Mueller Investigation pt4

Status
Not open for further replies.
Belz... said:
Every principle has exceptions. Principles are complex things that are made more complex by their interactions and interlocking hierarchies. You know this, of course, since you seem to be otherwise functional in real life. The only way you can make the claims that you make here is by deliberately ignoring that, which makes your contributions dishonest.
Click to expand...

I didn't say principles don't have exceptions. I said you didn't seem to articulate one.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Is there anything about an admission that exempts it from the burden of proof as a claim?
Click to expand...

This kind of self-incriminating slip-up creates an exception from the Hearsay-rule, and might well be admissible in related cases.
It is much more than just an unsubstantiated claim from a purely legal POV.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Rejecting a claim does not mean accepting the opposite. You simply reject both claims.
Click to expand...

We all know that this line of reasoning of yours ends in a reductio ad absurdum in which no one can know anything and that making any judgement about anything ever is pointless.
 
https://twitter.com/rgoodlaw/status/1082999560572727297

With bombshell of Manafort passing campaign polling data to Russians

CNN ‘17: intel agencies intercepted Russian agents discuss “efforts to work with Manafort…to coordinate info that could damage Hillary Clinton’s election prospect… Manafort encouraging help from the Russians”
Click to expand...

Relevant portion of article embedded in tweet.

Remember last year (or was it the year before?) when it was reported that Trump was telling people privately that his biggest worry was Manafort flipping on him?
 
“Admission against the interest”, bud. This means the defendant’s claim is presumed to be true.
 
Senator Langford said:
"This is an ongoing relationship that Manafort had...I don't see this as deliberate contact w/Russia"
Click to expand...
That's some grade-A political BS logic right there.

If Trump hires a guy with a lifelong history of contacts with shady characters, then contacts with the shady characters isn't collusion because they aren't *new* shady characters?
 
BobTheCoward said:
They unredacted a claim. Claims come with a burden of proof to be accepted. That burden of proof is satisfied with evidence. There isn't evidence presented by Mueller that it is true.

ETA: manafort would also have to present evidence on his claim that he gave polling data.
Click to expand...

It was not a claim made by Mueller. It was an admission of a fact being made by Manafort's lawyers.
 
Stacyhs said:
Do we know when Manafort did this? Was it during his time as the campaign chairman?
Click to expand...

I read somewhere that it wasn't generic polling data. It was polling data by more than "who do you want to be president", by income, state, county, precinct, whatever. It would allow Russia to target specific blocks of people.
 
BobTheCoward said:
If there is an exemption to the principle of a claim having a burden of proof, you don't seem to be articulating it.
Click to expand...

Context, my dear Bob, context.

We know that Muller was unhappy with Manafort's level of cooperation. Therefore it is not a stretch to believe that Manfort was not cooperating. Therefore, if he admitted to a charge, it's pretty likely that Muller has got sufficient evidence to convict without Manfort's help or that it was a bone Manafort threw to Muller to try keeping him away from something more serious.

It is a piece of the jigsaw that is consistent with what we know, and is highly damaging to Manafort but presented by Manafort. You should be looking out for what evidence would now be needed to overturn that.
 
jimbob said:
Context, my dear Bob, context.

We know that Muller was unhappy with Manafort's level of cooperation. Therefore it is not a stretch to believe that Manfort was not cooperating. Therefore, if he admitted to a charge, it's pretty likely that Muller has got sufficient evidence to convict without Manfort's help or that it was a bone Manafort threw to Muller to try keeping him away from something more serious.

It is a piece of the jigsaw that is consistent with what we know, and is highly damaging to Manafort but presented by Manafort. You should be looking out for what evidence would now be needed to overturn that.
Click to expand...

But we are not the ones asserting that the event occurred. That is manafort and Mueller to present what you just wrote. The scientific method isn't "here is my claim, you go figure it out." Nothing you wrote discharges their burden.
 
BobTheCoward said:
But we are not the ones asserting that the event occurred. That is manafort and Mueller to present what you just wrote. The scientific method isn't "here is my claim, you go figure it out." Nothing you wrote discharges their burden.
Click to expand...
Your opinions on what does and does not constitute proper skepticism here in the socio-political domain are best ignored for two reasons, the least of which is it leads to the thread being, well, you know by now the verb that goes here. The other reason is how disassociated your rigid concepts are from how critical thinkers should evaluate /weigh evidence. And no, I don't intend to explain further, nor do I solicit a reply from you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom