2007, he declares, “We will be in Moscow at some point.”

Trump has been involved with the Russian mafia and Russian oligarchs for decades. It is absurd for Trump to say he has no Russia connections. He's neck deep.

 

[jimbob]

I'm not arguing what is the best approach. I'm arguing that without a study on what the FBI does, we don't actually know that the FBI does what they say. The claims they do X is anecdote.


ETA: the first piece you quoted was not an argument about quality of work. It was an example of how you can be a good prosecutor while having unreasonable positions not supported by evidence. That is why claims by an attorney that attorneys do X carries little weight. They suffer from the same biases as everyone else.

Er. We have evidence that the FBI uses this strategy from every organised crime trial with plea-bargains where the lesser criminals plead guilty to lesser charges in return for giving evidence against their criminal superiors.

You would be right if we were arguing that this is the only strategy that the FBI pursued or that this was the only strategy that Muller was using, but nobody is saying this.

Some techniques are, by their nature, obvious to the public once they are used. Plea bargains are like this.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Er. We have evidence that the FBI uses this strategy from every organised crime trial with plea-bargains where the lesser criminals plead guilty to lesser charges in return for giving evidence against their criminal superiors.

You would be right if we were arguing that this is the only strategy that the FBI pursued or that this was the only strategy that Muller was using, but nobody is saying this.

Some techniques are, by their nature, obvious to the public once they are used. Plea bargains are like this.

Or confirmation bias is affecting our ability to put that into context and thinking it is more often used as part of a strategy rather than "the best we can get."

 

[jimbob]

Or confirmation bias is affecting our ability to put that into context and thinking it is more often used as part of a strategy rather than "the best we can get."

You are making no sense. The FBI uses plea bargains. We have court transcripts demonstrating this. That is a strategy that is fairly easy to understand -it is not a difficult concept, and it is obviously used.

Whether it is the best strategy is a different question.

Whether it is the best understanding for what is happening in this investigation is a reasonable question. There is sufficient evidence in the public domain that the FBI are using this strategy - the court dispositions show this, and explaining that Papadopolous has been cooperating, for example.


Scepticism does not require one to reject everything out of hand. If there is a simple explanation that fits with the known facts, and no reason to believe otherwise, it is reasonable to work on the assumption that this is the correct explanation unless contrary evidence comes to light.

 

[BobTheCoward]

You are making no sense. The FBI uses plea bargains. We have court transcripts demonstrating this. That is a strategy that is fairly easy to understand -it is not a difficult concept, and it is obviously used.

Whether it is the best strategy is a different question.

Whether it is the best understanding for what is happening in this investigation is a reasonable question. There is sufficient evidence in the public domain that the FBI are using this strategy - the court dispositions show this, and explaining that Papadopolous has been cooperating, for example.


Scepticism does not require one to reject everything out of hand. If there is a simple explanation that fits with the known facts, and no reason to believe otherwise, it is reasonable to work on the assumption that this is the correct explanation unless contrary evidence comes to light.

I never argued they didn't use plea bargains. I'm arguing that the assumptions made here about their use to gather greater evidence are not appropriate.

For federal charges, 8% are dismissed, 2.8% go to trial. 89% are plea bargained. Of course they are not all used to make better cases against bigger fish. To assume it was a strategy of gathering more evidence is not something we can know without diving into that 89% further. And the words of a former prosecutor are not helpful.

As to your claim of skepticism. It is completely unreasonable to operate under that assumption. There is simply no reason for anyone posting in this thread to operate under any assumptions on this issue.

 

[calebprime]

You are making no sense. The FBI uses plea bargains. We have court transcripts demonstrating this. That is a strategy that is fairly easy to understand -it is not a difficult concept, and it is obviously used.

Whether it is the best strategy is a different question.

Whether it is the best understanding for what is happening in this investigation is a reasonable question. There is sufficient evidence in the public domain that the FBI are using this strategy - the court dispositions show this, and explaining that Papadopolous has been cooperating, for example.


Scepticism does not require one to reject everything out of hand. If there is a simple explanation that fits with the known facts, and no reason to believe otherwise, it is reasonable to work on the assumption that this is the correct explanation unless contrary evidence comes to light.

Bob never said he was trying to make sense or that anyone should care if he does.

 

[beren]

Bob never said he was trying to make sense or that anyone should care if he does.

There is a term for someone who posts things on a serious message board that are not supposed to make sense or be cared about.

Someone who interrupts a serious discussion with things even he doesn't claim make sense, or who interrupts a serious discussion to say things not meant to be believed or considered even though they are written in a style and form indistinguishable from serious contributions- how is that not the epitome of being a troll?

 

[Trebuchet]

Bob never said he was trying to make sense or that anyone should care if he does.

There is a term for someone who posts things on a serious message board that are not supposed to make sense or be cared about.

Someone who interrupts a serious discussion with things even he doesn't claim make sense, or who interrupts a serious discussion to say things not meant to be believed or considered even though they are written in a style and form indistinguishable from serious contributions- how is that not the epitome of being a troll?

He's not doing it by himself.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Someone who interrupts a serious discussion with things even he doesn't claim make sense, or who interrupts a serious discussion to say things not meant to be believed or considered even though they are written in a style and form indistinguishable from serious contributions- how is that not the epitome of being a troll?

I am not self deluded. I know the limits of my ability to communicate effectively and the limits of having people consider your opinions. I scale my expectations appropriately. The height of audacity is to claim your argument makes sense and that you expect people to consider it.

 

[beren]

I am not self deluded. I know the limits of my ability to communicate effectively and the limits of having people consider your opinions. I scale my expectations appropriately. The height of audacity is to claim your argument makes sense and that you expect people to consider it.

The height of audacity is to speak when you yourself don't think your argument makes sense.
The the height of audacity is to interrupt a conversation to pay things you don't expect people to even consider.
Seriously, why are you here? If your comments aren't meant to be sensical and aren't expected to be considered, what purpose do they serve other than to troll?

Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

 

[BobTheCoward]

The height of audacity is to speak when you yourself don't think your argument makes sense.
The the height of audacity is to interrupt a conversation to pay things you don't expect people to even consider.
Seriously, why are you here? If your comments aren't meant to be sensical and aren't expected to be considered, what purpose do they serve other than to troll?

Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

People's comments here are nonsensical and haven't earned an expectation to be considered (most things cant earn expectation of consideration outside of things like your boss or spouse). I'm not going to pretend I'm exceptional.

 

[beren]

People's comments here are nonsensical and haven't earned an expectation to be considered (most things cant earn expectation of consideration outside of things like your boss or spouse). I'm not going to pretend I'm exceptional.

Poppycock.

 

[Craig4]

I am not self deluded. I know the limits of my ability to communicate effectively and the limits of having people consider your opinions. I scale my expectations appropriately. The height of audacity is to claim your argument makes sense and that you expect people to consider it.

It's not your ability to communicate that is the problem. You fail because your ideas are immoral. If you could communicate better it wouldn't matter because what you are communicating is base, vile and despicable. No amount of communication will make what you believe moral. I know you don't believe your ideas are immoral but that doesn't stop them from being so.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Or confirmation bias is affecting our ability to put that into context and thinking it is more often used as part of a strategy rather than "the best we can get."

The Plea Bargain must be taken in context with the Investigation, such a leniant sentence, and the Fact Flynn is cooperating with Mueller, Imply that Flynn is turning over providing evidence on someone higher up.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Now, here is some of the empirical stuff

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...+geography+and+electoral+bias+in+legislatures

Okay, I'm convinced, at least for computer-generated districts based only on contiguity and compactness. But that doesn't mean it's unavoidable for manually constructed districts. What that implies is that redistricting laws or rules should also consider proportional representation as a goal, and it should be more important than compactness.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Okay, I'm convinced, at least for computer-generated districts based only on contiguity and compactness. But that doesn't mean it's unavoidable for manually constructed districts. What that implies is that redistricting laws or rules should also consider proportional representation as a goal, and it should be more important than compactness.

I guess it depends on if a district should be an arbitrary construct only to serve for election goals or it should be a "community of interest." As your article mentions making districts of urban, suburban, and rural in the same district, it is making a purposeful effort to not group urban groups together.

Of course, none of this matters if a state went with party list elections.

 

[Childlike Empress]

The Guardian propagandist Luke Harding went on The Real News to talk about his new book "Collusion". I posted a critical review last week. I don't think it was a good idea for Luke to go where real journalists, not "story-tellers" live, but maybe it looks differently from another perspective. Half an hour:

 

[WilliamSeger]

The Guardian propagandist Luke Harding went on The Real News to talk about his new book "Collusion". I posted a critical review last week. I don't think it was a good idea for Luke to go where real journalists, not "story-tellers" live, but maybe it looks differently from another perspective. Half an hour:

Skeptics demand evidence; so do pseudo-skeptics but they ignore it. We don't know (yet) what TrumpCo is trying so desperately to hide, but the circumstantial evidence keeps piling up:

Interactive Timeline: Everything We Know About Russia and President Trump

So this is unsurprising:AP poll: Most Americans believe Trump did something illegal or unethical with Russia

Most people believe Trump is trying to obstruct the investigations, which have resulted in charges against four of his campaign advisers and increasingly appear focused on the president's inner circle.

Four in 10 Americans think the president has done something illegal when it comes to Russia, while an additional 3 in 10 say he's at least done something unethical. And 68 percent disapprove of his response to the investigations.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Skeptics demand evidence; so do pseudo-skeptics but they ignore it. We don't know (yet) what TrumpCo is trying so desperately to hide, but the circumstantial evidence keeps piling up:

Interactive Timeline: Everything We Know About Russia and President Trump

So this is unsurprising:AP poll: Most Americans believe Trump did something illegal or unethical with Russia

You talk about circumstantial evidence is piling up because you lack direct evidence or strong circumstantial evidence. It would be real nice if you could present that.