Data Comparisons

New thread: Not interesting.

1,001 Comments

Too many comments on the old post. We need a new thread. I could write a lot of stuff… I could be nice… I could be mean…. This is mostly just to create a a new thread.

So anyway, last May something happened that sent me hunting out a new dance studio. This resulted in great things. It’s more fun. I’m dancing better. My “old” pro moved to the new studio. I have a “new” pro. ( For reference: ‘amateurs’ can dance ‘pro-am’. So one’s ‘pro’ is often ones teacher.)

But now for the (slightly) mean part…

Today, I posted that I learned a new-to-me word on facebook. The word was “autochthenous”. Yeah… Yeah,… you and Steve Mosher… You all already knew this word. I get it. I’m slow.

So, after I posted the word, this guy who dances at the new studio, who I have actually met and who is my “friend” on facebook decides to “messenger” out of the blue. The first line in his schpiel is this:

Good to know that you read.

Uhmmm… Good to know I can read?!! Yeah. I know I’m cute as a button, but yes, I can read.

I didn’t previously know that word. But I’m not actually illiterate!!!

He continued:

Here is a proposal:
(1) I will give you an autographed copy of my last book (worth $1M),
(2) you will buy the e-book ($3.99), and
(3) post a book review (100 words).

Why (2)? With it, your (3) will have “verified purchase), thus staying on top. Deal? You can read the 1st 56 pages on-line, FREE (by clicking “Look inside”). Enjoy!

My first reaction was “Oy!? An insult followed by a sales pitch? In which he asks me to not only spend $3.99 on his book but afterwards craft 100 words for him!?!?

And I get what?! Does he think there is something in this for me?!

Anyway, I decided to string him out… I’d post the rest of the exchange, but that would be boring. Possibly mean as he is not here to defend himself.

I’ll leave most of the exchange to your imagination. I see this guy in person so I remained polite.

Open thread.

Oh… btw… To provide a “continuation” relative to the previous post, I think there is going to be an “No Compete” contract issue arising in the relative vicinity of the dance studio.

Nothing to do with the book-selling gguy who thinks I might be illiterate . . . Just stuff I’ve noticed and overheard. (I’m pretty sure studio owner will be ethically in the right. That’s not to say a court case will pan out that way. It will depend on working of the contract.)

Yes. Open thread. We can continue on all the other stuff and I’ll close the previous thread.

1,001 thoughts on “New thread: Not interesting.”

  1. That doesn't say "detection from 1950'". It says "have been detected throughout the climate system". You're reading comprehension leaves something to be desired.

  2. Ed Forbs,
    It would help if you would directly answer a few simple questions.
    .
    1) Do you believe human activities are responsible for rising atmospheric CO2 since the mid 1800s?
    2) Do you believe increases in methane, NO2, (since the mid 1800s) and halocarbon gases (since their introduction in the 20th century) are due to human activities?
    3) Do you believe that warming due to increases in atmospheric GHGs should be proportional (at least roughly) to the radiative forcing those GHGs impose?
    .
    As far as I can tell, you have avoided stating clearly what you think about those three questions. I am unsure how to discuss technical subjects with you if you will not state your understanding of the basic technical issues.

  3. .IPCC: "are extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century."

    That does not mean that there was no anthropogenic warming before 1950. It does not mean that anthropogenic warming was not the dominant cause of warming then. It does not mean that they can't be sure that there was anthropogenic warming prior to 1950. It only means that they can't be confident that anthropogenic warming was the dominant cause of warming before 1950.

    They do say that there were no detectable secondary effects prior to 1950. Those are very much harder to detect than warming itself. So the inability to detect those secondary changes those not mean there was no warming. I am skeptical of most of the claims of secondary effects since 1950.

  4. The US EPA has ruled that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is not a carcinogen and manufacturers may not include a cancer warning on their labels ( https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-takes-action-provide-accurate-risk-information-consumers-stop-false-labeling ). I'm betting that judges will not allow this to be presented as evidence to juries in the thousands of civil suits against Bayer, which owns Monsanto.

    California is, of course, moving to list glyphosate as a known carcinogen under their Proposition 65 banner. Of course the State of California also knows that crystalline silica, otherwise known as sand, also causes cancer. They put big red warning labels to that effect on bags of sand at hardware stores. I haven't been to a beach in CA for some time, but I'm betting there aren't Prop. 65 warnings at the CA beaches.

  5. DeWitt Payne (Comment #176065): "The US EPA has ruled that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is not a carcinogen"

    Good news! Sanity from a government agency is always welcome. Doubly so when the agency is the EPA.

    I suppose it is too much to expect similar sanity from the courts. California, of course, is a lost cause.

  6. DeWitt,
    “Of course the State of California also knows that crystalline silica, otherwise known as sand, also causes cancer.”
    .
    Falls under the general category of boundless stupidity. Multicellular life leads to cancer, the price one pays for not being a one cell animal. California needs to let it go.

  7. Lucia:

    Another possible reading of his statement is that your use of a big word implied that you read, and perhaps read a lot. It could be construed as a compliment. Then he tried to get you (as a big reader) to read his book and write a review, to help his book sales.

    In other words he might not have been implying you cannot read (at all) – but in fact that he was impressed with your vocabulary knowledge.

    On the other hand – he might mean what you thought. I just wanted to let you know there are other ways to construe his sentence.

  9. RickA,
    I assumed he didn't *mean* to suggest I couldn't read. He doesn't seem the sort to be intentionally rude. I just had to laugh given that it sort of scanned that way and was followed by what was– like it or not– a request I (a) buy something from him and (b) do him a favor of posting a review. I didn't confront him about rudeness…. I just declined the offer.

    He did continue to press me to buy his book, than backed down to just reading the 57 pages that were accessible for free by clicking "read inside". I mentioned the book marketing to my dance pro. He laughed and said it won't be the last time I get marketed!! Evidently when the guy first published the book he tried to push it on everyone. (The two free pages I read do not incline me to read further. It's basically a very long, very rambling blog post discussing his political philosophy. The author explains why he is more qualified to make observations on American than Alexis DeToquville. Sales are less than brisk. )

  10. I wasn't familiar with the Peter Ridd issue. Australian legal judgements seem to be organized in a different order from American ones!!

  11. 1. Yeah I'm literate.
    2. No I've never bumped into the word 'autochth[o]nous'. Or if I have I've never cared enough to look up its meaning.
    3. Not only do I not know what it means, I don't know how to pronounce it.
    4. Democratic primaries are coming.

  12. If the local government of San Francisco deems the NRA a domestic terrorist organization because the NRA 'spreads disinformation' and blocks legislation that the Supervisors would like to see passed, I think we should recognize that in principle the Blackboard and WUWT are also domestic terrorist organizations and we are all domestic terrorists.
    Quite the step up from calling myself 'denier'! I've got to get my business cards updated.
    Oh, link:
    https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/SF-supervisors-declare-NRA-a-domestic-terrorist-14412974.php

  13. "an autographed copy of my last book (worth $1M)"

    Is that a typo? The guy appears to be a kook, but even so. I don't think that any autographed book has ever sold for that much.

  14. Lucia,

    The opening line of his message was clumsy but not insulting. It was meant to be ingratiating (you and I are alike and well-read!). Personal marketing like this makes me uncomfortable because of the implied obligations of friendship involved. Continue to remain polite and he'll get the message you're not interested. Unless he's a real dolt. Or you could engage and help him be a better marketer. Its up to how you feel about getting in deeper.

  15. MIke M.
    My take was the $1M was intended as a joke. The paperback version sells for $19.95. I don't think anyone is clamoring for his autograph, but perhaps that's what he would charge *if anyone actually asked* (which I did not). 🙂

    I think when books are published by someone other than the author, and the author goes on tour, autographs are generally given for FREE during signing parties.

    Gary,
    Oh… I have no intention of teaching him how to market. I have little expertise in that, but lines that leave the reader wondering whether they may have been insulted definitely need to be edited to come off better. I suspect, someone with better marketing reflexes would write something more like:
    .
    "I KNEW you were smart and loved to read…. [salespitch]…"
    .
    That can't be read as some sort of suggest that *until now* the person thought you might be illiterate.
    .
    FWIW: In terms of what he MAY have thought, in May when I changed studios and ran into him, he asked what I did for a living. I told him I'm semi-retired and tutoring. He then pro-actively guessed I taught elementary school kids…. something. . . I laughed and said "No. Physics." I'm not sure he remembers anything about that conversation; I suspect not. (I don't remember every conversation I've had with someone. I remember this one because it reminded me sooooo much of when I was an undergrad or even grad student and guys would constanlty "guess" my major. Guesses were pretty much never remotely correct. Elementary school teacher was VERY common even when the context made that highly unlikely.)
    .
    I think he's fairly successful in what he does. At a minimum, he can afford expensive dance lessons and dance competition– which are pricey. He's about my age. He has a Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering.

  16. Mark,
    Oh gosh, when I saw the word, I couldn't prevent myself from googling. I was like…new word alert!!! whoa!!!
    .
    Not only did I immediately google, but I was so distracted by the whole 'chth' thing that I stopped reading the article, never returned, and have no idea what points the author was trying to advance.
    .
    I also tweeted…. It's pretty clear on reading the tweet Carrick headed off the grep a dictionary to create a list, and spent sufficient time scanning it to later tweet

    "I'm now looking forward to using a different chth word in technical writing:

    Nychthemeron"

    That might be useful in a physics paper. I on the other hand, found a more generally useful word:

    "Host: Would you like a taste of my famous pufferfish speciality?
    Me: Yes I am panichtehyophagous!"

    I"m waiting for a chance to use that word.

  17. ~grins~
    >>I couldn't prevent myself from googling. I was like…new word alert!!! whoa!!!
    and
    >>I"m waiting for a chance to use that word.
    .
    I'm probably not going to be able to prevent myself from eventually googling 'nychthemeron' and 'panichtehyophagous' at this point, but I'll resist and struggle for a little while at least. Probably my reluctance stems from early childhood training; I think most of my social misery as a youngster was a direct consequence of my vocabulary.

  19. DeWitt Payne (Comment #176065 Of course the State of California also knows that crystalline silica, otherwise known as sand, also causes cancer. They put big red warning labels to that effect on bags of sand at hardware stores. I haven't been to a beach in CA for some time, but I'm betting there aren't Prop. 65 warnings at the CA beaches.
    _____

    DeWitt, crystalline silica is not sand, it's a component of sand. Breathing crystalline silica can cause silicosis, an incurable lung disease, and maybe cancer too. The silica is not likely to get into the
    air and be breathed at the beach or in a play sandbox, but it can from sand blasting.

    https://www.osha.gov/Publications/osha3176.html

    BTW, some kitty litter contains crystalline silica. It's probably a good idea to avoid breathing dust from the litter when pouring it.

  20. OK_Max (Comment #176081): "DeWitt, crystalline silica is not sand, it's a component of sand."

    Sand is crystalline silica.
    –
    OK_Max: "The silica is not likely to get into the air and be breathed at the beach or in a play sandbox, but it can from sand blasting."

    That is true. But the distinction is lost on the nuts running California since they put warning labels on sand for kids' sandboxes.

  22. I think it's more correct to say crystalline silica is sand than to say sand is crystalline silica. A homogeneous mass of quartz grains is a pile of sand. Not every pile of sand is a homogeneous mass of quartz grains. There could be some feldspar, mica, and other crap ground up in there too.
    DeWitt was correct in his original usage. Max is smoking crystalline silica.

  24. Mike M. (Comment #176082)

    OK_Max (Comment #176081): "DeWitt, crystalline silica is not sand, it's a component of sand."
    Sand is crystalline silica.
    ____
    MikeM, you are correct, I misspoke. I should have said crystalline silica is sand and can be a component of sand containing other minerals. I thought DeWitt implied beach sand was just crystalline silica. Maybe that wasn’t his intention. Anyway, I think it safe to say the sand on most beaches consists mostly of crystalline silica.

    The linked article dicsusses the composition of sand on California beaches.
    https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/127e/98bd268ff48a3d50036a77c4ad883318c5f9.pdf
    ________

  25. Mark Bofill,

    Sand varies a great deal in composition depending on location. Continental beaches, where sand often comes from weathering of continental rock or glacial abrasion of inland rock, do tend to be high in silica grains, because silica is hard and very water insoluble. The other materials from rocks are softer and/or more easily dissolved, leaving mostly silica. On Cape Cod (a glacial moraine), where I am now, beach sand is dominated by silica grains. Calcium carbonate is dissolved by rain and the cool ocean water (cold 8 months a year!), so even though there is a huge production of calcium carbonate bivalve shells, once the animal dies, its shell gradually disappears.
    .
    On the out-islands of the Bahamas (including the Abaco region just devastated by the hurricane), there is no source of silica, but the water actually becomes supersaturated in calcium carbonate as it warms in the shallows, and you often find sand that is almost 100% spherical (or nearly spherical) oolite particles, which form by deposition of calcium carbonate, layer by layer, on a tiny seed of calcium carbonate from coral (parrot fish scrape the coral as they feed). Most anyplace in the Bahamas that is protected from strong wave action has this kind of sand; on a hard surface it feels like tiny ball bearings under your feet.
    .
    There are also volcanic sands on volcanic islands.
    .
    Crystalline silica particles have be in a certain size range to represent any respiratory risk; if I remember correctly, it is between a fraction of a micron and ~10 microns. Silica beach sand would almost have to contain a fraction in the offending size range, but it is hard to see how the particles could be efficiently aerosolized. So sand-box players are probably safe… the California play-sand warnings are just as bonkers as most of the other California cancer warnings.

  26. Thanks Steve! I wasn't aware of either (volcanic sand or oolite). Clearly I ought to spend more time on beaches around the world. I'll discuss this with the wife.

  27. mark bofill (Comment #176085)

    There should be warnings on all objects that contain aluminum as well. I mean look at this stuff burn!

Ground up aluminum can't possibly be good to breathe either. Betcha it causes cancer as well as tooth decay.
    ______

    A few years ago I damaged my lungs breathing vapors from heated ammonia I was using to clean some parts. It took a year to fully heal. Since then I have avoided breathing any kinds of dust, smoke, and vapors.

    I have never seen a California warning label, but doubt it would give me all the information I would need before using a product I suspect could be harmful to breath, absorb through skin, or ingest. The Material Safety Data Sheet probably gives more information. I always read the MSDS before deciding whether I want to use a potentially harmful product and how I should go about using it.

  30. mark bofill (Comment #176091)

    Yes, mark, I believe MSDS is OSHA stuff, and as your linked article claims, may not do enough to protect workers in industrial settings,
    resulting in some companies going farther to protect employees. Unlike these workers, I am only occasionally rather than constantly exposed to potentially harmful chemicals.

    If something is extremely toxic and I can't find a way to fully protect myself and family, I just don't use it. Usually, I can find a substitute that works just about as well or well enough.

  31. Mark Bofill,
    “I'll discuss this with the wife.”
    .
    About 15 years ago, I went to a boat show in Fort Lauderdale with my wife, and we ended up buying a slightly used 40 ft cruiser (named the ‘Branch Office’). This led to adventures in the Florida Keys, as well as many journeys to the Bahamas, where the turquoise water is almost surreal in appearance in the morning sun. Highly recommended if you can: lots of oolite sand out there you know.

  32. On a happy note, the website Think Progress (which spawned Climate Progress) is closing. They were losing money and couldn’t find anyone to fund them. This is a good development; at least one bonkers leftist voice is gone. Now if only Climate Progress would follow by going out of business as well.

  33. Gosh. You mean people like Joe Romm weren't willing to write the stuff on evenings and weekends for free while working other jobs to pay the rent?

  35. Climate Progress was shut down as a standalone website a long time ago. It was rolled into Think Progress.

  36. I read the fine print, and while ThinkProgress will cease “original reporting”, which was losing $2million a year, the name will be rolled into the existing website for the Center For American Progress (who owned and funded ThinkProgress), where they say “progressive scholars” can post insightful articles. Not clear if that will be paid or donated content (my guess is paid), but paid or donated, there will no doubt be a continuing stream of rubbish posted under the ThinkProgress and ClimateProgress banners. But maybe not as much.

  37. mark bofill (Comment #176091)

    Mark, the article you linked had no references to the points it was attempting to make. I agree that regulations do not over ride the need for personal responsibility in these matters, but I think that article was making a case for more regulation and more bureaucracy and might have been written the way it was in order to present a scare story without a lot of background information.

  38. Kenneth,
    You noticed that huh. I was hoping to get away with that. 🙂 I don't disagree with you. It wasn't exactly the link I wanted, but I had other things to do…

  39. In fairness, I think I was looking for supporting evidence only for my claim that OSHA doesn't automatically keep you safe. The article does go off in a different direction, but so what.

  40. mark bofill (Comment #176102)

    Mark, I was commenting on the article and not your use of it.

    Is "But so what?" a rhetorical question? You know we have already had a very recent example of one – and by none other than She Who Shall Remain Nameless.

  41. Kenneth,
    >>Mark, I was commenting on the article and not your use of it.
    Fair enough. I [thought] it was a pretty weak article.
    >>Is "But so what?" a rhetorical question?
    ~grins~
    I just don't feel complete and fulfilled in life unless I post a rhetorical question on the Blackboard every so often. It's the only rule breaking I ever do anymore these days, maybe.

  42. Kenneth….
    Yeah… this no rhetorical questions rule can often be difficult to comply with. Nevertheless, they are dangerous on a blog and lead to all sorts of poor communication.

  43. It's possible his message in total is a copy/paste effort he sends to anyone remotely referencing any book or word, so the inferred insult may just be his laziness.

  44. Once "Monsanto" and "Roundup" and "cancer" are handed to a jury of our illustrious peers all hope is lost in cases like this. You can bet the plaintiff lawyers are striking any juror with technical expertise ASAP. This trial being done in SF seems like forum shopping. There are far too many people who are environmental determinists in our country, an artifact of decades of hysterical environmental media coverage.
    .
    There is nothing wrong with holding companies accountable for their misdeeds, but there needs to be some sanity applied to what a misdeed is and isn't. This starts with not whether a product may have negative side effects, but whether the product also has overwhelmingly positive benefits. Certainly if a company covers up the downsides then maybe it is liable, but painting all companies as big tobacco is misleading.
    .
    I doubt there is much to see in the Roundup circus, but a more interesting case is the mass production of Oxycontin and the willful blindness of the companies to the abuse of its products:
    .
    "In just 10 months, the sixth-largest company in America shipped more than 3 million prescription opioids — nearly 10,000 pills a day on average — to a single pharmacy in a Southern West Virginia town with only 400 residents, according to a congressional report released Wednesday."
    .
    I'm on the fence with this one, it seems very irresponsible, but not sure it's that much different than keeping Jack Daniels on the shelf.

  45. SteveF (Comment #176062)
    “:::September 4th, 2019 at 6:48 am
    Ed Forbs,
    It would help if you would directly answer a few simple questions.
    .
    1) Do you believe human activities are responsible for rising atmospheric CO2 since the mid 1800s?
    2) Do you believe increases in methane, NO2, (since the mid 1800s) and halocarbon gases (since their introduction in the 20th century) are due to human activities?
    3) Do you believe that warming due to increases in atmospheric GHGs should be proportional (at least roughly) to the radiative forcing those GHGs impose?

    Points:
    1) human activity MAY be responsible for SOME of the rising temps since the 1800’. The IPCC found
    .
    “..It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. ..”… and ….“..It is very likely that human influence has contributed to the observed global scale changes in the frequency and intensity of daily temperature extremes since the mid-20th century.”.
    .
    Any statement on human effect prior to 1950 is conjecture if one relies on IPCC reports. Also note that “from” is a definite point in time. If the IPCC had stated differently, such as “from at least 1950”, such conjecture would have more force.

    2) refer to point 1 above. In addition, the range of the possible effect of a doubling of co2 has been falling steadily over the last 20 years.The current best estimate is now thought to be about 1.5dC per double of co2.
    .
    3) nothing controversial here. But note that real world gas chemistry is much different than “test tube” pure gas. Quite a bit of overlap in the radiant forcings of the individual green house gases. One has to compute the forcing in total, not individually. But yes, adding co2 should rise temps, all else being stationary. The main argument is not “if”, but “how much”.
    .
    The earth is currently in an Ice Age. “The current Ice Age is the Quaternary (2.6 mya-present). Approximately a dozen major glaciations have occurred over the past 1 million years, the largest of which peaked 650,000 years ago and lasted for 50,000 years. The most recent glaciation period, often known simply as the “Ice Age,” reached peak conditions some 18,000 years ago before giving way to the interglacial Holocene epoch 11,700 years ago.”
    .
    The earth is experiencing NOTHING out of spec as seen over the last 2.6my. So I still submit that the human effect on global warming amounts to a “rounding error”.
    .
    As to what started this discussion, a “carbon tax” would both be a complete waste of money and have no telling effect on earth temps

  46. Ed,
    Your answers are less than clear. But if I can parse them, it appears your answer to Steves question

    (1) is either (a) you really don't want to say and just want to talk about your diagnosis of what the IPCC says or (b) you don't believe human activities caused warming.

    (2) You don't answer it at all because referring to (1) tells us absolutely nothing about your answer to question (2).

    (3) Also: not going to answer, but want to change the topic to another question you would rather answer.

    These are all things we see in politicians. However, you have not answered SteveF's questions. Of course you are not required to do so. But we are allowed to notice you posted a long comment that seemed designed to give the impression you answered, but managed to avoid answering.

    If you do want to answer, try starting your answer with either "yes" or "no" and then elaborate. Otherwise, it appears you post things that make it impossible for the reader to determine whether your answer to these 'yes/no' question is "yes" or "no".

  47. Ed Forbes,
    .
    I asked: 1) Do you believe human activities are responsible for rising atmospheric CO2 since the mid 1800s?
    .
    You did not answer the question, but instead went off on a tangent about temperature increases. Can you try again to address the actual question?
    .
    I asked: 2) Do you believe increases in methane, NO2, (since the mid 1800s) and halocarbon gases (since their introduction in the 20th century) are due to human activities?
    .
    You did not even address the subject I asked about….. can you try again?
    .
    I asked: 3) Do you believe that warming due to increases in atmospheric GHGs should be proportional (at least roughly) to the radiative forcing those GHGs impose?
    .
    Your response is obscure at best. Do you or do you not believe warming should should be roughly proportional to forcing?
    .
    I note that it is not possible to have any kind of rational technical discussion if those involved will not state clearly the basis for their beliefs.

  50. Ed Forbes,
    “Your right. There is no rational discussion on this.”
    .
    I think you mean ‘you’re’, not ‘your’.
    .
    But, yes, rational discussion of this subject is clearly not possible with you.

  52. I performed the usual smirking and eye rolling with the now required knee jerk "climate change is making hurricanes worse" articles after Dorian failed to make US landfall as a major hurricane. The Bahamas may have a different viewpoint of course. Having a Cat5 storm stall over your tiny island for more than 24 hours is like have a day long tornado in your neighborhood.
    .
    Here is Judith Curry at the National Review.
    Don’t Overhype the Link between Climate Change and Hurricanes
    https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/climate-change-hurricanes-dont-oversell-link/
    .
    This is an area where the media has zero credibility. As Curry notes, when the media fails to reference assessment reports and parrot's activist talking points then you know when to stop reading.

  53. Ed Forbes,
    Scott Adams is often very insightful as well as funny. But if you imagine that Dilbert comic strip has anything to do with the questions I asked up thread, then you are delusional.

  54. SteveF
    Your POINT is that human increase in co2 from 1850 raised world temp and that natural events had little/no role in the rise in temps. My POINT is human effects on temp prior to 1950 is inconsequential reguardless of co2. I base my argument on the IPCC, as noted.
    .
    So this gets us back to one of our main disagreements that led us here: At what date do we start the clock on computing the first doubling of co2 that is mainly due to human effect and it’s expected 1.5-2dC rise in temps due to this rise in co2?
    .
    You support using 1850, I support 1950. I really do not see that we differ all that much on where we both expect temps to be in 2100.
    .
    Another main difference is that I concider the temp change by 2100 due to a rise in co2 to be inconsequential as about 1/3 of the change in temps to be natural and you think very little of the change to be natural.
    .
    Neither are you a crazy shouting “The End Is Near
    .
    I think this discussion has gone about as far as it can without beating it to death. I am always amazed on the amount of invective used in the comments on the internet. I try and keep my comments to the same leval as if I were in a professional meeting. If I have slipped at times into what may have been viewed by you as personal attack, I do apologize.

  55. Ed Forbes,
    Those were questions, not "points" or "claims". SteveF is really trying to learn what you believe about certain things. I wouldn't mind knowing what you believe about those things. However, you are unwilling to answer those questions.
    .
    I realize you may want to talk about other things and not answer SteveF's questions. But what you posted were not answers.
    .
    Based on the following it does appear you probably think humans did NOT contribute to the rise in CO2 prior to 1950. If so, that's an odd belief, since CO2 is produced by burning fossil fuels and we were certainly doing that before the 50s.

    **You support using 1850, I support 1950.**
    If it is true you don't accept that burning fossil fuels during the industrial revolution introduced C02 to the atmosphere, there really is very little to discuss with you, because you are simply wrong.

  56. Ed Forbes,
    IMO, people who refuse to answer even the simplest of questions are not practicing good faith. My ‘invective’, if you wish to call it that, is due to frustration, because you seem unwilling to go through the logical process of critically evaluating your technical premises compared to reality. I have seen this behavior many times before, and it amounts to little more than: “My mind is made up and nothing is going to change it.” It is not a flattering take.
    .
    Your arguments strike me as basically political in nature; mine are technical. Political disagreements are almost never worth the time it takes to discuss them, because people virtually never budge from their initial position (consider the prospect of arguing global warming with a numbskull like Congresswoman Ocassio-Cortez). Technical disagreements *can* be worthwhile discussing, because there is an honest arbiter: reality. You can, and almost certainly will, continue to completely avoid substantive technical discussion, whether with me or anyone else. Which sort of makes you the political flip side of someone like Occasio-Cortez.
    .
    You are not alone, of course. Most of the denizens of advocate blogs on global warming (on both sides) absolutely will not critically address the underlying technical issues; it is nearly 100% politics that they want to discuss, with appeals to authority routinely thrown in in place of technical argument. It is a waste of time to try to convince them (or you) to do otherwise. Cio.

  57. Regarding Dorian, I have a handy app on my phone that gives all kind of weather information, including predicted hurricane paths. Landfall was an outside event, the middle of the road, up the coast prediction, made before it hit the Bahamas, was pretty spot on. Congratulations to the forecasters!
    .
    Of course, damaging events which fail to happen don't provoke any news or consideration. No time is spent considering how climate change might have made an event less dangerous because that would be "silly".

  58. Only passing through, but I saw a couple comments about Monsanto's recent trials. I followed the latest one which resulted in a two billion dollar award (later reduced to a mere fraction of that) because I found it interesting to see the strategy of the plaintiffs' attorney, Brent Wisner. To correct a couple points, Dewitt Payne says:

    "The US EPA has ruled that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, is not a carcinogen and manufacturers may not include a cancer warning on their labels ( https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-takes-action-provide-accurate-risk-information-consumers-stop-false-labeling ). I'm betting that judges will not allow this to be presented as evidence to juries in the thousands of civil suits against Bayer, which owns Monsanto."

    The fact the EPA decided Roundup was not a carcinogen wasn't just allowed into evidence at trial (at least for this one), it was extensively discussed. The plaintiffs accused Roundup of ghost-writing scientific studies by paying people to put their name on things Monsanto wrote, studies the EPA then relied upon. This was such a central issue to the trial it was mentioned just two minutes into Wisner's two-hour closing argument (which can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4hETgnZN20).

    Tom Scharf:

    "Once 'Monsanto' and 'Roundup' and 'cancer' are handed to a jury of our illustrious peers all hope is lost in cases like this. You can bet the plaintiff lawyers are striking any juror with technical expertise ASAP. This trial being done in SF seems like forum shopping. There are far too many people who are environmental determinists in our country, an artifact of decades of hysterical environmental media coverage."

    Two things here (again, in reference to this one case). First, this is only "forum shopping" in the sense there are lots of people wanting to sue over Roundup with different ones living in areas with different general views of companies like Monsanto. The couple filing this lawsuit lived in the county the lawsuit was filed and tried in. I'm sure the plaintiffs' lawyers liked the odds of this case succeeding more than those of others because of San Francisco's views on the matter, but that's not what "forum shopping" is typically understood to mean.

    Second, the proposed bet would be a bad bet as it is the exact opposite of the truth. Wisner's publicly stated strategy for voir dire was to get the smartest jury he could find. He sought out the most intelligent, engaged and technically oriented people he could find because, as he's put it, "When you look at the science, we win." His approach to the trial was to ask the jury to take a detailed, in-depth look at the science involved and reach a conclusion.

    Someone may be able to make the argument the jury reached the wrong conclusion, but to do so, I think the first step would require understanding why the jury reached the conclusion it reached. Personally, I don't see how a jury could have reached a different conclusion given what was presented to them. If there was a good case to be made for the defense, the defendants did a terrible job of making it.

  59. Sorry my last comment doesn't have better formatting for the quotes in it. I couldn't get blockquote or italicization tags to work so I had to go with regular quotation marks. It's not as clear as I'd like, but hopefully it's not too difficult to read.

    Also, I believe DeWitt Payne referred to a more recent EPA finding than the one used in this trial, but the EPA has merely reiterated its previous finding that Roundup is not carcinogenic (or more specifically, glyphosate, the key ingredient in question, is not a carcinogen). The EPA hasn't said anything substantially different that'd impact the trial.

  60. "Someone may be able to make the argument the jury reached the wrong conclusion"
    .
    "the EPA has merely reiterated its previous finding that Roundup is not carcinogenic"
    .
    Seems the EPA made that argument, ha ha. This ought to have ended the trial before it started but I suppose timing is everything here. Apparently who said what about Roundup is a clusterf*** of epic proportions.
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-scientific-roundup-11567551770
    "EPA’s letter is an attempt to restore science to the glyphosate debate and counter California’s rogue regulation. The letter cites EPA’s extensive review of the scientific literature on glyphosate, as well as the concurring judgments of regulators in Canada, Australia, the European Union, Germany, New Zealand and Japan."
    .
    "California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment responded to the EPA letter by calling it “disrespectful of the scientific process,” but the opposite is true. California is the regulatory outlier attempting to impose its standards despite the precedent that federal law sets national standards on health and safety when Congress’s language is clear."
    .
    https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/glyphosate-cancer-data/
    .
    Type in Roundup into google and you are treated with lots of ads to sign up for lawsuits. The feeding frenzy is on. If you are going to allow studies effectively done by the plaintiffs or any number of environmental NGO's that are every bit as predictable as those produced by Monsanto then you need to allow both.
    .
    This is an area that has become a monoculture in the increasingly leftwards tilt of academia. This becomes a problem because they can no longer be seen as a neutral arbiter. Taking money in academia from the company previously known as Monsanto is a career limiting maneuver.
    .
    I do not have any faith whatsoever that a jury can sort out cancer statistics. This is incredibly difficult, this should be done by those skilled in the art.
    .
    A plaintiff attorney stating he wants smart people doesn't carry a lot of weight. The plaintiffs clearly want those who buy organic tomatoes for twice the price.

  61. Brandon,
    For some reason, html tags now get automatically stripped from comments. This happened a while ago. Since I'm not active, I haven't fixed it.

  62. A federal judge had put an injunction on the new asylum policy of only allowing cases if you came directly to the US. The 9th circuit limited the injunction to the 9th circuit, allowing Texas and New Mexico to use this policy. Then on Monday, the same federal judge issued another nationwide injunction, ignoring the circuit court.
    The 9th circuit again limited it on Tuesday, and now the Supreme Court has eliminated the injunction entirely, while the case is being decided.

  63. Let us hope this is the beginning of the end for routine national injunctions by the federal courts. When the 9th circuit court of appeals surprisingly limited the judge's injunction he should have gotten the message (I suspect this is because they fear a new SC precedent on limiting injunctions). He did not.
    .
    There are some cases where a national injunction may be warranted so it shouldn't be eliminated entirely, but they should be very rare IMO. The SC would be wise to clear this up.

  64. MikeN,
    I am surprised only that the Court acted so quickly to smack down the (obnoxious) 9th circuit. Want to make a guess which president appointed the wack-job judge who ignored even the 9th circuit order? (Surprise…. Obama)
    .
    The flood of asylum seekers will subside, at least for now… and probably through at least late 2020. That will provide time to work through outstanding asylum cases. Of course, it is likely few (if any!) of those already released will ever show up for their hearings, but that failure to show up at least generates a deportation order.

  65. Third dem debate tonight. Biden Sanders Warren are the enduring favorites till now. I have argued Biden will not win the primaries, but there is little evidence to support my idea so far – he remains in the lead. If Warren kicks the crap out of him in Iowa in February I wonder if that will make the difference. Maybe it'll turn out I'm just flat out wrong and Biden will run against Trump.
    .
    Tom Steyer will not be in this debate, but he'll be in the next one. I wouldn't have called Steyer a moderate in prior years, but my impression right now (haven't read that much about him) is that he's a little right of Biden. He's not on my radar. But I suspect voters are unhappy with any/all of the current options, so who knows.
    .
    This has been my political post for the nonce. I'll shush now unless anybody is interested in talking politics.

  66. Tom Scharf (Comment #176134): "There are some cases where a national injunction may be warranted so it shouldn't be eliminated entirely, but they should be very rare IMO. The SC would be wise to clear this up."

    It seems to me that no court should be allowed to issue an injunction outside its jurisdiction. So a nationwide injunction should have to be issued by SCOTUS, or at least not go into effect until reviewed by SCOTUS. I'd be curious to hear about exceptions, if there are any.

  67. One can imagine many egregious examples, but suffice it to say that some executive orders that apply equally across the nation would require plaintiffs to visit each jurisdiction which would be burdensome. Trump is planning to ban an entire product from the market (flavored e-cigs), I'm no fan of e-cigs but from what I can tell the evidence to support this ban is rather flimsy. Should Juul have to spend huge amounts of money to get this overturned in every jurisdiction?
    .
    Imagine Bernie Sanders or Harris issuing any number of crazy climate or economic executive orders.
    .
    There are many gray area interventions beyond black / white. Perhaps only federal appeals courts can issue national injunctions, or you need at least 2 or 3 jurisdictions to agree first. The SC is supposed to be the last stop and we don't really want them reviewing the small stuff except in extreme cases.
    .
    If activist judges can't stop themselves then something will need to be done formally. We may already be to that point. If it has to be black or white, I'd prefer no national injunctions.

  68. Tom,
    .
    There *may* be cases where a national injunction for the executive's policy is warranted. But having said that, it's probably more dangerous to allow a district court to issue one, than to risk an injunction that is less narrow than "warranted".
    .
    In cases where a national injunction is truly warranted, and everyone can see that it is warranted, people can file suits in every single district. (In this case, really, the only "need" would have been in the districts abutting Mexico, since the injunction or lack there of is not really affecting Illinois very much.)
    .
    It seems to me that if a national injunction is TRULY warranted and there is NO doubt of this, lower courts would be unanimous in applying injunctions in their districts. In cases where one CANNOT get this result, there's a chance the national injunction may not be warranted, and that, in fact, those ruling for enjoying the executive's preferred policy will later be overruled on the merits. In which case, technically, one might suggest no injunction was ever warranted in any district.
    .
    Yes. It's a big hassle for people who don't like a policy to file suits in every district. But…well…. that's a better system than having one person file a suit in one district and have one single judge in a LOWER level court make law for the entire country. We have system in place. We should use it!

  69. One of Obama's immigration actions was also stopped by a national injunction, and led eventually to the judge mandating ethics training for all DOJ attorneys, an order he wisely withdrew.

  70. In the specific case of a nationwide injunction issued by a single district court in the 9th circuit, the SC probably acted quickly because 1) at least one other Federal Court in a different circuit had refused to block the new asylum rules, and 2) the wacko judge who issued the nationwide injunction refused to limit it to the 9th circuit, even when told to by his own circuit court! Having one district judge insist he can overrule judges in other circuits is really not a good look for the US Federal Courts.
    .
    I agree with Mike M: no Federal court should be issuing nationwide injunctions except the SC; injunctions should be limited to each court’s jurisdiction. The SC should be MUCH quicker to intervene when courts in different circuits reach different judgements.

  71. Mike N,
    “…led eventually to the judge mandating ethics training for all DOJ attorneys, an order he wisely withdrew.”
    .
    Seems like a very reasonable order to me. 😉

  72. Yes …
    .
    US attorney recommends proceeding with charges against McCabe, as DOJ rejects last-ditch appeal
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/us-attorney-recommends-proceeding-with-charges-against-mccabe-as-doj-rejects-last-ditch-appeal
    .
    The wheels of justice grind slowly, but they grind…
    .
    He is a CNN contributor now, ha ha. Here they are spinning this pretending the FBI doesn't routinely create the crime in an interview with suspects. Hope McCabe likes being on the receiving end of this.
    https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/09/12/andrew-mccabe-jeffrey-toobin-unusual-prosecution-nr-vpx.cnn

  73. Tom Scharf,
    "There are some cases where a national injunction may be warranted so it shouldn't be eliminated entirely, but they should be very rare IMO. "
    .
    I am hard pressed to imagine a single instance. Can you give an example or two?

  74. McCabe is not going to spend time in jail… ok maybe a couple of days. But the process is the punishment, as all of the special prosecutor's targets, even those who never faced jail time, soon learned. It will indeed be mildly entertaining to watch McCabe suffer the same torment he has inflicted on others.

  75. Tom Scharf:

    "Seems the EPA made that argument, ha ha. This ought to have ended the trial before it started but I suppose timing is everything here."

    It is interesting to hear you suggest the EPA finding something isn't a carcinogen* should be enough to stop these trials. My impression is nobody here would suggest similar steps for things like IPCC reports, instead arguing it is reasonable to question the conclusions of governmental reports. Even if people here don't think that, that is certainly the position of the judicial system, which allows people in trials to question the conclusions of reports by agencies like the EPA.

    "Type in Roundup into google and you are treated with lots of ads to sign up for lawsuits. The feeding frenzy is on. If you are going to allow studies effectively done by the plaintiffs or any number of environmental NGO's that are every bit as predictable as those produced by Monsanto then you need to allow both."

    I am unaware of any scientific study (effectively) done by anyone associated with any plaintiff in any of these lawsuits. Do you have examples of such not only existing, but being used in trials? Alternatively, do you have any evidence any study cited by the plaintiffs was ghost written? Paying people to say they performed a study you actually performed is dishonest. It shouldn't be allowed at all. If the plaintiffs' "side" did it like Monsanto did, I'd like to know so I could criticize them for it too.

    "I do not have any faith whatsoever that a jury can sort out cancer statistics. This is incredibly difficult, this should be done by those skilled in the art."

    Actually, if you followed the trials, you'd see it is quite easy to tell which side is more credible. The defense lawyers made terrible cases, not even attempting to address many points made by the plaintiffs.

    "A plaintiff attorney stating he wants smart people doesn't carry a lot of weight. The plaintiffs clearly want those who buy organic tomatoes for twice the price."

    While it might be interesting to know about your contempt for these people, I'd say the fact you got things completely backwards in regard to jury selection is the more important matter. Mostly because people who are certain of things so easily seen to be untrue are unlikely to be understand the topic well enough to offer any useful insight on them.

    *One of the matters discussed during the trial is how the EPA findings were for glyphosate alone, not glyphosate combined with other ingredients which could potentially have interactions which would cause the product to be carcinogenic. Even if one took the EPA conclusions as gospel, they wouldn't actually prove the plaintiffs' wrong.

  76. By the way, I know there doesn't seem to be much interest in discussing the Roundup lawsuits beyond generic partisan sniping. I think that's a shame. The cases are actually quite interesting. The cross-examinations of the expert witnesses put on by the defense were shocking in how poorly prepared the witnesses appeared. There were multiple times while I was reading the court transcripts where I had to stop and go, "Oh my god, I can't believe he just said that."

    I highly recommend anyone who finds legal matters interesting put a little time into learning about these lawsuits. Or at least, the one Wisner won. The plaintiffs didn't win simply because of whatever bias people may accuse them of. The plaintiffs put on a much better case, largely because the defense put on an fascinatingly bad one.

  77. The plaintiffs in the Roundup trial are not engaging in a legitimate search for the truth (trying to suppress EPA findings…), as is the case with all trials like this. They present the best case to win for their side, and the defense does the same. The best case scenario is the truth comes out as a by product. I suggest this may not have happened here.
    .
    You may be able to sort out cancer statistics, but do you think your cousin can? or your mother in law? or the 19 year old next door who didn't finish high school? It becomes a battle of the lawyers, not of the facts, when the intended audience is not technically literate enough to sort it out themselves. The truth helps, but a better legal team helps more.
    .
    This is exactly what happens in complex technical patent lawsuits. Bad patents, inscrutable claims, complex law, technically demanding subject matter. Expert witnesses directly contradicting each other to a jury with glazed over eyes thinking "but the glove didn't fit". I'm not going to read these transcripts so I'll take your word on the defense blowing this one.
    .
    At the very basic level those who use a lot of Roundup are likely to have had a great deal more sun exposure which is more strongly linked linked to skin cancer. Lawyers can't sue the sun though, ha ha.
    .
    As far as I can tell the claim is that a study showed only those with the highest exposures (basically farm workers) had elevated cancer risks at the 20 year exposure level. This author claims this study was flawed as the same data showed the 5,10,15 year levels showed reduced risk and they only present the 20 year data.
    https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2019/02/18/41-glyphosate-cancer-increase-claim-under-fire-did-the-authors-of-new-meta-study-deliberately-manipulate-data-or-just-botch-their-analysis/
    .
    Perhaps this is meaningful, perhaps not, but my main point is that I don't think your next door neighbor high school graduate math deprived juror has much hope of coming to the correct conclusion.

  78. Tom Scharf, you can keep saying things like:

    "The plaintiffs in the Roundup trial are not engaging in a legitimate search for the truth (trying to suppress EPA findings…),"

    But if you're not going to present the slightest basis for anything you say, there's not much point in this exchange. You've made a series of accusations without basis, and when challenged on them, you've simply ignored the matters. Here, you make yet another baseless accusation, claiming the plaintiffs are "trying to suppress EPA findings." I'm not sure how plaintiffs could try to suppress such findings, but I do know for a fact the plaintiffs' lawyer discussed the EPA findings in detail during the trial. There's transcripts, and even some video, showing such. Discussing something for hours seems like a strange way to suppress it.

    I can't imagine there's much value in me pointing out the same behavior over and over when you ignore every error that's pointed out to you. Given that, I'm going to bow out of the discussion. Hopefully my comments will at least make some onlookers consider being skeptical of the things you've said on this topic. Maybe some will even choose to learn a bit about the cases.

  79. Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #176150): "I can't imagine there's much value in me pointing out the same behavior over and over when you ignore every error that's pointed out to you."

    That is not fair. Tom has made perfectly reasonable points. I don't see where you have pointed out any really significant errors. And you seem to have ignored much of what Tom has said.
    .
    Brandon Shollenberger: "Hopefully my comments will at least make some onlookers consider being skeptical of the things you've said on this topic. Maybe some will even choose to learn a bit about the cases."

    It might, except that in the past you have not exactly established yourself as a reliable source.

  80. SteveF :”..Your arguments strike me as basically political in nature; mine are technical. Political disagreements are almost never worth the time it takes to discuss them, because people virtually never budge from their initial position (consider the prospect of arguing global warming with a numbskull like Congresswoman Ocassio- I Cortez)..”
    .
    Of course my interest is mainly political. This entire discussion started over the need and desirability of a “carbon tax”, which is political in nature.
    .
    As to budging from my technical stance, the technical stance on this issue left the gate more than a decade ago. I find arguing them interesting, but not germane to the issue at hand, which is the need for a carbon tax.
    .
    To highlight this point I will stipulate all the technical points you have made are true. So assuming:
    1. The temperature increase coming out of the LIA was not natural
    2. All of the temperature increase from from 1850 to date was caused by an increase in human GHG.
    3. All increase in in GHG from 1850 to date was human caused.
    4. A double in co2 concentrations results in an increase in temperature of about 2.5dC.
    5. Current co2 level is about 400ppm.
    6. In 50 years from present, co2 concentration will be about 600ppm, for a 1.0 to 1.5 dC increase in temperature.
    7. This increase in co2 concentration will be entirely manmade
    8. The resulting increase in temperature will be entirely manmade with no natural component.
    9. The US will stop its current reduction in the rate of increase in co2 production due to fracking natural gas without a carbon tax.
    .
    So now we enter the relm of politics where you have argued for a carbon tax.
    .
    1. What rate of taxes do you propose that will be required to reduce the rate of increase in co2 produced by the US?
    2. What policy do you support to FORCE India and China to reduce their rate of increase in co2 production?
    .
    There are many other issues involved, but these two must be addressed prior to asking the American taxpayer to lower their standard of living with higher taxes. Congresswoman Ocassio- I Cortez is upfront on wanting to spend trillions. How many trillions do you propose to spend stop about 1dC, or less, in the next 50 years? Especially when an additional 1dC warming can easily be argued to have a net positive effect on the total wealth of the world with increased greening of the world due to an increase in co2 concentration and expansion of tillable land in the northern hemisphere due to temperature increase?
    .
    As most political questions, the answers are much more difficult than purely technical issues. Technical questions are easy in comparison.
    .

  81. Ed Forbes (Comment #176152): "Of course my interest is mainly political. This entire discussion started over the need and desirability of a “carbon tax”, which is political in nature."

    I am pretty sure you are the only person here who has mentioned "carbon tax".

  82. Ed what do you mean by
    "The US will stop its current reduction in the rate of increase in co2 production "

    Are you proposing that countries that are increasing emissions by 10%, should reduce emissions, or lower the rate of increase to 8%?
    In the case of the US, emissions are dropping, which is a reduction in the rate of increase. So what is being stopped, and where do US emissions go?

  83. OK_Max specifically said something about a carbon tax.
    Steve did not. Far as I can tell, this was his comment on compromise (#175990, response to Mike M):
    –snip–
    175990
    Mike M,
    “That is because it is not actually about climate. It is about control.”
    .
    That is certainly a part of it, and a huge excavator of the ideological canyon over which the opponents glare at each other. But it is partly about climate; there is significant warming, and that warming will very likely continue, and will cause continued sea level rise. But the rubbish claims of utter doom for the planet and the equally rubbish claims that rising GHGs aren’t going to cause warming (and potentially serious consequences in the long term) are blocking a serious discussion. Global warming is a legitimate public policy issue, just as is illegal immigration, local impacts of globalization, Islamic terrorism, the remaining billion+ who remain mired in extreme poverty (now mostly in Africa), and many more. The huge ideological divides between the extremes on many issues are blocking the development of consensus and the compromises consensus demands. I predict history will not be kind to those politicians who refuse to compromise.
    –snip–
    I realize that I'm not absolutely sure that Steve does not support a carbon tax, but despite this I would be somewhat surprised to hear that he does. I can't recall ever reading him state support for the idea of a carbon tax.
    Steve, do you want a carbon tax?

  84. Here is the 1st reference to carbon tax

    OK_Max (Comment #176001)
    August 27th, 2019 at 12:31 pm
    Ed Forbes (Comment #175997)
    It has come down to a very simple binary choice: do you support the continued use of energy to support and expand our current lifestyle or do you support limits on the use of energy and reducing our lifestyle? Capitalism or Socialism?
    _____
    Ed, I'm a capitalist who supports limits on the use of coal, a carbon tax, and the development of alternatives energy sources (not sure about nuclear) for cleaner air and water and for curbing mankind's effect on climate.

  85. mark bofill (Comment #176155): "OK_Max specifically said something about a carbon tax."

    I see now that he did. A passing reference in a short comment that did not even get transferred to this thread. And it was not what started the discussion, contrary to Ed Forbes's claim.

  86. mark bofill,
    No, I don’t support a carbon tax, for the same basic reason I don’t support restrictions on rifles: neither addresses the problem in a meaningful way. Rifles kill a few hundred people a year in the States, while all other forms of murder are much more important. If you want to reduce murders, the very LAST thing to worry about is rifles… yet that’s just about the only thing the dem candidates for president want to talk about. It’s nothing but stupid.
    .
    Same thing with a carbon tax: Taxing carbon in the USA would have no measurable impact on future warming, since future emissions will come mainly from developing countries, along with countries that thumb their nose at global warming (Russia, China, the Middle East, etc. Any meaningful reduction in CO2 emissions must be consistent with continued economic growth, especially in developing countries. And that means things like (dare I say?) rapid expansion of nuclear power, both in the USA and elsewhere. Carbon taxes will only impoverish…. so they are never going to lead to meaningful reductions in future emissions. Until the loony lefty greens face that reality, discussing carbon taxes is just a waste of time…. just stupid.

  87. Support for limiting US co2 production has to involve either increasing taxes on energy or outright prohibition of the use of certain energy processes. Both have the same effect for increasing the cost for using energy, which will lower the US standard of living.
    .
    Very much a political issue.

  89. Mike M, the issue is very much what started the discussion. I think I already know, but please enlighten me on your stance on the below statement.

    Ed Forbes (Comment #175997)
    It has come down to a very simple binary choice: do you support the continued use of energy to support and expand our current lifestyle or do you support limits on the use of energy and reducing our lifestyle?
    _____

  90. SteveF,
    As I have noted before, we are not that far apart in our views when compared to the crazy greens.
    .
    My apologies for assuming you were for additional taxes to reduce co2 emissions.

    Ed

  91. Gosh Ed. It's a bunch of skeptical conservative types here, what do you think? Rather than bleat agreement that 'they support the continued use of energy to expand our current lifestyle' they're going to look for errors in what you're saying. It's what happens here. At least one such possible error has been pointed out; you have not supported the notion that 'It has come down to a very simple binary choice' to anyone's satisfaction but your own.
    [Edit: I shouldn't speak for anyone but myself. Obviously I can't. Apologies]

  92. Mike M:

    "That is not fair. Tom has made perfectly reasonable points. I don't see where you have pointed out any really significant errors. And you seem to have ignored much of what Tom has said."

    Can you point out any examples relevant to things I've said which I've ignored? I initially commented to correct some factual misunderstandings so I'm obviously not going to discuss everything he says, but I believe I've addressed everything said about any point I discussed.

    As for errors i've pointed out that he's ignored, he suggested jurors with any technical expertise would be struck ASAP even though those were the exact jurors sought, making that the opposite of the truth. He suggested this was a case of forum shopping, when it's not. He said the EPA ruled glyphosate was not carcinogenic, ignoring the plaintiffs' argument glyphosate becomes more dangerous due to interactions with other ingredients in Roundup. He suggested studies were (effectively) done by the plaintiffs. He suggested the plaintiffs were somehow engaged in ghost-writing of such studies. He said the EPA ruling on glyphosate should resolve matters to such an extent these lawsuits couldn't be won, because apparently he thinks government reports cannot be called into question for trial.

    As far as I can tell, every single one of those claims was wrong, and on most, he hasn't said a word after I pointed that out. The few exceptions saw him neither acknowledge the error nor dispute what I said. The result is he has repeatedly characterized the lawsuits and the plaintiffs in inaccurate, demeaning ways, often with remarks which fly in the face of all available evidence. If you don't think that's significant, I don't know what to say.

    "It might, except that in the past you have not exactly established yourself as a reliable source."

    It's always interesting to see ad hominem attacks flourish on this site. I remember many commenters speaking out against them in the past. I've never understood this approach myself. I don't understand what people are thinking when they post what is nothing more than, "I'm going to make vague allusions to unveriable things to deride you." Remarks likes this one by you Mike M. could be copied, word-for-word, into any response to any person on any topic, and it'd work just the same. I feel like that's a sign they shouldn't be used.

  93. Ed Forbes,
    “As I have noted before, we are not that far apart in our views when compared to the crazy greens.”
    .
    Sure. But that seems akin to damning with faint praise. The substantive differences remain: I think global warming is a legitimate public policy issue, worthy of serious consideration, and you do not.

  94. SteveF (Comment #176166): "Sure. But that seems akin to damning with faint praise. The substantive differences remain: I think global warming is a legitimate public policy issue, worthy of serious consideration, and you do not."

    Right. Anthropogenic global warming is real. It is not a crisis and certainly not even close to being an existential crisis. But neither should it be pooh-poohed.

    I think a carbon tax is a terrible idea. But we should not waste fossil fuels, for reasons that include reducing carbon emissions. We should use energy as efficiently as possible, but not ration it. There is a place for renewables, but the idea that they will supply a majority of our energy use (let alone all of it) is a fantasy.

  95. Ed Forbes (Comment #176156)
    September 13th, 2019 at 3:17 pm
    Here is the 1st reference to carbon tax

    OK_Max (Comment #176001)
    August 27th, 2019 at 12:31 pm
    Ed Forbes (Comment #175997)
    It has come down to a very simple binary choice: do you support the continued use of energy to support and expand our current lifestyle or do you support limits on the use of energy and reducing our lifestyle? Capitalism or Socialism?
    _____
    Ed, I'm a capitalist who supports limits on the use of coal, a carbon tax, and the development of alternatives energy sources (not sure about nuclear) for cleaner air and water and for curbing mankind's effect on climate.
    __________________

    Lots of capitalists favor a carbon tax. It has bipartisan support.
    I like the idea of distributing the carbon tax revenue to those who file an income tax return rather than using it to reduce the income tax.Yes, I know it's regressive. but there are ways to compensate those who are affected.

    Ed, you asked "do you support the continued use of energy to support and expand our current lifestyle …?" Perhaps you meant life styles since not everyone has the same kind. But to answer your question, I support the more efficient use of energy, and believe I can use less energy without adversely affecting my lifestyle.

    I'm not sure what you mean by "expand." If you mean improve, my carbon tax check from the government could be used to improve my lifestyle. I probably would invest most of it because I find making money more enjoyable than spending money.

  96. SteveF (Comment #176158)

    "If you want to reduce murders, the very LAST thing to worry about is rifles… yet that’s just about the only thing the dem candidates for president want to talk about."
    ______

    I thought it wasn't rifles in general but assault weapons with large capacity magazines, which can be converted to fully automatic operation, and used to murder lots of people at one time. The main non-military use for rifles is hunting and target shooting, An assault type rifle can be used for hunting or target practice, but so can rifles that don’t have large magazines or aren’t even semi-automatic, and may have greater accuracy at long range which some times is more useful for hunting.

    I can imagine a few situations where an assault rifle would be better. If I were hunting in Alaska, for example, and were at risk for being attacked by a bear, I would want an assault rifle, preferably a fully automatic version, for rapid close-range fire power. If the damed thing jammed, I would try my bear repellent launcher, or maybe I should use that first.

    Mass shootings account for only a small percentage of murders by all types of firearms and even smaller percentage of all deaths by gun shot. But these incidents are more shocking than the statistics. Banning assault rifles would result in only a very very small reduction in the the total number of firearm fatalities. The ban, however, could reduce mass killings.

    Gun owners are more likely to kill themselves with their weapons (on purpose or not), than be murdered by gun. I wouldn’t argue with that as a reason given for not owning a gun.

  97. OK_Max (Comment #176170): "I thought it wasn't rifles in general but assault weapons with large capacity magazines, which can be converted to fully automatic operation, and used to murder lots of people at one time."

    They can not be converted to full auto easily or legally. Hand guns can also be used to murder a lot of people at one time. So can bombs. Or trucks.
    .
    OK_Max: "The main non-military use for rifles is hunting and target shooting …"

    For conventional rifles. Guns like the AR-15 are not so good for hunting and are good for self-defense.
    .
    OK_Max: "An assault type rifle can be used for hunting or target practice, but so can rifles that don’t have large magazines or aren’t even semi-automatic"

    But they are not nearly as useful for self defense.
    .
    OK_Max: "Banning assault rifles would result in only a very very small reduction in the the total number of firearm fatalities. The ban, however, could reduce mass killings."

    Hardly, since they are not necessary for mass killings.

    I am not a gun owner. But my understanding is that the properties that make an AR-15 desirable for mass shootings also make it desirable for sport shooting and self defense.

  98. My understanding (could be mistaken) is that 'assault rifle' isn't an actual specific thing. One might as well say 'scary looking rifle'. If I am mistaken, I'd be pleased to hear of it.

  99. Oh, I see. Assault rifles ARE a thing. They are already illegal for civilians in the U.S.. Assault WEAPONS are the hodgepodge list of semiautomatics that include the AR15 that everybody gets all worked up about.

  100. I was checking one last time to see if there were any responses to my last comment when I saw these comments about guns. A couple quick thoughts. First, the term "assault weapon" is practically useless in discussions. It has no formal definition, or rather, it has many different definitions which only loosely overlap, and often don't match what people intend when they say "assault weapon." Democrats who call for bans on "assault weapons" can almost never give anything resembling a clear definition of them.

    Second, the term AR-15 is often muddled in a similar fashion. AR-15 is a trademarked term, but many other guns are referred to as "AR-15s." This is the main reason I wanted to comment. There's a remark above that AR-15s are "not so good for hunting and are good for self-defense." I've never liked the idea of a rifle for self-defense (people have differing views, but I'd recommend handguns instead), but the interesting point to me is AR-15s are often underestimated for hunting. Depending on the person, what they are hunting and where they're hunting it at, an AR-15 might well be my recommendation.

    As an example, there are coyotes where I live. They'll sometimes attack pets or domestic livestock. An AR-15 is a great option for dealing with them. I'd certainly prefer it to a bolt-action rifle or hand gun. And pretty much anyone can use them as they're lightweight with low recoil. You can even use an AR-15 quite effectively for hunting smaller deer. Ammo manufacturers have even been developing new ammo because of the rise in AR-15 hunting. An AR-15 can fit almost all your needs, which makes it very convenient as an "all-purpose" tool. That's why it's so popular.

    If the goal is to reduce gun violence, banning AR-15s is about the worst approach possible.

  101. Mark Bofill, as you noted "assault rifle" is a real classification. There are several aspects, but the most notable is the weapon has to be capable of burst or fully automatic fire. That gets them classified as machine guns. We don't need news laws regulating the purchase of machine guns.

    That said, it's not entirely illegal to own them. I don't remember all the details, but I believe what happened is back in 1986 or so a law was passed which banned the purchase of any *new* assault rifles. Ones which had been bought before then could still be owned legally, and they can still be sold to other people. There's a bunch of paperwork, background checks and special taxes involved, and the scarcity means they're very expensive, but it is an option for the dedicated. (Hopefully I'm remembering that right.)

  102. Brandon,
    You are entirely correct in your qualification as far as I can tell. It's not altogether illegal, just heavily regulated. Thanks for that.
    I agree with your earlier comment as well, at a hasty glance.

  105. Beg pardon Brandon. Some states have outright[] banned fully automatic weapons. I'm on my phone, so I get a little terse to cut down on typing on the crappy virtual keyboard.

  106. No worries. It's quite possible some individual states have extra laws that'd cover assault rifles. I wouldn't be surprised if some states even defined "assault rifle" to mean something different. Gun laws are screwy. They can be radically different from one state to the next, and often, they contain provisions that serve no logical purpose.

  107. Re Mike M. (Comment #176171

    Converting isn’t difficult if you are criminal with a few metalworking tools, including a milling machine. As you say, it’s illegal.

    As Brandon has said downthread, a handgun would be better than an AR-15 for self defense. In most self-defense situations, the lighter weight and smaller size of the handgun would make it easier to quickly manuver into action. I probably would choose a Glock 17 or for concealed carry the more compact Glock 19. Each holds 17 rounds if I remember correctly.

  108. OK_Max, that's not quite what I said. People have differing views on the subject, and many would recommend a rifle over a pistol. In a high-stress situation, a person with little training/experience will tend to perform better with a rifle than a pistol because rifles are much easier to aim with. Also, rifles tend to have much better "stopping power."

    Personally, I'm not that worried about stopping power as people will rarely keep coming if they've been shot at, much less if they've actually been shot. They'll usually run away. Also, I'm a firm believer if you plan to have a gun for self-defense, you should practice with it a lot. If you do that, the difference in how hard it is to aim a pistol/rifle shrinks greatly. Combined, that makes the maneuverability of a pistol the deciding factor for me.

    For other people, things can be different. People who only fire the gun they own for self-defense a couple times at a range will likely be better off with a rifle. If you want to see the difference, try doing sprints until you're winded then pick up a gun and fire it. There's a world of difference in firing a gun with your hands sweating, you heart pounding, your breathing hard.

  109. "Gun owners are more likely to kill themselves with their weapons (on purpose or not), than be murdered by gun."

    I've generally seen this listed as
    Gun owners are more likely to be killed by a gun.

    This has the same fallacy as 'people who go to the hospital are more likely to die'.

  110. Brandon, I’m sorry II didn’t quiet understand what you said.

    I would agree it’s more difficult to hit a target with a handgun than with a rifle, and the difficulty increases as the distance from the target increases. Accuracy with a rifle is easier because it weighs more is held steadier and has a longer barrel. But for self-defense in my home, car, or on the street, I would prefer a handgun. The longer barrel and greater weight of a rifle makes it difficult to pick up and manuver into action as quickly as I can do with the smaller and lighter handgun while in my bedroom or behind the wheel of my car. And I’m not going to walk on the street carrying a rifle. As for accuracy, I think most self-defense situations would involve attackers or intruders at short range where the rifles greater accuracy would be less of a factor. Anyway, it could be better to miss and scare the bad guy away than injure kill him.

    Mass murders choose AR-15’s and the like because these weapons have large capacity amo clips, which when emptied can be easily replaced with another clip, making it possible to kill lots of people quickly despite being semi-automatic rifles. These are based on military automatic assault rifles that were designed to kill lots of people even more quickly.

  111. Outside the home a rifle isn't a practical self-defense tool, but I think you're underestimating how much of a difference it makes within the home. I think the statistic I remember hearing was only ~10% of shots fired in self-defense with a pistol hit a target within a home. People really do miss a lot even at distances as close as 10 feet. Of course, if the intruder runs away evven if you miss, that may not matter (and as you say, may even be a good thing).

    As for why mass murderers choose AR-15s, I don't think you're right about the reason. There are options that are much more dangerous. If mass murderers were aiming for efficiency, they would likely choose different weapons. As far as I can tell though, mass shooters have not been very knowledgeable about guns. Given AR-15 rifles (which as I mentioned before is a term used to refer to a range of rifles, not just actual AR-15s) are the most popular guns in the the United States, it's hardly surprising they're also the most popular ones used in mass shootings.

    If you really want to know who to blame for AR-15s being so popular with mass shootings, I'd argue you should look to Democrats and the media. AR-15s have received a ridiculous amount of attention and focus by anti-gun advocates, typically hyped up as these incredibly dangerous weapons. Imagine a person with limited knowledge of guns but constant exposure to that wants to pick a weapon to kill people. For that matter, imagine a person with limited knowledge of guns wants to buy a gun for lawful purposes. Odds are they'll go with what they've heard about. Copying what you see/hear is a thing humans do all the time.

    Which is also why there's a non-trivial argument the constant attention and fear-mongering of these events causes more to happen. It is plausible if anti-gun advocates were less opportunistic about mass shootings there would be fewer mass shootings.

  112. I agree with Brandon that the media attention to mass shooting creates more mass shootings.

    There is an element of fad to mass shootings. Also, death by cop suicides know they will get a lot of attention if they commit suicide via mass shooting. So mentally ill people are more drawn to mass shootings because of all the attention. Hence the proliferation of live videos and manifestos lately by mass shooters.

    I even understand the need some people feel to do something about the problem. I just don't think that banning guns or a mandatory gun buy-back program will work with our current constitution.

    I don't see anything unconstitutional about red line laws, although if they go to far I could see a law getting struck down under the 2nd amendment.

    I don't see anything unconstitutional about universal background check laws.

    So there are several things states and the federal government could do to feel better about the mass shooting problem. They could pass red line laws and universal background checks.

    Most difficult of all – the constitution could be amended to change the 2nd amendment. I am not in favor of that – but that would be a way to try to solve the mass shooting problem.

  113. California has really screwed up gun laws reguarding “Assault Rifles”. They define an assault rifle generaly as “ a scary looking simi-auto rifle”. There are a number of restrictions on owning a weapon defined by California as an “Assault Rifle”.
    .
    I bought a simi-auto Ruger mini-14 rifle with detachable magazine and quick release magazine button in .223/5.56 ( same round as the AR-15 and military M4), specifically due to their weird laws. Because it has a full solid stock ( better to hit someone with ), and no pistol grip, it is not an “Assault Rifle” under California law. Go figure.
    Current mini-14
    https://ruger.com/products/mini14RanchRifle/specSheets/5817.html
    .

  114. MikeN (Comment #176184)
    September 15th, 2019 at 1:46 am
    "Gun owners are more likely to kill themselves with their weapons (on purpose or not), than be murdered by gun."

    I've generally seen this listed as
    Gun owners are more likely to be killed by a gun.

    This has the same fallacy as 'people who go to the hospital are more likely to die'
    _________

    Some truth to what you say, but not entirely. Although most people who die in hospitals probably would have died anyway, and most people who commit suicide with guns probably would have killed themselves with another method anyway, most people who accidentally kill themselves with their guns probably wouldn't have otherwise accidentally killed themselves anyway.

  115. Below is Wikapedia’s list of the 10 deadliest mass shootings in the U.S. and the weapons used. In 6 of the 10 shootings assault rifles were used, including the AR-15, AR-10, SIG Sauer MCX, Bushmaster XM15-E2s, UZI, and AK-47. Handguns also were used in 6 shootings, with Glocks (models 17 and 19) accounting for most of the handguns.

    Almost all of the weapons were semi-automatics with large bullet-capacity magazines, which make it easy for shooters to quickly kill large numbers of people. For greater capacity, additional loaded magazines can be carried to replace the empty ones.

    Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 included limits on magazine capacity but this law expired in 2004. Some States have passed laws that limit the number of bullets a magazine can hold, but the majority of States do not limit this capacity.

    Las Vegas shooting (58 killed) An arsenal, including AR-15 and AR-10 rifles and more

    Orlando nightclub shooting (50 killed) SIG Sauer MCX rifle, Glock 17 handguns

    2007 Virginia Tech shooting (32 killed) Walther P22 handgun, Glock 19 handgun

    2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting (26 killed) Bushmaster XM15-E2s rifle

    2017 Sutherland Springs church shooting (26 killed) Glock 19 handgun, Ruger SR22 handgun

    1991 Luby’s shooting (23 killed) Glock 17 handgun, Ruger P89 handgun

    2019 El Paso Walmart shooting (22 killed) AK-47 rifle

    1984 San Ysidro McDonald's shooting (21 killed) Browning HP handgun, Uzi carbine, Winchester 1200 shotgun

    2018 Stoneman Douglas High School shooting (17 killed) AR-15 rifle

    1966 Texas U Tower shooting (14 killed) An arsenal, including several rifles, handguns, and a shotgun.

  116. Max,
    Most AR-15's aren't assault rifles. The defining feature of an assault rifle seems to be selective fire, and darn few AR-15's can be switched to fire in full auto mode. They can sometimes correctly be called assault weapons.
    I get a certain degree of amusement from the fact that progressives appear to get considerably more worked up about mass shootings *excluding* the ongoing weekly weekend shootings in Chicago. For such a 'woke' crowd of people to ignore all of the young black men being gunned down in the windy city sort of astonishes me. I thought Black Lives Mattered. But perhaps it is too inexpedient to draw national attention to the abject failure of gun control to remedy the ongoing gun violence in that city.
    [Edit, link here:
    https://www.chicagotribune.com/data/ct-shooting-victims-map-charts-htmlstory.html
    Could this be right? Almost 2000 people have been shot this year, which is less than last year? Jezzus. Yah, yay gun control…]

  117. Mark Bofill,
    “I thought Black Lives Mattered.”
    .
    All lives matter. But to the progressive left, it seems black lives mater a damned sight less that the lives of those killed by lunatics in mass shootings.

  118. mark bofill (Comment #176193): "I get a certain degree of amusement from the fact that progressives appear to get considerably more worked up about mass shootings *excluding* the ongoing weekly weekend shootings in Chicago. For such a 'woke' crowd of people to ignore all of the young black men being gunned down in the windy city sort of astonishes me."

    Yep. But I don't find it amusing in the slightest. Once again, the real issue is not the claimed issue. They claimed issue is saving lives. The real issue is obtaining and expanding power.

  119. mark bofill (Comment #176193)
    September 15th, 2019 at 4:54 pm
    Max,
    "Most AR-15's aren't assault rifles. The defining feature of an assault rifle seems to be selective fire, and darn few AR-15's can be switched to fire in full auto mode."

    "I get a certain degree of amusement from the fact that progressives appear to get considerably more worked up about mass shootings *excluding* the ongoing weekly weekend shootings in Chicago."
    ________

    mark, I believe the defining feature of an assault rifle is a large capacity magazine. The automatic feature would be pointless if the magazine held only a few bullets. Another defining feature is a relatively short barrel for a rifle (technically, a carbine), which can be an advantage in close quarters.

    I guess I'm sort of a progressive and I am well aware that mass killings are only a small percentage of total gun murders in the U.S. I'm also aware of what should be an acceptable way to reduce the numbers killed in a mass slaughters by firearms. And that is a Federal law limiting magazine capacity. It might not reduce the number of such incidents, but it should reduce the number killed.

    BTW, I wonder why we don't get worked up over the number of people killed in motor vehicles.

  120. Max,
    Are you aware that the AR-15 platform supports many many different magazines of varying capacities?
    At any rate:
    >>I'm also aware of what should be an acceptable way to reduce the numbers killed in a mass slaughters by firearms. And that is a Federal law limiting magazine capacity. It might not reduce the number of such incidents, but it should reduce the number killed.
    —-
    I don't know about that.
    This dude changes magazines in his AR in what looks like about 1 second to me:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksZqzPWm7VQ
    .
    [Edit: They (additional magazines) aren't costly. Look:
    https://www.cheaperthandirt.com/parts-and-accessories/magazines/ar-15-magazines/
    ]

  121. Max, what I was arguing against is different than what you said. I have not seen this, 'more likely to be killed by your own gun' claim before, though not having a gun means you are not likely to be killed by your own gun.
    What I have seen is the claim that having a gun makes you more likely to be killed, whether it's your gun or someone else's.

  123. MikeN (Comment #176198)

    "What I have seen is the claim that having a gun makes you more likely to be killed, whether it's your gun or someone else's.'
    _____

    Sorry, I didn't understand before.

    I would have to think about that one.

  124. **MikeN (Comment #176198)

    "What I have seen is the claim that having a gun makes you more likely to be killed, whether it's your gun or someone else's.'**

    Well, if I thought I was in a situation where there was a high likelihood I'd be attacked and killed and as a practical matter, couldn't exit that situation, I might become a gun owner. So: yeah. It could well be that people whose lives are precarious are more likely to decide to own guns, thus creating that correlation.

  125. MikeN (Comment #176198): "What I have seen is the claim that having a gun makes you more likely to be killed, whether it's your gun or someone else's."

    If you leave out suicides, which is a separate issue, then I am certain that legal gun owners are less likely to be killed than the population at large, even though I can't find any stats on that. I say that because it is obvious that illegal gun owners have an enormously increased risk of being killed. Whether legal gun owners are less likely to be killed than non-gun owners is not obvious.

    From what I can find, the overwhelming majority of murders committed with guns use illegal guns. And (with much less confidence) the overwhelming majority of homicides committed with legal guns are self-defense or accidents.

  126. mark bofill (Comment #176197)
    September 15th, 2019 at 6:49 pm
    Max,
    "Are you aware that the AR-15 platform supports many many different magazines of varying capacities?"

    mark, I would expect most assault rifles to take magazines of various capacities, both because that's what buyer's want and some state laws limit magazine capacity.

    I don't whether any States limit the number of magazines you can carry. As you pointed out, empties can be replaced with loaded magazines pretty fast, though the shooter could fumble the change and lose critical time.

    I have been gunless for a long time and haven't kept up with the changing technology and changes in the law. I probably will be going to a shooting range soon because a close relative just got a job there. I'm looking forward to trying out the various firearms I can rent.

    Mark, back to your Comment #176193

    You said in reference to Chicago "But perhaps it is too inexpedient to draw national attention to the abject failure of gun control to remedy the ongoing gun violence in that city."

    Another way to look at that is the law against murder has failed. But for the law against murder, even more people might have been murdered. And but for the gun control laws, even more people might have been killed by gunfire.

    The Chicago gun control laws don't keep it's residents from going over to Indiana and Wisconsin where buying guns is easier.

  127. Max,

    Certainly there are reasons gun control laws don't actually stop gun violence in Chicago. Similarly, there are reasons most additional proposed gun law fixes are unlikely to stop mass shootings in the U.S.

    Good talking with you. Good night.

  128. Hmm. Two things this morning.
    1) Are we about to go to war with Iran? The morning news suggests Iran hit Saudi oil assets with cruise missiles and drones.
    2) Max, you tell me magazine size makes the assault rifle an assault rifle, then you tell me you expect assault rifles to take different magazine sizes. In which case why call them assault rifles in the first place?

  129. Mike M,
    **I am certain that legal gun owners are less likely to be killed than the population at large, even though I can't find any stats on that.**
    .
    I'm not certain of this at all. The only reason I would buy a gun is if I thought I lived some place where I needed to defend myself and it was impractical to move. So:
    .
    Cause: threat of violence to me.
    Effect: I buy gun to protect myself.
    .
    It's true the gun might help me protect myself *relative to* the level before I got the gun. But the only reason I would buy it is that I perceived the level I would be killed or assaulted was high.

  130. I was at the University of Texas in 1966 when Charles Whitman did his thing from the tower. He did most of his damage from long range with a bolt action hunting rifle. He did shoot some people inside the tower with a sawed-off semiautomatic shotgun. There was a lot of return fire from the ground, mostly from civilian hunting rifles. That may have kept the damage down, but it was hazardous for the police officer and civilian who finally took Whitman down.

    I'm a bit surprised that semiautomatic sawed-off shotguns aren't more popular with mass killers.

    My impression is that Black Lives Matter only when the shooter is a police officer, preferably white.

  131. lucia (Comment #176208): "I'm not certain of this at all. The only reason I would buy a gun is if I thought I lived some place where I needed to defend myself and it was impractical to move."

    And if everyone was like you, then you'd have good reason to doubt my claim.

    I am having a hard time finding good numbers, but it looks like a majority of murder victims have felony convictions. In some cities, it is as high as 90%. Felons can not legally own firearms. Since there are far more legal gun owners than felons, it must follow that any group that includes felons has a murder rate higher than that of legal gun owners.

    If you exclude felons, then, as I said above, I don't know the murder rate of legal gun owners vs. those who don't own guns.

  132. Brandon,
    Take a look in the mirror. Your MO is make assertions without any links or evidence and then back that up with an appeal to your rather high opinion of your self authority. That's basically the way a lot of forum discussions go, as they are based on opinions, experience, and worldview. The difference is with those who hand out homework assignments on trivial points for anyone who disagrees with them, and then state they cannot possibly suffer the indignity of continuing a discussion with those who aren't up to their unstated lofty standards.

  133. If I'm up against a bear I think I would prefer a 50 cal weapon.
    .
    The engineering of ammunition for killing humans is different than what one would do for killing bears. As I recall human killing ammunition is designed to be as light and small as possible to allow for more rounds per unit area and weight. The bullets are designed to tumble on impact, potentially fragment, to cause the most damage as it progresses through the body, not make a hole and come out the other side. Then there is optimization for intended distance. If you want to kill a bunch of people at close range then you are probably better off with an AK-47 versus an AR-15. If you are at a distance and are limited to only the ammunition you can carry than an AR-15 is a better choice. I'm not a gun expert, but I agree with those who state the expressed knowledge in the media about "assault" weapons is rather poor and there is almost no effort to educate anyone. You might as well just ban scary looking black weapons.
    .
    It's a rather morbid and interesting engineering optimization.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_ballistics
    .
    FYI: The penalty for converting a semi-automatic weapon to fully automatic is severe. 10 years / $250K. This is a line you do not casually cross.

  134. I've heard some state that a shotgun is the best home defense weapon, a lot of stopping power and bigger spread on the target. If you have played enough 1st person shooters in your corrupted youth then you understand the trade offs involved in the weapon types. Shotguns tend to be best for panic close range shooting. Sustained firing in full automatic is wasteful and inaccurate, better to use 3 round bursts on a single trigger pull. I believe 3 round burst is one of the modes on a military weapon and is the preferred general combat mode. If you turn it around and ask what weapon would you least want pointed at you then a shotgun is pretty high on the list in close quarters.
    .
    Another interest point is that people immediately falling down after being shot is either a Hollywood effect, a learned behavior, or possibly a neurological response. Deer can run a very long way after being shot. A person can / should be able to continue the fight or run well after being shot unless a critical area is hit.

  135. mark bofill (Comment #176207)
    Max, you tell me magazine size makes the assault rifle an assault rifle, then you tell me you expect assault rifles to take different magazine sizes. In which case why call them assault rifles in the first place?
    ________

    mark,

    I think it was Hitler's idea to call 'em that. The original designer wanted to call these guns something else. But you have to call
    'em something because they have characteristics that set then aside from other rifles.

    In the linked video the shooter demonstrates that he gets greater accuracy from an AK-47 assault rifle by switching from fully automatic mode to semi-automatic mode. The shooter says fully automatic looks good in the movies but in real life situations is pretty useless. I don’t completely agree, as I think it would depend on the situation. At very close range in a crowd of people a mass shooter probably could do more damage using fully automatic mode.

    It would seem pointless to argue whether this AK-47 is or is not an assault rifle on semi-automatic mode. Regardless, it’s still the same rifle.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cosc-RO_oMg

  136. Tom Scharf (Comment #176212): "The engineering of ammunition for killing humans is different than what one would do for killing bears. As I recall human killing ammunition is designed to be as light and small as possible to allow for more rounds per unit area and weight."

    I read somewhere that the standard ammunition used in the military versions of the AR-15 is not optimized for killing. It is optimized for suppression fire, that is, for forcing the enemy to keep his head down. So it only needs to have a reasonable chance of killing or badly injuring someone; once that condition is met it is more important to maximize rate of fire and the amount of ammo that can be carried. The standard AR-15 ammo is .223 caliber, which is usually considered too small for hunting anything bigger than varmints. In many states, that ammo is illegal for hunting deer, let alone bear.

    There are versions of the AR-15 chambered for larger caliber and with longer barrels to make them suitable for hunting.

  137. MikeM, if murders committed with guns use illegal guns, and legal-gun homicides are self-defense or accidents, that doesn't tell us if owners who legally own guns are more likely to be killed by an illegal gun that someone who doesn't own a gun.

    Your logic on felons seems suspect as well. When you compare legal gun owners to the population at large, are you comparing to people who don't own guns, or that group plus people who illegally own guns?

  138. Thanks Max, we actually appear to be getting someplace. I'd agree that a gun that can be made to fire full auto by flipping a switch on the gun is an assault rifle. I'm under the impression that this is what selective fire means. Most AR15s have no such switch, are therefore not selective fire rifles, and as a result are not in fact assault rifles. Agree?

  139. MIkeM
    **And if everyone was like you, then you'd have good reason to doubt my claim.**
    I'm confused why you thing that. Looking back: our claim is you are certain legal gun owners are less likely to be killed by the population at large.

    But your certainty could be misplaced if ANY of the following are true

    * SOME people are like me and only buy if they are in danger.
    * Gun accidents are frequent and so cause more deaths that the ability for self defense prevents.
    * SOME violent people who are likely to get in arguments are more likely to buy guns than non-violent people.

    The fact I am like me suggest that at least SOME people are. And it is simply not necessary for ALL people to be like me for the existance of people like me to affect the correlation between gun ownership and likely hood to be hurt by guns.

    There may be additional reasons why your certainty is misplaced. I would need to see statistics to know whether those who own guns are more or less likely to be killed.

  140. mark bofill (Comment #176217)
    Most AR15s have no such switch, are therefore not selective fire rifles, and as a result are not in fact assault rifles. Agree?
    ______

    Nope, just use an adjective.

    "Semi-automatic assault rifle"

    I can understand people objecting to the "assault" in assault rifle if they fear the connotations (aggressive, offensive, attack, war like, etc) make anyone who owns one suspect regardless of his purpose. I don't know what the public thinks about owners of assault rifles, but if I thought buying one would hurt my reputation, I would just choose another kind of rifle.

  142. Tom, if you’ve played a lot of first person shooters then you might underestimate the effective range of a shotgun as they’re usually nerfed for balance reasons. Certainly in the confines of a house in what is likely to be a dark and terrifying encounter, they offer a little more room for error.

  143. It seems I have failed to make myself clear. Most murder victims are criminals. Only a small fraction of the general population are criminals. So the murder rate among criminals is huge compared to the murder rate among law abiding citizens, whether you measure it by victims or perpetrators.

    As a result, the murder rate among law abiding citizens is much lower than the overall murder rate. Legal gun owners are overwhelmingly law abiding citizens. So I conclude that the murder rate among legal gun owners is much lower than for the population as a whole (which includes all the criminals). I also conclude that the murder rate is low for law abiding citizens who don't own guns. I don't know which of those two groups of law abiding citizens has the lower murder rate.
    .
    I think that matters when we see a claim like "having a gun makes you more likely to be killed, whether it's your gun or someone else's". There are ways that could be true, but they are all misleading.

  144. mark bofill (Comment #176193)
    September 15th, 2019 at 4:54 pm
    "Max,
    Most AR-15's aren't assault rifles. The defining feature of an assault rifle seems to be selective fire, and darn few AR-15's can be switched to fire in full auto mode. They can sometimes correctly be called assault weapons."

    As far as I can tell, literally none of the shootings OK_Max cited involved assault riles. Also, the list is a bit weird. The recent shooting in El Paso involved a WASR-10, not an AK-47 (though the WASR-10 is somewhat based on an AK-47), but that doesn't make it one.

    Additionally, the Bushmaster XM-15 is often labeled an "AR-15." I discussed before how the label is used imprecisely. I wouldn't bring it up again except it seems none of the "AR-15s" OK_Max referred to were AR-15s. Nor were the AR-10s. They were "AR-15 type" and "AR-10 type" rifles, meaning they were styled in a partciular fashion. I'm fine with that imprecision, but then, why cite the Bushmaster XM-15 separately rather than just call it an AR-15 as well?

    "I don't know about that.
    This dude changes magazines in his AR in what looks like about 1 second to me:"

    High-capacity magazine bans wouldn't help the problem at all, for about a dozen different reasons. My personal favorite is you can't confiscate things when you ban them, meaning all the existing guns and "high-capacity" magazines would remain legal. Even if one accepted the strained thinking required to believe banning those magazines would solve things (just look at how many shooters only used 10-round magazines), it wouldn't work because the ban would do little to nothing.

  145. OK_Max (Comment #176219): "Nope, just use an adjective. Semi-automatic assault rifle."

    There is no such thing. By definition, assault rifles are capable of automatic fire. They are weapons of war, and may not be owned by civilians, with a few very limited exceptions.

    Then there is the dishonest term "assault weapon". The term has no meaningful definition, but is applied to civilian weapons that look like assault rifles and is used to promote the lie that such guns are weapons of war.
    .
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
    "An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine."

  146. Mike, even with that extra clarification, I'm not sure your claim is correct or if correct, I'm not sure it's meaningfully correct. The meaningful part of your claim is the murder rate for non-criminals is lower than for criminals. I would be surprised if this is not true, and of course it has nothing to do with guns.

    After that, the only *meaningful* question is whether other (relevant) things being equal, gun ownership makes someone be more likely or less likely to be murdered.

  147. Tom Scharf, that's a lot of ad hominem that does absolutely nothing to address anything I said so I think it's clear I was right about it being best to end our exchange. That said, I feel I should point out I offered video evidence which demonstrated much of what I've said, and I cited other evidence which I would have been happy to offer links to/quotations from upon request.

    The idea I "hand out homework assignments on trivial points" is strange given I have always been willing to provide details and references for any claim I make, and often, my desire for specificity and detail is such people get tired of it. What you say is not just wrong, it's exactly backwards.

    If all you want to discuss is what you think of me as a person, I'm sure you'll find plenty of people who are happy to do so. I don't think it'd be the type of discussion this site hopes to have though.

  148. Brandon, I agree with you about the likely ineffectiveness of high magazine bans. If stopping mass shootings was an easy problem to solve, it'd already be solved. At least that's my opinion.

  149. Lucia, MikeM appears to be saying that legally purchasing a gun is different from the illegal purchase of a gun, and the category of legal gun owners will get killed at a lower rate than illegal gun owners, because the category of legal gun owners excludes felons who are much more likely to be murdered.

    So what does it take for this to be wrong?
    Let's say a population of 1,000,000.
    400,000 gun owners.
    30,000 felons.
    10,000 murdered,
    5,000 of the 10,000 murdered are felons.

    If the 5,000 murdered felons don't own guns, then the legal gun owners have a lower chance of being murdered than non-gun owners.
    If the murdered felons own guns, then they are illegal gun owners, and again the legal gun owners have a lower chance of being murdered than the population at large.

    As for the your question about whether legally buying a gun means you are more at risk of being murdered, I think your example makes sense, but the data would likely be hidden among a larger group of hunters. Half of counties had no murders in 2014, and another 20% of counties only had one murder. I'm guessing that these counties are rural and have high rates of gun ownership.

  150. mark bofill, a cynical person might believe it wouldn't be solved even if it'd be easy to. Nobody benefits more from mass shootings than gun control advocates so, in a sick way, it's good for them not to solve this problem. Not only do a lot of people reap significant financial benefits from using mass shootings for advocacy, it's a significant factor for any number of elections.

    Am I cynical enough to think Democrats intentionally fail to propose solutions that could possibly address the problem out of a sick sense of self-interest? Am I cynical enough to think Democrats give more attention and focus to mass shootings, thus incentivizing further shootings by people who find that kind of attention appealing, so they can personally benefit?

    No. On the other hand, I can't help but notice the people whose self-interest is best served by not solving these problems go out of their way not to understand the causes of the problems, offering "solutions" that could never work but would hurt many people whose views they disagree with. I don't think that's part of some conscious, sinister plan, but I don't think it's a coincidence either.

  151. Re Mike M. (Comment #176224)

    MikeM, you like the wiki description for “assault rifle” but not the one for “assault weapon” because you believe the term is applied to civilian weapons that look like assault rifles and is used to promote the lie that such guns are weapons of war.” Well, they look like weapons of war because they are based on or developed from weapons of war, so I see nothing wrong with calling ‘em what they look like.

    Actually, the similarity goes beyond just the looks. The civilian versions of assault rifles are very much like military assault rifles in design, except for the latter’s selective-fire feature. Instead of having all three fire modes (automatic, burst, and semi-automatic), the civilian versions have only semi-automatic. Certainly, semi-automatic mode is useful in war are it wouldn’t be one of the choices.

    The civilian versions are going to be called something to to set them apart from other rifles the public can buy. Technically, the civilian versions are semi-automatic rifles, not a very specific term, but accurate. But if media coverage of mass shootings used that term, the anti-gun crowd would be calling for a ban on all semi-automatic guns. So the gun lobby would be wise to shut-up rather than trying to make an issue out of what these weapons should be called.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle
    "An assault rifle is a selective-fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon
    “Assault weapon is a term used in the United States to define some types of  firearms. The definition varies among regulating jurisdictions but usually includes semi-automatic rifles with a detachable magazine, a pistol grip and sometimes other features such as a vertical forward grip, flash suppressor or barrel shroud.”

  152. Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #176223)

    "As far as I can tell, literally none of the shootings OK_Max cited involved assault riles. Also, the list is a bit weird. The recent shooting in El Paso involved a WASR-10, not an AK-47 (though the WASR-10 is somewhat based on an AK-47), but that doesn't make it one"
    _____

    Brandon, I would agree none involved assault rifles if we use a very restrictive definition of assault rifle, although I'm not sure about the Las Vegas shooter. It's doubtful even anything he used would meet the Army's description, which is very very specific. But I prefer different definitions for military and civilian versions of assault rifles, rather than confining the "assault" label to the former.

    The information I cited on each of the mass shootings was from Wiki. I didn't dig deeper to check weapon model identification accuracy.
    Because the type weapon used in the El Paso massacre is marketed as a WASR-10 AK-47, I can understand it being reported as just an AK-47.

  153. Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #176229)

    "Nobody benefits more from mass shootings than gun control advocates so, in a sick way, it's good for them not to solve this problem."
    __________

    Then as a gun control advocate I should favor lifting restrictions on fully-automatic assault rifles, loosening requirements for gun purchases, and doing whatever else it takes to make mass shootings more frequent and more mass, thus benefiting me even more. Yet, I do just the opposite, as I believe other gun control advocates also do. Do you think we don't know what benefits us, don't like what benefits us, or what?

  154. MikeN (Comment #176228): "MikeM appears to be saying that legally purchasing a gun is different from the illegal purchase of a gun …"

    Thanks. Nice to know that at least one person here got it.

  155. OK_Max (Comment #176230): "you like the wiki description for “assault rifle” but not the one for “assault weapon” because" …"

    No, there is a meaningful definition of assault rifle. There is no meaningful, consistent definition of assault weapon.
    .
    OK_Max: "they look like weapons of war because they are based on or developed from weapons of war, so I see nothing wrong with calling ‘em what they look like."

    ALL firearms are developed from weapons of war.
    .
    OK_Max: "the similarity goes beyond just the looks. The civilian versions of assault rifles are very much like military assault rifles in design"

    Again, that is true for ALL firearms. The only real difference between "traditional" rifles and an AR-15 is that the later uses more modern design.
    .
    OK_Max: "The civilian versions are going to be called something to to set them apart from other rifles the public can buy."

    Why? No one selling them sees any need to call them "assault weapons". So that term is not needed to describe them, it is needed to demonize them.

    If you do need a descriptive term, "modern rifles" would be appropriate.
    .
    OK_Max: "Technically, the civilian versions are semi-automatic rifles, not a very specific term, but accurate."

    All so-called assault weapons are semi-automatic rifles, but not all semi-automatic rifles are "assault weapons".

  156. OK_Max (Comment #176231)
    September 16th, 2019 at 11:52 pm
    "Brandon, I would agree none involved assault rifles if we use a very restrictive definition of assault rifle, "

    It seems strange to call something a "very restrictive definition" when it is the standard definition, widely accepted, with the alternative you're trying to use being one you've made up and haven't even stated. People can use words to mean different things, but it is unlikely people will understand what you mean if you create your own definitions and don't bother to say exactly what they are.

    "The information I cited on each of the mass shootings was from Wiki. I didn't dig deeper to check weapon model identification accuracy.
    Because the type weapon used in the El Paso massacre is marketed as a WASR-10 AK-47, I can understand it being reported as just an AK-47."

    Everything I said about those guns is present on Wikipedia so I'm not sure how you got different information. Maybe Wikipedia has inconsistent information. Maybe you misread things. I don't know.

    "Do you think we don't know what benefits us, don't like what benefits us, or what?"

    I think that it benefits a group to vociferously yet ineffectively oppose something doesn't mean it would benefit them to stop opposing it. I think a gun control advocate who makes money with their advocacy is not going to make more money with that advocacy if they stop doing it. I think a politician campaigning on gun control advocacy won't get people to vote for him by campaigning to create more mass shootings.

    I also think people sometimes like to complain about a problem more than they'd like actually solving the problem. Especially if they can blame that problem on people they dislike.

  157. DaveJR,
    Unfortunately the real world doesn't give me a convenient aiming receptacle floating in mid air, ha ha. In video games the shotgun stopping power fades pretty quickly with distance (I have no idea how realist it is) and a common strategy is to run up as close as possible to a hardened enemy with a shotgun, blast away, then run away, reload, repeat. That's probably not entirely useful in the real world.
    .
    There are some lessons to be learned from FPS's such as aiming and cover, but I suppose some important points are completely missed. The pressure of being dead instead of game over adds quite a different dynamic to the situation. In the real world the priority should be "get away from the threat" instead of "engage the threat".
    .
    I imagine the vast majority of gun crimes look nothing like a FPS and are in the category of person A pulled a gun and shot person B before they knew what was happening. The crazy shootout in LA a few decades ago was the only thing comes close.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_1IvZFwj0M

  158. Assault rifles are basically toys for most people I think, like a fast car. They are somewhat interesting but the bottom line is what are you going to do with it? Take it to the range and shoot at targets. That would seem to get pretty boring. Limited utility in my view. The more taboo owning these become, the more attractiveness they have. They have become symbolic for a fight against government tyranny. When Beto starting yelling about mandatory gun confiscation with uniform media applause he played right into the hands of this paranoia. "We the establishment want to take your guns" is a lot different message than "We the people need to vote down the second amendment".

  159. OK_Max (Comment #176232): "Then as a gun control advocate I should favor lifting restrictions"

    Did you not realize how silly that sounds? Or how silly it is? Those might be rhetorical questions, but I don't see how to rephrase them.

    Gun control advocates want to achieve gun control. They use mass shootings to advance that goal. But many don't really care about stopping mass shootings. If they get more gun control and mass shootings continue, then they can use that to further push their agenda.

  160. Tom,

    With a 12 gauge shotgun and 00 shot, there are 12-15 ~8mm pellets in a 3 inch magnum shell. With an open, short barrel, the pellets spread out pretty fast. So while the pellets have an effective range on the order of 70m, the probability of an individual pellet hitting a human sized target drops fairly rapidly with distance. Obviously for maximum damage to a hardened target, you want all the pellets to hit that target, hence close range. If you were shooting into a crowd of normally dressed people, though, that matters a lot less, as each pellet is likely to hit someone with possibly lethal effect. Shotguns can also be effective for getting through locked doors by blowing the lock out of the door.

    The Chavez government in Venezuela banned the sales of all guns and ammunition in 2012, supposedly to reduce crime. Of course, it didn't work for crime, which continued to increase, but it certainly continues to hinder the opposition to Maduro.

    As far as being cynical, I see the same pattern of politicians apparently not actually trying to solve a problem with race and immigration. If those problems were actually solved, they couldn't be used as campaign issues.

  161. My media outrage addiction cannot let this one go. The NYT's botching of the Kavanaugh story over the weekend was pretty bad by any measure. Publishing another Kavanaugh hit job in a news analysis / opinion article that somehow decides to leave out the details that the alleged victim has no memory of it ever happening and both the accuser and victim refuse to comment on it, and the accuser / witness is apparently a Clinton operative is literally as close to libel as you can possibly get. They claimed to have corroborated the story but this turns out to be talking to two unnamed government sources who said the witness reported it to the FBI, not corroborated the actual event. The only reason it was even flagged was some people had advanced copies of the book that made the allegations.
    .
    There is no reasonable way to believe this was an editorial oversight. Truly shameful. The NYT had to post a correction and then the deputy editor answered questions in print on it except the key one which was left unanswered. Someone should get fired for this one if they had the integrity they claim.
    .
    What really stuns me is how utterly incompetent this was as anyone with 3 brain cells could have predicted this was going to blow up in their face. Then some Dem candidates immediately call for his impeachment and refuse to walk it back after the weakness of the claim is shown. Can't wait for them to explain this one in debate question, ha ha.

  162. Mike M. (Comment #176234)
    “No, there is a meaningful definition of assault rifle. There is no meaningful, consistent definition of assault weapon.”

    Mike M, the definition of assault weapon is meaningful to me. It’s a semi-automatic weapon, that looks simillar to a military assault rifle, both having a relatively short barrel, a pistol grip, and a an amo magazine hanging from the bottom. I’m not sure the definition of assault rifle is as consistent as you imply. See my reply to Brandon which follows.

    “No one selling them sees any need to call them "assault weapons". So that term is not needed to describe them, it is needed to demonize them. If you do need a descriptive term, "modern rifles" would be appropriate.”

    I Googled “assault weapons for sale” and found lots of sellers. The demonization may be what appeals to many buyers. “Modern rifles” is too general to be useful.

  163. Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #176235)
    “It seems strange to call something a "very restrictive definition" when it is the standard definition, widely accepted, with the alternative you're trying to use being one you've made up and haven't even stated.”
    ________

    Brandon, if I say “civilian semi-automatic assault type rifle” you should know what I mean.

    If you are referring to the U.S Army’s standard definition of assault rifles (as quoted from Wiki below), either the definition is obsolete or the Army is replacing assault rifles with rifles that don’t meet the definition, the M4 and M4A1. Both use the 5.56×45mm NATO cartridge, too much power for an assault rifle according to the Army’s definition. In addition, the M4 is not fully automatic, a requirement implied in the definition.

    I don’t know whether the Army’s definition of assault rifle has been revised to include the M4A1 (and even the M4), but if it has then the definition obviously wasn’t cast in stone. If the definition has not changed, it would appear the Army is moving beyond what it considers to be assault rifles. Technology isn’t bound by definitions.
    Of course there's always the possibility Wiki just got it wrong.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_carbine#Army_upgrades

    According to Wiki, The U.S. Army defines assault rifles as "short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges." In this strict definition, a firearm must have at least the following characteristics to be considered an assault rifle:

    It must be capable of selective fire.

    It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle, such as the 7.92×33mm Kurz, the 7.62x39mm and the 5.56x45mm NATO.

    Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine.

    It must have an effective range of at least 300 metres (330 yards)

    Rifles that meet most of these criteria, but not all, are technically not assault rifles, despite frequently being called such. For example: Select-fire rifles such as the FN FAL battle rifle are not assault rifles; they fire full-powered rifle cartridges.Semi-automatic-only rifles like the Colt AR-15 are not assault rifles; they do not have select-fire capability.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle

  164. Mike M. (Comment #176238)
    September 17th, 2019 at 8:09 am
    OK_Max (Comment #176232): "Then as a gun control advocate I should favor lifting restrictions"

    Did you not realize how silly that sounds? Or how silly it is? Those might be rhetorical questions, but I don't see how to rephrase them.
    _____

    Of course it's silly. That was my point.

  165. Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #176235)

    “I think that it benefits a group to vociferously yet ineffectively oppose something doesn't mean it would benefit them to stop opposing it. I think a gun control advocate who makes money with their advocacy is not going to make more money with that advocacy if they stop doing it. I think a politician campaigning on gun control advocacy won't get people to vote for him by campaigning to create more mass shootings.”
    _______

    Brandon, previously you said "Nobody benefits more from mass shootings than gun control advocates so, in a sick way, it's good for them not to solve this problem."

    If something benefits me, I like it. So it seems to me you are implying as a gun control advocate I would like more mass shootings. I can assure you I wouldn’t. As for making money, never have I made any through advocating gun control.

  166. OK_Max (Comment #176241): "the definition of assault weapon is meaningful to me."

    Which does not make it meaningful in any meaningful way.
    .
    OK_Max: "I Googled “assault weapons for sale” and found lots of sellers."

    I don't believe you, because I tried it and found nothing in the first couple dozen hits. But that is not many, so prove me wrong and provide some links where the seller uses that term and the price is in some real currency, like dollars, and not some imaginary currency, like rubies.

  167. OK_Max, the army has always used a variety of rifles, some of which are assault rifles and some of which are not. I'm not sure why you say they're replacing assault rifles with non-assault rifles. Your example doesn't help. The military isn't switching over to M4s and M4A1s, it's used M4s for ages. I have heard its switching its M4s over to M4A1s, but I can't see how that'd be relevant.

    Besides which, your claim the 5.56×45mm has "too much power for an assault rifle" is wrong. It's even listed on the Wikipedia article for assault rifles, which you quote. The Wikipedia article on the M16, which the M4 is basically a lighter version of, even refers to these bullets with a quote that says they're "the standard assault-rifle cartridge in much of the world."

    I don't know why you think the military using, or not using, assault rifles would be relevant, but even if it is, the very page you quote and link to rebuts what you say.

    "If something benefits me, I like it. So it seems to me you are implying as a gun control advocate I would like more mass shootings. I can assure you I wouldn’t."

    You may have that simplistic a view of things. I doubt it though. If my business competitor's office burns down, that benefits me. However, that benefit doesn't outweigh my compassion so I don't like that it happens. The only way I could be implying what you say is if I'm claiming humans are okay with any tragedy, no matter what, so long as they benefit from it.

    If I say construction workers benefit from natural disasters due to the increased demand for their work, would you take that as me implying construction workers celebrate when a tornado comes through town and destroys people's homes? I'd hope not because that's obviously not an implication I'd be making.

  168. Re Mike M. (Comment #176245)

    MikeM, I determine what’s meaningful to me, you determine what’s meaningful to you, and other people determine what’s meaningful to them.

    Believe me, when I Googled “assault weapons for sale” I immediately got links to sellers. Below are the first four, all listing their prices in U.S. dollars.

    Discount Semi-Automatic Rifles For Sale | AR-15 …
    https://www.sportsmansguide.com

    AR-15 Rifle for Sale | AK 47 | AR 10 Rifles | Cheap Shipping …
    https://grabagun.com › firearms ›

    Assault Rifles for Sale – Buy Assault Rifles Online at …
    https://www.gunbroker.com

    Semiautomatic Centerfire Rifles from Top Brands – Cabela's
    https://www.cabelas.com

    If you get something different when you do a search it may be because our browsing records are different.

  169. Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #176246)
    “OK_Max, the army has always used a variety of rifles, some of which are assault rifles and some of which are not.”
    “I have heard its switching its M4s over to M4A1s, but I can't see how that'd be relevant.”

    Well, according to what I read, and referenced, the M4 is not fully automatic, so I think that’s relevant if by definition assault weapons have to be fully automatic.

    “Besides which, your claim the 5.56×45mm has "too much power for an assault rifle" is wrong. It's even listed on the Wikipedia article for assault rifles, which you quote.

    Brandon, read it again because it says the opposite of what you think. “It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle, such as the 7.92×33mm Kurz, the 7.62x39mm and the 5.56x45mm NATO.” Note, must have less than a 5.56 x 45 mm.

    Perhaps there’s a more recent Army definition of assault rifle, or not.
    ________

    OK_Max: ”If something benefits me, I like it. So it seems to me you are implying as a gun control advocate I would like more mass shootings. I can assure you I wouldn’t."

    Brandon: “You may have that simplistic a view of things. I doubt it though. If my business competitor's office burns down, that benefits me. However, that benefit doesn't outweigh my compassion so I don't like that it happens. The only way I could be implying what you say is if I'm claiming humans are okay with any tragedy, no matter what, so long as they benefit from it.”

    Brandon, thank you for clarifying what you meant. Of course, it’s human to have mixed feelings.

  170. OK_Max (Comment #176247): "I immediately got links to sellers. Below are the first four, all listing their prices in U.S. dollars."

    The first and third do indeed use the term. The other two don't seem to.

  171. The 5.56 is an intermediary round that falls between a pistol round, such as the 9mm, and a full size round, such as used by the M14
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M14_rifle.
    .
    Read this quote correctly, and it becomes clear.
    “It must have an intermediate-power cartridge:
    ..more power than a pistol
    ..but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle,
    .. such as the 7.92×33mm Kurz, the 7.62x39mm and the 5.56x45mm NATO.”
    .
    The 5.56 is being used as an example of an intermediate round, NOT as example of a full size round.
    .

  172. Mann v Ball dismissal decision has been released.

    R2 had nothing to do with it. No one takes anything Ball says seriously was not a reason given by the judge.
    Poor health by Ball was given as a supporting reason.
    Strangely court says Mann is over 80 years old.
    Michael Mann the director is 76.

    Ultimately, dismissal was because Mann was making no attempt to prove his case in a lawsuit he brought, and judge granted a motion to dismiss due to delay.
    Costs were awarded to Tim Ball to be paid by Mann.

    https://www.steynonline.com/documents/9740.pdf

  173. RE Ed Forbes (Comment #176250)

    Ed, you are right, that's what it means. I misinterpreted the sentence because I didn't pay attention to the comma.

    But there's still the thing about the M4 not meeting the definition of "assault rifle" because it's not fully automatic, unless you interpret its semi-automatic and burst modes as being enough to qualify it as a selective-fire rifle.

    Wait … the Army's definition of assault rifle (referenced earlier) only says selective-fire is a requirement, but doesn't say full automatic has to be one of the selections. I missed that because of one of the examples. Here everyone including myself has been thinking a rifle has to be fully automatic to be an assault rifle. Have we been misinterpreting the Army's definition?

    g

  175. OK_Max, given your response to Ed Forbes it seems you've figured out your confusion on what counts as an assault rifle so I'm not sure I need to add anything. Let me know if there are any outstanding issues.

    MikeN, thanks for that link. It's good to see the judge's reasoning. It's definitely different than what people were claiming. Somehow, I don't think they (or at least many of them) will correct themselves.

  176. MikeN (Comment #176251)
    September 17th, 2019 at 7:09 pm
    “R2 had nothing to do with it.”
    .
    Not sure of your point here. Basically, Mike lost because he generally did nothing to advance his case. It was not because of any one item.
    .
    Mike had to win, as he brought the case. having the case dismissed for cause is a loss for Mike. Mike had to prove his case, not Tim.

  177. Ed Forbes, I believe the point of his comment was to compare the judge's explanation to those other people had provided. That particular remark seems designed to address a talking point you'll find in articles like this one:

    https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/08/michael-mann-refuses-to-produce-data-loses-case.php

    Michael Mann lost his case, but different people have given different reasons as to why. Examining what the actual reasons were, and comparing them to what people have said they were, seems useful.

  178. Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #176254)
    September 17th, 2019 at 10:19 pm
    “It's good to see the judge's reasoning. It's definitely different than what people were claiming. Somehow, I don't think they (or at least many of them) will correct themselves.”
    .
    Ok, I guess I am missing something here. The only referances to R2 in this case that I have seen were both minor and speculative as to what might be acquired through discovery. What claims are you refering to stating that not producing R2 was the cause of the dismissal?
    .

  179. “Carrick headed off the grep a dictionary to create a list,”
    This was a lovely non sequitur Lucia.
    Another new word?

  180. Brandon,
    on the list of actions in the order, it does not read as if it is a complete list. Is there a list of all the orders made by the court?
    .
    One on production of documents may very well exist as noted in your link . The judge just may not have needed it listed to make his ruling on delay.
    .
    is saying that R2 was the reason given for the loss correct, no, it was not. Saying that requiring Mike to give up his R2 may have been the reason Mike delayed as he did would be reasonable speculation.
    .
    if there is no such order to produce discovery, then yes, the article is out of line.
    .

  181. Ed Forbes
    **Ok, I guess I am missing something here. The only referances to R2 in this case that I have seen were both minor and speculative as to what might be acquired through discovery. **
    .
    No. The judge gives legal reasons. The legal reason is "for the delay". The judge provides information on the three factors considering whether a dismissal for delay is warranted. These factors are whether there was a delay, whether the delay is excusable, whether it's caused prejudice. Given all these the judge decides whether the balance is for dismissal.
    .
    We know from events outside the four corners of the judges assessment of the *specific* legal factors for the delay, that the delay included Mann and his team (aka 'the plaintiffs') no bringing forward documents requested during discover. Among these is the "R2" data.
    .
    Powerline refers to this *additional* information says their INFERENCE is that the reason and the use the word INFERENCE.
    .
    We can debate whether their "inference" is correct or not, but saying they infer this from the combination of the additional information and the judges ruling is not contradicted by the judges ruling. However, the judge didn't make any conclusions about the R2 data, nor attribute any motives to Manns delay. He merely found it clearly happened, there was no valid excuse given for it and it was prejudicial to Ball (some of Balls key witnesses died, one is old an ill, Ball himself is old and ill.)
    .
    In my opinion, the judges ruling reflects badly on Mann. Of course, we will never know for a fact what Mann's motive in bringing a libel suit and then doing bubkiss when the need to prove his case arose. And "bupkiss" includes not bringing forward the scientific evidence that lots of people have been wanting to see anyway. But people will speculate and "infer" things. The judge didn't say people aren't allowed to "infer" things and in many cases these inferences while not IN the judges ruling are also not contradicted by it.

  182. Angech,
    .
    "“Carrick headed off the grep a dictionary to create a list,”"
    .
    The should read "to". Yes. Typos happen.

  183. Supposedly Mann had 30 days to file an appeal. The judgement is dated August 22. Today is September 18. August has 31 days. Tick, tock.

  184. Lucia,
    "Of course, we will never know for a fact what Mann's motive in bringing a libel suit and then doing bubkiss when the need to prove his case arose."
    .
    Maybe we will never know for a fact, but we might reasonably conclude that all of Mann's lawsuits are just what they appear to be: SLAPPs. Mann appears to want to punish those who criticize the quality of his work and oppose his desired public policies…. and inhibit others who might also criticize his work. With this kind of lawsuit, the process is the punishment, so there is zero motivation to "move the case forward", and the longer the process continues, the better. Proceeding with discovery, which would actually take Mann's time and effort to comply with, have zero upside… so he just won't do it. It sounds like the judge in Canada understands this sorry tactic better than the DC courts.
    .
    My guess is that Mann will decide to file an appeal if (and only if) he gets funding from other people, so he has none of his own time and money at risk. A quick read of the ruling indicates Mann (or more accurately, those funding his lawsuits) is on the hook for Ball's legal costs. An appeal that loses continues to escalate those costs. So I think there is a good chance Mann will not appeal… the suit has made Ball's life more difficult for a decade, and that seems the real objective.

  185. Any ban on "semi-automatic rifles with (fill in the blank)" will be ineffective against mass shooters because they will still be able to buy semi-automatic rifles. It's the semi-automatic part that matters.
    There is an argument that forcing someone to reload more often is going to make a difference but count me skeptical. Further even if you ban all semi-automatic rifles then mass shooters will use semi-automatic handguns as they already have (Va. Tech). I don't have much respect for implementing ineffective laws as placebos or as virtue signaling. I also find it highly entertaining that all the very serious moral preeners in Hollywood lecture others while releasing the John Wick series of movies to a deafening silence. This debate is simply not serious on multiple levels.

  188. “My guess is that Mann will decide to file an appeal if (and only if) he gets funding from other people, so he has none of his own time and money at risk.”
    .
    In the US, one generaly has to produce a bond to cover the judgement in order to appeal. If this rule applies to this court, then there is very little chance that Mike will appeal. If no bond is required, then there is little down side in Mike making an appeal if Mike intends to fight payment of the judgement anyway.
    .
    In the US, collecting on a judgement made by a foreign court is a long and time consuming process.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enforcement_of_foreign_judgments

  189. Ed Forbes (Comment #176268): "In the US, collecting on a judgement made by a foreign court is a long and time consuming process.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enforcement_of_foreign_judgments "

    I can't find that at the link.

    In Canada, it is normal that the loser pays; that is not the case in the U.S. So that might make it hard to collect court costs from Mann. On the other hand, if Mann filed the suit in a Canadian court, he might be deemed to have signed on to the Canadian rules. That might make it easier to collect.

  190. If Mike doesn’t post a bond or get a stay of judgement from the Canadian court, he could be in trouble.

    https://law.justia.com/cases/district-of-columbia/court-of-appeals/1980/79-273-3.html
    [1] Although the judgment was immediately appealed in Colorado, and is currently awaiting decision, defendants (appellants) did not post a supersedeas bond nor otherwise obtain a stay of execution of the judgment pending the appeal. As a result of the failure to post bond, it is agreed that the Colorado judgment is presently enforceable in that state.

  192. SteveM,

    The clock should run out on Mann's ability to appeal in 2 or 3 days. I don't know how the deal with minutes and seconds or the fact that ruling are set down sometime before the close of business. But if Mann is going to appeal he's got to do it quickly.
    .
    On Mann getting money: I agree. Mann, is , like it or not, positioned to be able to crowd fund many of his costs. Ball is not. Mann has to pay some of Ball's legal costs, but it doesn't look like ALL the costs. It looks like he pays the "court costs" and so on– which are the costs paid to the government. (I could be wrong on this, but that's what the discussion at the end looks ike to me. )
    .
    This has probably cost Ball a lot in $$, time, aggravation and emotional energy.

  193. Ed Forbes,
    That case was about enforcement of a civil judgement in a different state (as required by Article IV). I don’t see any connection to a civil judgement from a court in a different country. Collecting from Mann will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, unless Mann has assets in Canada (of perhaps in another Commonwealth country).
    .
    Of course, if Mann is required to post a bond to proceed with an appeal (I don’t know if he is), then he will almost certainly not appeal.

  194. Lucia,
    The Court said: “All right. I agree. The costs will follow the event, so the defendant will have his costs of the application and also the costs of the action, since the action is dismissed.”
    .
    Sounds to me like Mann has to pay Ball’s legal fees. But maybe I don’t understand the Canadian legalese. 😉

  195. SteveF (Comment #176274) quoting the Court: “All right. I agree. The costs will follow the event, so the defendant will have his costs of the application and also the costs of the action, since the action is dismissed.”
    .
    SteveF: "Sounds to me like Mann has to pay Ball’s legal fees. But maybe I don’t understand the Canadian legalese."

    I am quite sure that is what it means. The loser paying the winner's legal fees is the norm in Canada.

    ——–
    SteveF: "Collecting from Mann will be extremely difficult, if not impossible"

    I don't know how difficult it will be, but definitely not impossible. There are provisions in U.S. law for that.

    I think that if a Canadian court is concerned about being able to collect costs from a plaintiff, they will demand bond before starting the case.

  196. lucia, I'm not sure why you focus on the word "inference" in one article (which was merely an example of things many people have said). That article uses the word "inference" only one time, when it says:

    "The logical inference is that the R2 regression analysis and other materials, if produced, would have supported Ball’s claim that the hockey stick was a deliberate fraud on Mann’s part."

    The "inference" is the material Mann supposedly refuses to provide would be bad for his case. People familiar with the topic don't need to make that "inference" as we already know it to be true.* That Mann calculated verification statistics then hid them so people wouldn't know how bad they are is strong evidence for the defendants of any libel lawsuit who accused him of fraud (or the like). But what that article said, and the reason I cited it as an example, is:

    "Mann refused to produce these documents. He was ordered to produce them by the court and given a deadline. He still refused to produce them, so the court dismissed his case."

    That says Mann was ordered to produce material, failed to do so, so the court dismissed the case. It doesn't label this an "inference." It also doesn't seem supported by anything the judge has said. The judge doesn't mention any order for Mann to produce anything, much less that Mann failed to meet some deadline the court had set. The judge certainly doesn't say Mann failing to meet a deadline is the reason the case was dismissed.

    *That said, Mann has long refused to disclose a lot of material, not just the R2 verification statistics he calculated. We know what the R2 scores are through other means, but there are other things we can't know. It's reasonable to infer at least some of them would be embarrassing for Mann (like PC retention code proving he lied about how he chose how many PCs to keep).

  197. FWIW, what I've been told/read indicates Canadian courts saying costs follow the event often award only a fraction of the costs, with the size of the fraction depending on various factors. I don't know enough to say, but it's definitely an issue worth examination. As is how effectively a person can stall once costs are awarded. Mann stalled this case for years. I wouldn't be surprised if he tried something similar with any costs he's required to pay.

  198. Mann's money to pay Ball may already be held by the courts:

    "The greatest deterrent is with respect to
    4litigation by out-of-province plaintiffs, who may be required in all provinces to post security for costs. Orders for posting of security for costs are made on motion and are in the discretion of the court, but are frequently made. Plaintiffs may generally avoid such an order only by showing that they have assets within the province which can satisfy a costs order, or that they are impecunious. Orders have required costs to be posted in amounts of over $1M. See generally Ont. RCP 56, CCP art. 65. Security for costs has been challenged constitutionally in many provinces but has generally survived these challenges. The coming into force of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has had no effect on such provisions for security for costs in North America "

    http://www-personal.umich.edu/~purzel/national_reports/Canada.pdf

  200. Steve, it may not be that difficult to enforce a Canadian judgement through a US court in this instance per my given link above.

    “In law, the enforcement of foreign judgments is the recognition and enforcement in one jurisdiction of judgments rendered in another ("foreign") jurisdiction. Foreign judgments may be recognized based on bilateral or multilateral treaties or understandings, or unilaterally without an express international agreement.”
    .
    “If the time to appeal in the court of origin has lapsed, and the judgment has become final, the holder of a foreign judgment, decree or order may file suit before a competent court in the U.S. which will determine whether to give effect to the foreign judgment. A local version of the Uniform Foreign Money Judgments Recognition Act applies in most states, for example in California. 13 U.L.A. 149 (1986).[5]”
    .
    “Between two different States in the United States, enforcement is generally required under the "Full Faith and Credit Clause" (Article IV, Section 1) of the U.S. Constitution, which compels a State to give another State's Judgment an effect as if it were local. This usually requires some sort of an abbreviated application on notice, or docketing. Between one State in the United States, and a foreign country, Canada, for example, the prevailing concept is comity. The Court in the United States, in most cases, will unilaterally enforce the foreign judgment, without proof of diplomatic reciprocity, either under judge-made law or under specific statutes.”

    .
    “Once a foreign judgment is recognized, the party who was successful in the original case can then seek its "enforcement" in the recognizing country. If the foreign judgment is a money judgment and the debtor has assets in the recognizing jurisdiction, the judgment creditor has access to all the enforcement remedies as if the case had originated in the recognizing country, e.g. garnishment, judicial sale, etc. If some other form of judgment was obtained, e.g. affecting status, granting injunctive relief, etc., the recognizing court will make whatever orders are appropriate to make the original judgment effective.”

    .

  201. Lucia,
    Well, if the Canadian court already holds money from Mann, then Ball should have little problem recovering whatever legal costs the court declares is appropriate. The impression I got reading the transcript of the judge’s oral dismissal was that he was more than a little pissed at Mann and his lawyer about the endless delays. Dealing in bad faith with a judge usually leads to bad outcomes for your case. It sounded like Mann’s lawyer understood the judge was going to award legal fees to Ball, and he wasn’t prepared to argue otherwise.
    .
    Ed Forbes,
    It may be easier to recover a judgement in a foreign court than I thought….. but I suspect the process would incur even more legal fees. FWIW, I have entered into many contracts with foreign counter-parties, and it is almost universally specified in those contracts that disputes which can’t be resolved by the parties automatically go to a specified binding arbitration procedure, specifically to avoid the worst of the legal costs from a lawsuit between parties in different countries.

  202. Mark Steyn writes: https://www.steynonline.com/9742/michael-e-mann-loser
    But the court will certainly rule that he should pay Ball's fees, and in fact has already done so. "Costs" in British Columbia, unlike in certain US jurisdictions, include all the burdens of fighting a lawsuit, divided into "disbursements" (the cost of photocopying your exhibits, etc) and "tariff items", which includes lawyer time. The latter are assessed on a sliding scale of "units", from sixty bucks per unit to $170 for more "difficult" cases. I would have thought, given the Court's ruling, that Mann's delaying actions over many years would certainly put this action in the "difficult" category.

    Dr Ball will not, as a practical matter, recover one hundred per cent of what the last decade has cost him, but I would reckon, again from the ruling, that he would be entitled to "special costs", which would come pretty close. As the Court held in Skidmore vs Blackmore (1995):

    One of the purposes of the costs provisions in Rule 37 is to encourage conduct that reduces the duration and expense of litigation, and to discourage conduct that has the opposite effect. Thus, although it is true that costs are awarded to indemnify the successful litigant for legal fees and disbursements incurred, it is also true that costs are awarded to encourage or to deter certain types of conduct.

  203. Let me make another observation, if this is a jury case and it came down to R2 verification statistics on one side and a climate denier on the other then Mann's side will pound the table a lot, obfuscate beyond comprehension, and have his lawyers dress like Justin Trudeau. This is human extinction we are talking about here ladies and gentlemen, are we going to let some fiddly little numbers get in the way? I shall be accepting no homework assignments on this one, ha ha.
    .
    My rather cynical view of the populace's ability to discern statistical truth is based on interactions with my customers, most of whom are college graduates and some even in technical areas. It is rather surprising how many people don't even understand a graph, much less a standard deviation. I don't know what the percentage of a jury pool that has taken a statistics class, much less can graduate to verification numerical analysis, but I assume it is small.
    .
    There is little doubt in my mind that Mann's math was a bit … wanting … in some areas. Even after Climate Audit exposed him basically naked (oops, got to get that image out of my head) look what happened. The establishment didn't stop backing him, they instead ran to his defense rather vigorously and made him a climate hero. This was one of the most dispiriting things I have ever seen in the sciences and has colored my views on academia ever since. I have lightened up a bit since then, but remain skeptical any time people make emotion based arguments in the sciences. Just think of the children!

  204. I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss the general population’s ability to spot a used car salesman, even disguised as a scientist. They might not understand the math, but they should be familiar with the methods of manipulation.

  205. Tom,
    I agree that if it *had* come down to R2 statistics, the jury's 24 eyes would have glazed over. That's true even if the jury includes people who took statistics. You'd need to listen to all this and likely NOT crunch numbers yourself. That makes things very hard and boring for both those who do and those who do not know statistics.
    .
    The thing is: Mann's failure to advance the case (while evidently providing many "binders" of argument to the judge in the dismissal) reflects very badly on him. It definitely does support the theory that this is just a SLAPP or publicity stunt.

  206. Trust in science >> Trust in journalism. I always assumed this case was a warning to others to not call out climate science dogma. An activist funded SLAPP against a disorganized and lightly funded opposition. From what I can tell, it worked.
    .
    It is up to science to police itself to defend against activists who freely wrap themselves in the cloak of science to achieve their agenda. Once dogma has set in then the trust in the science area begins to erode. I may be a top cynic but I still fundamentally believe these corrupted areas of science (social sciences, climate, environmentalism) will ultimately purge the zealots or become so untrustworthy that they neuter themselves. The social sciences are already there. Greenpeace was once a respected organization. Very few people are against the environment, they are against environmental fundamentalists.

  207. DaveJR,
    Even I could make Mann look good in front of a jury, he won a Nobel Prize after all! He has a long list of items on a prestigious resume and has written in top newspapers and journals. That bright and shiny edifice will win over any casual observer. Very bright and respected guy might have been wrong about something really complicated, that doesn't make him a fraud, blah blah blah.

  208. Tom
    **An activist funded SLAPP against a disorganized and lightly funded opposition. From what I can tell, it worked.**

    Yes. Up to the point where the judge dismissed because Mann wouldn't do anything to advance the case.
    .
    Mann lost this suit. There is most plausible explanations I can think of for his behavior leading to the loss are
    .
    (a) He felt delay escallated the SLAPP / nuisance aspect,
    (b) He was reluctant to have the actual case heard, and/or
    (c) He felt he'd get positive spin from an out of court settlement which he thought he could get by delaying endlessly and causing the defendant emotional turmoil.

  211. Lucia,
    "It definitely does support the theory that this is just a SLAPP or publicity stunt."
    .
    Of course it is. It is a means by which to intimidate critics of global warming science and green policy prescriptions. I remain astounded that the DC court didn't just throw out Mann's suit under DC's anti-SLAPP law. I guess with some judges (and I am deeply shocked, shocked!) that personal political beliefs trump what the law actually says….. especially for those judges on the left of the political spectrum.

  212. I think people greatly overestimate the statistical complexity involved in understanding the hockey stick controversy. Take the R2 issue. Mann and his defenders have consistently resorted to the defense of saying that's the wrong metric, but that only works if the discussion stops there. The argument doesn't work if the discussion continues. In a trial, a lawyer competent won't let that be the end of things.

    Did Mann calculate a variety of verification statistics for his reconstructions? Yes, there's no denying that. Was one of those r2? Yes, there's no denying that. He published those scores for his ENSO reconstruction and cited some of them for his temperature reconstruction. Did he calculate the r2 verification statistics for his temperature reconstruction's results back to 1400 AD? Yes, there's no denying that. We have the code he wrote that did so.

    So why then did Mann fail to disclose those results? Why did he publish the results from other tests which were favorable but hide these results which were not favorable? Why did he publish results from his r2 tests when they were favorable but hide the r2 test results which were not favorable? Why did he use his role as a lead author of an IPCC report to ensure the report said his temperature reconstruction was shown to be robust by a number of statistical tests, failing to disclose the tests he knew his temperature reconstruction failed?

    There is no defense for what Mann did, as can be seen by Mann's failure to come up with a defense for 20 years. Dissembling and distracting may work for PR purposes, but it's much less likely to work in a trial. Juries don't like it if you can't give a simple answer to a simple question. The defense has little reason to talk about anything particularly complex, and if the plaintiffs put the jury to sleep while doing so, it's unlikely that'll make the jury side with them.

    And this is just one issue. There are many easy ones. For instance, by Mann's own admission he knew his results were dependent entirely upon two tree ring proxies from one region in North America. He admits that in a book he wrote. That he didn't disclose that to anyone, and in fact argued for years against people who pointed it out, is enough to make almost any jury side against him.

    Mann will never take one of his cases to trial because he knows any substantial discussion involving any competent critic will result in him looking horrible. His entire approach, for twenty years, has been to do everything he can to ensure such discussions never happen.

  213. SteveF, the DC Court made an update with just a footnote difference. This change is incorrect, and looks to me like an attempt to deliver Mann a victory, the result of illegal ex parte communications.

  214. MikeN,
    I know nothing of that, but clearly: there is no level so low and corrupt that it would be beneath the courts in DC. As Steyn says: after 9 years in the bowels of the DC ‘justice’ system, it is clear those courts are both incompetent and heavily influenced by politics.

  215. Lucia
    "“Carrick headed off to grep a dictionary to create a list,”
    My bad. I thought Carrick had invented a new word in place to grok.
    Amusing in the light of discussions re neologisms.
    Memo dang Americans.

  216. In reference, to the court's decision in Mann v. Ball. In Ohio, there is a formal "entry" of judgment on the clerk of court's journal. Until that is done, there is no formal judgment and nothing to appeal from. Without such a procedure, the parties will often have to guess as to what is or is not a formal or final judgment.

    Wouldn't be surprised if there was something similar under Canadian law.

    JD

  217. Lucia, I know you are not mean and thus I can only conclude that a Not Interesting titled thread is something I should avoid.

  218. Kenneth,
    I can be mean. BUT, all I mean by "not interesting" is that the content of my post was not especially interesting.
    .
    Now, I'm going to head off to twitter where I can be mean.

  219. A while ago we had a debate here about justice vs. legalism. Here is an extreme example of what our legal system has come to:

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksibilla/2019/09/17/federal-court-cops-accused-of-stealing-over-225000-have-legal-immunity/#43c8f4755a85

    The gist is that since “there was no clearly established law holding that officers violate the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendment when they steal property seized pursuant to a warrant” officers can steal with impunity while executing a search warrant.

  221. The issue is not qualified immunity per se. From Wikipedia:

    "Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine in United States federal law that shields government officials from being sued for discretionary actions performed within their official capacity, unless their actions violated "clearly established" federal law or constitutional rights."
    .
    Stealing is not within the official capacity of cops and is clearly a violation of the law.

  222. Mann and his … ummmm … invented statistics have won in the court of public opinion for 10+ years. The circus of the Wegman Report, you know the one that once again vindicated Mann (ha ha), is a preview of how that would go. This changed the mind of almost nobody and Wegman's career suffered lasting damage for his effort. Going up against Big Climate can end your career.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wegman_Report
    .
    Tree rings are poor thermometers.

  223. In case anyone's interested, it looks like we've seen the minimum Arctic Sea ice extent (JAXA) for 2019. The seven day moving average minimum was on September 16 at 4.004 Mm^2. That's the second lowest in the record, but it's still a lot higher than the lowest recorded in 2012 at 3.201 Mm^2.

  227. Mike M.,

    I believe square megameters (Mm^2) is the technically correct SI unit for areas that large. I think you're supposed to use the next prefix up as soon as you can. But yes, the data is most often listed in units of 10^6 km^2

  228. DeWitt,
    “But yes, the data is most often listed in units of 10^6 km^2.”
    .
    Indeed. I can’t recall a single instance where I saw sea ice expressed in units other than square Km. Heck, I can’t recall *anywhere* that the unit of Mm is in common use… a jet fighter might top out at 2,000 Km/hour; I have never seen that kind of speed expressed as 2.0 Mm/hour. It is so uncommon that I thought it was a typo in your original comment (M Km^2).

  229. I too have only seen such areas given in terms of 10^6 km^2. But the derived unit for area is the square meter, thus I think the area would be best expressed as (say) 4 Tm^2; that is, 4 x 10^12 m^2.

    It's not that km^2 is incorrect usage; section 5.2 of this SI brochure (https://www.bipm.org/utils/common/pdf/si_brochure_8_en.pdf) allows units such as square km, but it means that the quantity part is outside the usual range of 0.1 to 999.

  230. Greta Thunberg, a self righteous teenage morally preening activist who hasn't a clue about the real world shaming others for making her life so horrible after she finishes her publicity stunt yacht trip across the ocean. I don't find being lectured by indignant children to be very effective. An absolutely perfect spokesperson for environmentalism, ha ha. "Woe is me, shame on you", the iconic call of the environmentalist circa 2000, 2010, 2020, etc.

  231. I would quibble for using the hectare or even better and less abstract something like multiples of the size of Rhode Island or fractions or multiples of the size of Texas. That is my contribution to the Not Interesting thread – although I have other fitting comments like what are Trump's chances of being impeached given the Ukrainian phone conversation.

  232. "An absolutely perfect spokesperson for environmentalism, ha ha. "Woe is me, shame on you", the iconic call of the environmentalist circa 2000, 2010, 2020, etc."

    I suspect she is even more perfect because she is a child and can pontificate, lecture and scold without a counter since that would be attacking a child and how dare you do that.

    That is not to say that young people cannot have great ideas and make thoughtful comments… for instance my granddaughters.

  233. SteveF,

    M km^2 would definitely be incorrect usage.

    I think million km^2 as used in the current JAXA charts is clunky.

  234. HaroldW,

    "Tm^2; that is, 4 x 10^12 m^2"

    Nope. The prefix in SI is part of the unit. So 4 Tm^2 would be 4 x 10^24 m^2. 1 km^2 is 10^6 m^2, not 1,000 m^2.

  235. Does anyone here understand what Pelosi thinks she is doing with the faux impeachment inquiry? A real impeachment inquiry would require a vote of the entire House. So it seems like she is trying to have it both ways: stave off the more extreme elements in her caucus while not actually having a vote.
    .
    But I don't see how this ends well for her and the Democrats. Either the inquiry does not recommend impeachment (effectively exonerating Trump) or it does. If it does, then there would have to be a vote in the House. If Pelosi loses, it is a huge embarassment for her and a big win for Trump. Winning the vote and impeaching Trump on flimsy grounds would anger a big portion of the electorate, including many swing voters. With no chance of winning in the Senate, it would likely doom swing district Democrats and help Trump's re-election bid.
    .
    Maybe she thinks she can slow walk the whole business and have it hanging over Trump's head in the fall of 2020. My guess is that would anger swing voters even more than impeachment. It would surely guarantee that *if* Trump wins the election, he will have big majorities in both Houses of Congress.
    .
    But Pelosi is no fool and is certainly a canny politician. So maybe she has an end game that I just can not see. More likely, she has been cornered by her left wing and its propaganda department (Times, Post, CNN, etc.) and has decided that she has no choice other than to try to ride the tiger and hope to find a way off without getting eaten.

  236. Mike M. (Comment #176323)

    I think her strategy could well be one of getting the Republicans in the House and Senate to back Trump in this matter with the hopes of defeating Trump big time in his election and at the same time tarring the House and Senate members with Trump's bad behavior and getting large Democrat majorities in both houses for 2021.

    The other part of this strategy is that the Republicans may see the above strategy working and thus begin deserting Trump.

    I also do not think that what transpired with the Clinton impeachment and the negative reaction to that by independent voters can be applied to the Trump case. It is a very different world out there now.

  237. I suspect Pelosi was facing an insurrection if she didn't "plan on planning an impeachment". They want to keep this fire burning up until election day for the base to stay energized. It's a pretty risky move and political overreach seems to be about guaranteed.
    .
    We shall see if this latest controversy will have much staying power except in the usual places. Ironically this one might have been the better pick, but the boy who cries wolf…
    .
    Trump being stupid and self promoting is not a revelation, it is baked in at this point. Trump hyperventilating fatigue is a factor. Although the media cannot fathom that the next election is anything but a referendum on Trump's character, it is about more than that, as it was in 2016. It is about a choice between Trump and whoever he runs against. A big expansion of state power and identity politics aren't going to be more popular because of a phone call to the Ukraine.

  238. The Atlantic: "The rate of global sea-level rise was 2.5 times faster from 2006 to 2016 than it was for nearly all of the 20th century."
    https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/09/ipcc-sea-level-rise-report/598765/
    .
    Ummmm, what? I found that one a bit weird so I decided to track that down. The full new "blockbuster" report on sea level rise is here:
    https://report.ipcc.ch/srocc/pdf/SROCC_FinalDraft_Chapter4.pdf
    .
    If you want to find yet another wildly inappropriate interpretation of the facts see Figure 4.5 on page 4-26. Please note the dotted lines are observations and the solid line is, errrr, simulations. OMG. This is basically yet another hockey stick creation where apparently observations from 2000+ are compared to simulations prior to 2000 even when observations were available. As one so often finds this is addressed in the fine print, but willfully ignored.
    .
    "In summary, the agreement between climate model simulations and observations of the global thermal expansion, glacier mass loss and Greenland surface mass balance has improved compared to AR5 for periods starting after 1970. *** However, for periods prior to 1970, significant discrepancies between climate models and observations *** arise from the inability of climate models to reproduce some observed regional changes in glacier and Greenland ice sheet SMB around the southern tip of Greenland. It is not clear whether this bias in climate models is due to the internal variability of the climate system or deficiencies in climate models. For this reason, there is still medium confidence in the ability of climate models to simulate past and future
    changes in glaciers mass loss and Greenland SMB."
    .
    Medium confidence? Yeah, right. Long story short, the future estimates haven't changed much here from AR5.

  240. "It is about a choice between Trump and whoever he runs against. A big expansion of state power and identity politics aren't going to be more popular because of a phone call to the Ukraine."

    We have an avowed socialist and one who mostly agrees with the socialist running ahead of Trump when compared one on one in the polls. No great comfort there in thinking that an extreme left position by his opponents is going to allow a crazy Trump to win. I do not think the promise of a silent majority that was going to but never did help the Republicans in the past will work this time either.

  241. DeWitt Payne (#176322):
    "The prefix in SI is part of the unit."
    You're right. Phrased another way, in "Tm^2" the "T" binds to the "m" with higher priority than the "^2".
    The suggestion of 4 Tm^2 is therefore off the table. So one is left with a choice between
    (a) 4 x 10^12 m^2
    (b) 4 x 10^6 km^2
    (c) 4 Mm^2
    (d) 4 x 10^8 ha

  243. NBC news was spinning what Biden did as nothing to worry about because he was getting an incompetent/corrupt prosecutor fired. But then why did the company being investigated by said prosecutor hire Biden's son in the first place? He had no obvious qualifications for the job other than being Biden's son.

    Biden should be dead meat now, but given media bias, that may not happen. Listening to the TV talking heads this morning on NBC, they clearly don't understand why people don't trust them and seem to think that if Trump went away, they would be trusted again. They've got cause and effect reversed. Trump is a symptom of the lack of trust, not the cause.

  244. Mike M. (Comment #176328)

    I would agree that it not obvious that there would be a problem with that phone transcript.

    It might be a foot in the door whereby more transcripts can be demanded and the whistle blower get his/her say. Schumer claims there are 6 more calls to the Ukrainian president – but that does not seem likely from the transcript just released.

  245. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/biden-no-credibility-to-trump-claim-of-corrupt-ukraine-dealings-involving-son-hunter

    "At the time of Biden's comments, Shokin was in the middle of a criminal investigation into the natural gas company Bursima, where Hunter Biden served on the board and earned a salary of up to $50,000 a month. Both Bidens have denied any conflicts of interests."

    Well there we go. No problem there.

    I think I might be a binge poster. I'll try to get help.

  247. Yep. Re Ukraine, there seems to be far more reason to suspect Biden of wrongdoing than there is to suspect Trump.

  248. Oh good. I see this is already under discussion to some extent.
    –snip
    Folks, I am surprised the White House even released this transcript. It’s worse than we thought.

    The President sought to use the powers of the United States government to investigate a political opponent.

    We have no choice but to impeach.
    –snip
    I know it's stupid for me to feel flabbergasted. But sweet jesus. To tweet that in all apparent sincerity after the Mueller circus. I guess AOC forgot about this:
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/01/us/politics/obama-trump-russia-election-hacking.html
    "Mar 1, 2017 – Obama administration officials scrambled to ensure intelligence of connections between the Trump campaign and Russian officials was preserved after they … any investigation into Russia's contacts with the Trump campaign."
    GoodNess. What is wrong with that woman.

  249. DeWitt,
    “I think million km^2 as used in the current JAXA charts is clunky.”
    .
    Clunky or not, ‘millions of square kilometers’ are the standard units used to report sea ice…. as well as other large areas. I think the reason is that people (especially those outside the States) are familiar with the size of a square kilometer; it is an area that is easily understood. Megameters are just not commonly used, even where metric units are the ‘standard’ for all measurements. Ask a person in Mexico City the distance to Bogota, or a person in Rome the distance to Berlin, and the answer will always be in kilometers, never megameters. Probably best we don’t get into the ubiquitous use of very clunky units like parsecs and light years…. or miles. 😉

  250. Seems the political class and their cheerleaders in the press have concluded that politicians using their political influence to enrich themselves is OK (Hillary and Bill of course, but many others, including Biden). For me this is just weird, since I always thought a politician using influence to enrich himself (or his family) was a blatant criminal.
    .
    FWIW, I read the NSA ‘summary’ of Trump’s conversation, and it is pretty much nothing. Trump says: “Looks like there was political corruption in closing of a criminal investigation in your country.” The other guy says: “ I’ll look into it. “ That’s it! And there clearly *was* corruption, as Joe Biden publicly stated that he pressured the previous president to fire the prosecutor running the investigation. This is all getting to be too much like a conversation with the Red Queen in ‘Through the Looking Glass’. Just bizarre.

  251. SteveF,

    I don't care that other people use the wrong units.

    And yes, I think that Through the Looking Glass is the appropriate reference. Believing in six impossible things before breakfast indeed.

    Btw, there was an interesting article in today's WSJ on Pocahontas' plan to raise SS benefits to everybody by $2,400 to help the 6% of seniors with income below the poverty limit. It explained why Congress passed inflation indexing for SS benefits, which I had forgotten.

    There was a bidding war on raising benefits during the 1972 Presidential election. The result was to pass indexing. as well as a one time 20% increase, to eliminate future bidding wars. Of course, they messed that up too by indexing on wages and prices. So now Warren wants to start the bidding wars up again. Of course it will be paid for by soaking the rich, just like all the rest of her proposals, even though there simply isn't enough money there. To make things even more ridiculous, she justifies raising benefits because, she says, benefits haven't been raised in over 50 years, completely ignoring the rather large increase over that period from indexing.

  252. Kenneth,

    Using the area of Texas in Wikipedia 0.678051Mm^2, I get the Arctic Sea ice minimum as 5.91 Tex, not 5.75.

  253. Look at the transcript of the Ukraine call. Trump wasn't asking about Biden until after Ukraine asked for Giuliani.
    Trump asked about CrowdStrike, aka the DNC hack that was attributed to Russia based on the report of a DNC contractor, and maybe a server image given to the FBI, not the actual DNC server.
    Having further inquiry into this is something that elements of the intelligence agencies are trying to avoid.

  254. SteveF (Comment #176339)
“FWIW, I read the NSA ‘summary’ of Trump’s conversation, and it is pretty much nothing.”
    ______
    SteveF, I expect more to come about that conversation. We’ll know after we get the details on the whistleblower’s complaint.

  255. "Look at the transcript of the Ukraine call. Trump wasn't asking about Biden until after Ukraine asked for Giuliani."
    _______

    Before that we don’t know all of what Trump said in the following sentence: “I guess you have one of your wealthy people …”

    Whatever that was may relate to the Ukrainian President bringing up Giuliani, or not. We just don't know.

    The transcript is not the conversation. It may leave out the juicy parts.

  256. Kenneth Fritsch (Comment #176334)
    “I think I might be a binge poster. I'll try to get help.”
    _____
    Kenneth , I believe I hold that title.

    Your linked WasintonExaminer piece quoted Biden and implied he was boasting about stopping a prosecutor who was a potential threat to his son.

    “I looked at them and said: ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’ Well, son of a bitch. He got fired," Biden said.

    At the time of Biden's comments, Shokin was in the middle of a criminal investigation into the natural gas company Bursima, where Hunter Biden served on the board and earned a salary of up to $50,000 a month. Both Bidens have denied any conflicts of interests.”

    Forbes puts it differently:

    “In 2016, and with the support of other world leaders, Joe Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion of U.S. aid unless Ukraine’s leaders fired the country’s top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, for being too soft on corruption⁠⁠—which they did. 

    Before Shokin was fired, he had been conducting an investigation of Burisma, and Hunter Biden allegedly was a subject. But the investigation had been inactive for over a year by the time Joe Biden pushed for Shokin’s ouster.”

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/lisettevoytko/2019/09/25/heres-what-happened-with-the-bidens-and-ukraine/#60f2ad043938

    Forbes seems reasonable. The WashingtonExaminer seems reasonable only if I believe Biden is an idiot, which I don’t.

  257. Max, the whistleblower did not hear the call, did not see the transcript of the call. How is his report going to be more useful?

    Shokin, the prosecutor that Biden got fired, gave an interview this year, where he said he was planning to interview Hunter Biden and others.

    – That is, in the "Burisma case" the prosecutors were not going to "turn on the back"?

    “No, we were going to interrogate Biden Jr., Archer, and so on.”

    – What got in the way?

    – Did not have time. The President told me repeatedly that Biden demanded that they remove me. A report was prepared on my work, it was sent to the deputies, posted on the GPU website. If you take these reports – they are many times different from what my predecessors could do. There were no objective grounds for dismissal.

    – So why then all of you "left"?

    – Biden took it very seriously. He promised Poroshenko that he would bring corruption to me. He arrived in December 2015, spoke in the Verkhovna Rada, did not say anything about it, and left. I then packed up and went to Bankova. The conversation was: "Well, did Biden bring corruption?" – "Vitya, he didn’t bring @ # $% to you." – "And what will we do?" – "Yes, he went! ..". More or less like this. You understand that if the US vice president had evidence of my corruption, then he would probably use all this for his own purposes.

    – But this did not bring down the shaft of negativity in any way.

    – Yes, there were regular ultimatums and discussions about me. I finally crossed the threshold on February 2, 2016, when we went to the courts with motions to re-arrest the property of Burisma. I suppose that then the president received another call from Biden, blackmail by non-allocation of a loan … Then Poroshenko surrendered.

    Translation of https://strana.ua/articles/interview/199721-viktor-shokin-lutsenko-na-kolenjakh-prosil-poroshenko-naznachit-eho-henprokurorom-a-teper-spasaet-sebja.html

    Steve McIntyre reviews the evidence, including public reports of this property seizure that back up Shokin's statement.
    https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/1176288629875978240

  258. OK Max,
    Biden’s son was being paid $50K per month to sit on the board of a natural gas company, even though he had no expertise (or even any experience!) in that business. What Biden’s son had to offer was political influence. The Bidens were doing just what the Clintons did: enriching themselves via the sale of political influence. Remember Bill’s half million dollar, hour long speeches in Russia at the same time Hillary was at the Sate Department (and considered the likely next president)? The Bidens are doing the same, but just working on a smaller scale. Selling influence is corruption, and is legitimate to investigate.

  259. OK_Max (Comment #176343): "I expect more to come about that conversation. We’ll know after we get the details on the whistleblower’s complaint."

    OK_Max (Comment #176344): "The transcript is not the conversation. It may leave out the juicy parts."
    .
    There is no more to come out about the conversation. The "whistle blower" had much less information than what has been released. Without a time machine, the transcript is as close to the conversation as we will ever have.

    Such conversations are not tape recorded. They are not taken down by a stenographer. A record is made by two people who are not participants and whose job is to listen and take notes. The transcript is the result of those notes.

    ————
    OK_Max (Comment #176345): "At the time of Biden's comments, Shokin was in the middle of a criminal investigation into the natural gas company Bursima, where Hunter Biden served on the board and earned a salary of up to $50,000 a month."

    SteveF (Comment #176347): "What Biden’s son had to offer was political influence."
    .
    Yep. There is no reason to believe that the investigation into Bursima would have turned up any dirt on Hunter Biden. Burisma paid Biden so that they would have a friend in high places. It appears to have worked. Since the prosecutor appears to have been shady, Biden has a plausible excuse for using blackmail to force him out. So we will never really know if he did that for the claimed reason or to do a favor for the company that was doing his son a favor.
    .
    But even if Biden broke no law, what he did is far worse than anything Trump has done. The good old double standard.

  260. DeWitt Payne (Comment #176341)

    DeWitt, I stand corrected and duly note that you are the second person to use the newly minted Tex unit of area.

  261. The whistle blower mixes in with his/her concerns references to unnamed administration officials comments about the phone conversation and I think that is what the Democrats wanted to make public. In order to take those comments out of the realm of hearsay I would think the whistle blower would need to identify him/herself and those providing the information.

  262. Kenneth Fritsch (Comment #176350): "In order to take those comments out of the realm of hearsay I would think the whistle blower would need to identify him/herself and those providing the information."

    Actually, that would take the comments *into* the realm of hearsay. At present, they are not even that, they are merely rumor and innuendo.

  263. This language in the whistleblower complaint means there was a plan in place to make this public.
    "If a classification marking is applied retroactively, I believe it is incumbent upon the classifying authority to explain why such a marking was applied, and to which specific information it pertains."

  264. After the transcript didn't pan out, the Democrats on the committee have decided to attack the DNI for not providing the complaint in the 7 days that the law says he 'shall notify Congress'.

  265. It's a coverup, Aaaaggh, aaaagh, aaaaagh! Everything is Watergate to the media now, ha ha.

    Whatever magical thinking of assumed intent that one might apply to Trump, one should also apply to Biden et. al. with equal force. If this results in an argument of "but the guy on my side is butterflies and rainbows" then I suggest there isn't sufficient evidence to get the heart a flutter.
    .
    What will be interesting to see is if the Dem's candidates choose to attack Biden on this themselves (after the prerequisite damning of Trump). Good luck taking a position here if your are in a right leaning district, much less a vote on an actual impeachment. If there aren't black and white grounds for impeachment then my guess is voters will punish you for not letting them decide for themselves, echoes of the system is rigged by a corrupt establishment.
    .
    Although this could play out to help either side eventually, it seems the left was in a better position to let this sleeping dog lie. Letting Trump be Trump was always the best path to victory for the left IMO. The media did what they always do which is run out and ask Republicans whether this was the big one and have been met with the usual answer of "meh". So they conclude that maybe if they turn up the volume to 11 it will make a difference this time.

  266. MikeN (Comment #176346)

    "Steve McIntyre reviews the evidence, including public reports of this property seizure that back up Shokin's statement."
    _______

    What does that prove about VP Biden?

  267. Mike M. (Comment #176348)

    "There is no more to come out about the conversation. The "whistle blower" had much less information than what has been released."

    The whistle blower's complaint, released this morning, has more information regarding the conversation.

    "But even if Biden broke no law, what he did is far worse than anything Trump has done."

    How so?

  268. Max, it doesn't prove anything about Biden. It shows that the media have been repeating false Biden talking points about the investigation's being inactive when he got the prosecutor fired.

  269. Pl_Max,

    “How so?”
    Um… selling political influence is corruption, pure and simple. When a (scumbag) politician accepts large personal payments (or perhaps accepts payments to their coke-head son), that is the selling of political influence.
    .
    As my mom (now 15 years dead) used to say: “Some politicians enter Congress poor. Nearly all leave rich.”
    .
    Biden is a very typical corrupt politician.

  270. OK_Max (Comment #176357): "The whistle blower's complaint, released this morning, has more information regarding the conversation."

    No it does not. That is literally impossible since the transcript has been released.
    .
    OK_Max: "How so?'

    Biden's actions have the appearance of a quid pro quo for personal enrichment via influence peddling.

  271. Re MikeN (Comment #176358)

    MikeN, I haven't seen Biden's statements about Shokin's investigations being inactive, so I don't know whether he was referring to Shokin's investigations in general, or just the Burisma investigation, but if Biden is mistaken on this I don't know why it would matter.

    Trump seems ill informed about Shoken's reputation, referring to him favorably in the phone conversation with the Ukrainian President.

    The following quotes are from a opinion piece by Tom Rogan which appeared in the conservative WashingtonExaminer on Sept. 25, 2019

    “President Trump is wrong to suggest that former Ukrainian chief prosecutor Viktor Shokin was "very good" and "very fair." Then-Vice President Joe Biden was right to push Shokin out of office. He was a deeply corrupt Ukrainian swamp monster.”

    “The specifics of Shokin's corruption are most obvious in what he did not do. As Bloomberg documented in May, ShokiMiken was particularly opposed to investigating high-wealth individuals suspected of corruption. Why those individuals? Presumably because a little of their high wealth would find its way into Shokin's hands if he was able to make their problems go away.”

    “So when Shokin eventually was forced out under Biden's threats, it was not about protecting Hunter Biden but rather about protecting the rule of law in Ukraine. It's not as if Biden and the Obama administration were on their own here. The European Union also openly welcomed Shokin's firing. They were right to do so.”

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/trump-endorses-ukraines-swamp-monster-prosecutor-viktor-shokin

    It could be Shokin was forced out of office as prosecutor before he had time to negotiate a deal with Burisma’s owner.

  272. Mike M. (Comment #176360)

    Biden's actions have the appearance of a quid pro quo for personal enrichment via influence peddling.
    ______

    Less so than the appearance of not being a quid pro quo, nor is there evidence it was a quid pro quo.

    Biden was open about pressuring the Ukrainian government, and for good reason ( fire a known corrupt and ineffective prosecutor if you want our money), whereas Trump was trying to get the Ukrainian government to influence an upcoming U.S. election. Then Trump's staff realizing how bad he looked, and tried to lock-down the evidence. Thanks to the whistle-blower, Trump has been exposed.

  273. SteveF (Comment #176359)
    September 26th, 2019 at 4:33 pm
    Pl_Max,

    “How so?”
    Um… selling political influence is corruption, pure and simple. When a (scumbag) politician accepts large personal payments (or perhaps accepts payments to their coke-head son), that is the selling of political influence.
    ______

    You seem to think Biden and his son Hunter are the same person.
    Parents aren't responsible for the choices of their adult children.
    My parents don't like some things I have done as an adult, but their disapproval didn't stop me from doing those things

  274. OK_Max,
    Good grief, you are either hopelessly naive or willfully obtuse. .
    .
    Biden, like the vast majority of politicians (and especially Democrats) is profoundly corrupt, and quite willing to sell influence for large cash payments. Trump is a jerk, foolish, a consistent liar, and as undeserving of a second term as any president since-Jimmy Carter. But Pilose seems hellbent on making sure he has a second term . The only alternative to Trump is some crazed socialist who’s policy platform of ‘free everything’ rests on a clearly unconstitutional confiscation of wealth… albeit ‘only’ a few percent a year. The SC will giggle as they strike such a tax law.

  276. SteveF (Comment #176364)
    September 26th, 2019 at 5:18 pm
    OK_Max,
    "Good grief, you are either hopelessly naive or willfully obtuse"
    ______

    I had a better view of the world when I was naive. I miss those days.

    Willfully obtuse means an inability to admit Trump smells far worse than Biden or just not having a very good nose.

  277. Correction to my previous post. I said not having a good nose is willfully obtuse. That's wrong. It's lack of awareness.

  278. OK_Max,

    I do not know if Shokin was corrupt or not, but look at the sequence of events:

    (1) The Ukrainian government started an investigation into Mykola Zlochevsky, the owner of Burisma Holdings.

    (2) Burisma Holdings gave a cushy position to Hunter Biden, for no obvious reason other than his connections.

    (3) Viktor Shokin became General Prosecutor and took over the investigation into Zlochevsky.

    (4) Vice-President Biden strong-armed the Ukrainian government to fire Shokin.

    (5) Shokin was replaced as General Prosecutor by Yuriy Lutsenko, who is not a lawyer but who had spent time in prison after being convicted on corruption charges.

    (6) Lutsenko closed the investigation, with no charges filed against Zlochevsky.

    (7) Zlochevsky returned to Ukraine.

    It looks to me like firing Shokin worked to Zlochevsky's advantage.

  279. OK_Max,
    There are many things that I am. ‘Unaware’ is not one of them. I know a crooked pol when I see one, and most of the time that is whenever they are in view. Actually one would have to be almost blind to *not* see just how crooked most politicians are. The salaries for political offices are modest, yet powerful career-long politicians inevitably end up very rich. Where do you imagine that wealth comes from? (real question) That is so obvious a problem of corruption that only a few people (mainly the obtuse) don’t see it.

  280. Mike M. (Comment #176368)
    September 26th, 2019 at 6:30 pm
    OK_Max,

    I do not know if Shokin was corrupt or not, but look at the sequence of events:

    (5) Shokin was replaced as General Prosecutor by Yuriy Lutsenko, who is not a lawyer but who had spent time in prison after being convicted on corruption charges.

    (6) Lutsenko closed the investigation, with no charges filed against Zlochevsky.

    (7) Zlochevsky returned to Ukraine.

    It looks to me like firing Shokin worked to Zlochevsky's advantage.
    _______

    The firing of Shokin may prove be to Zlochevsky's advantage, or not. We don't know what would have happened ( or will happen) had Shokin not been fired. Charges against Zlochevsky were re-instated in 2018.

    https://www.kyivpost.com/ukraine-politics/court-reinstates-case-against-mykola-zlochevsky.html

    I don't know the status of the re-instated charges, or what other charges Zlochevsky may be facing. But If Shokin hadn't been fired, and he had worked out a deal with Shokin that cost him money, then later faced the same charges, he would have been out the money with no benefit. So looking at it that way, the firing could be to Zlochevsky's advantage.

  281. Joe Biden being upfront on camera

    “..I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time…”

    https://www.cfr.org/event/foreign-affairs-issue-launch-former-vice-president-joe-biden

  282. Max, you posted the same Biden camp talking points above, that you now say you haven't seen. The media has been parroting the claim about the case being inactive, and that appears to be untrue.

  283. SteveF (Comment #176369)
    September 26th, 2019 at 7:46 pm
    OK_Max,
    "There are many things that I am. ‘Unaware’ is not one of them. I know a crooked pol when I see one, and most of the time that is whenever they are in view. Actually one would have to be almost blind to *not* see just how crooked most politicians are. The salaries for political offices are modest, yet powerful career-long politicians inevitably end up very rich …"
    ________

    I'm not against politicians making money as long as they do it legally.
    There have been politicians who did it illegally and were caught. And there may be some who haven't been caught, but you could say the same about people who aren't politicians.

  284. MikeN (Comment #176372)
    September 26th, 2019 at 8:52 pm
    Max, you posted the same Biden camp talking points above, that you now say you haven't seen. The media has been parroting the claim about the case being inactive, and that appears to be untrue.
    ________

    I'm not sure which of my comments you mean. Perhaps you mean
    my Comment #176361 where I said I haven't seen Biden's statements about Shokin's investigations being inactive…

    Of course I know media sources (e.g., Forbes) reported Shokin's prosecution of the case against Zlochevsky was inactive, but I didn't see any reporting the case was dropped. I think the question is was Shokin moving ahead with the case. If not, I see nothing wrong with calling it inactive.

    Trump supporters would like for the public to believe Biden's motivation for getting Shokin fired was not because Shokin was a lousy prosecutor who just about the whole world outside of Russia thought should be fired, but because Shokin was supposed to be prosecuting Zlochesky who was a client of Biden's son. I don't see Trump supporters selling that to many of the undecided.

  287. DeWitt Payne (Comment #176308)
    " In case anyone's interested, it looks like we've seen the minimum Arctic Sea ice extent (JAXA) for 2019. The seven day moving average minimum was on September 16 at 4.004 Mm^2. That's the second lowest in the record, but it's still a lot higher than the lowest recorded in 2012 at 3.201 Mm^2".

    last year there were a lot of surprises with a very slow refreeze then a number of mega jumps late in the season. Will go to sleep until this happens again and then ask you about it.

  288. I cannot believe American politics. Never watched Dallas but did do a season or two of house of cards. Spacey was fantastic.
    Watching from far away Australia it is like a real life soap drama.
    I hope it never ends.

  289. angech,

    Do the courts in Australia have authority over Parliament and the GG with regard to the execution of their duties?

    I ask because of the recent coup in the UK where the Supreme Court (which has only existed for about a decade) overruled the Queen's prorogation of Parliament. I never thought that possible. Canada is quite like the U.S. when it comes to judicial review and judicial activism. Yet when Canada had its own prorogation crisis a decade ago, nobody even suggested that the courts might play a role. Do you have any idea how that might play in Australia?

  291. Max, and after that I posted the interview Shokin gave where he said he was moving forward with the case. He filed an affidavit of this to a court in Austria as well.

  292. Pew: Public Trust in Government: 1958-2019
    https://www.people-press.org/2019/04/11/public-trust-in-government-1958-2019/
    .
    The trust in government was >60% when Nixon took office. It's now 17%. An addendum to this would be "Do you trust the government to police itself?". With the unseriousness of what comes out of DC on a daily basis I would have to say an emphatic no. DC looks like a pay per view WWF smack down event. Not that Trump doesn't want it any other way.

  293. Mike M. (Comment #176381)
    September 27th, 2019 at 8:56 am
    This claims that there is evidence that Shokin was indeed aggressively pursuing the case against Burisma and that it was slowed down as a result of lack of cooperation from the UK:
    https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/463307-solomon-these-once-secret-memos-cast-doubt-on-joe-bidens-ukraine-story
    Ukrainian politics is confusing. It seems that all Ukrainian politicians accuse all of their political opponents of corruption. And they might all be correct.
    ________

    I'm glad I'm not the only one who finds Ukrainian politics confusing. I also found the linked piece by Solomon confusing. I haven't tried to check everything he said, but I will comment on a few.

    Solomon refers to a meeting between Yuriy Sevruk, the prosecutor named to temporarily replace Shokin, and three Americans (Buretta, Painter, Tramontano) representing the consulting firm BlueStar,

    According to Solomon,“Sevruk memorialized the meeting in a government memo that the general prosecutor’s office provided to me, stating that the three Americans offered an apology for the “false” narrative that had been provided by U.S. officials about Shokin being corrupt and inept.”

    Solomon gives a link to the Sevruk memo https://www.scribd.com/document/427616178/Ukraine-PGO-Memo-Translation

    According to this memo, the apology is to the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Ukraine, but no mention is made of Shokin, who obviously is no longer with the Office at the time of the meeting. So I don’t know why Solomon believes the memo refers to an apology to Shokin.

    Another thing I don’t understand is why Sevruk in his memo said that the Americans had told him Zlochevsky “was released from a British court due to the underperformance of British law enforcement agencies.” One of the Americans, Buretta, a lawyer for Zlochevsky, said something different in a Kyiv Post article, as can be seen in another link provided by Solomon.

    https://www.kyivpost.com/business-wire/john-buretta-us-important-close-casesagainst-burisma-nikolayzlochevskyiin-legally-sound-manner.html

    According to Buretta, “In January 2015, the U.K. Central Criminal Court, in a lengthy written decision, concluded that there was no reasonable cause to believe that Mr. Zlochevskyi’s assets were unlawfully acquired as a result of misconduct while he served in public office.”

    A further statement by Buretta also is relevent here. “ In August 2014, the Office of the Prosecutor General (PGO) opened a criminal proceeding as to the same matters adjudicated by the U.K. Central Criminal Court. With regard to the PGO’s investigation, Mr. Zlochevskyi produced voluminous materials addressing the allegations, as he had before the U.K. Central Criminal Court. Over the two years the PGO matter was open, no evidence was presented supporting any claim that Mr. Zlochevskyi had abused his position while in public office. In September 2016, the Pechersk District Court of the City of Kyiv concluded that no criminal procedures should be taken against Mr. Zlochevskyi. In other words, the Pechersk District Court reached the same conclusion as the U.K. Central Criminal Court.”

    If after two years the PGO led by Shokin has presented no evidence Zlochevsky had abused his position while in public office, I don't know why Shovkin would order his property be confiscated. I could speculate it was to make it look like he was doing something or to make it look like Biden was doing something to protect his son's client. But this is just speculation like Solomon has done. I'm not even sure Buretta and Shovkin are referring to the same charges against Zlochevsky. One thing I am sure about is all this is very confusing.

  294. OK_Max,
    Politicians outside the States are even more corrupt than those in the States. So sure, the corruption in the Ukraine is confusing. What is neither confusing nor difficult to understand is that Biden’s son has profited handsomely because Joe Biden was VP. The guy made millions offering influence…. voters won’t have any troouble understanding that. My guess is that the Biden candidacy implodes and Elizabeth Warren becomes the Democrat nominee. Her announced policies (an unconstitutional annual tax on “excess wealth”, and free college, free healthcare, etc), will make it very difficult for her to beat Trump.

  295. "The trust in government was >60% when Nixon took office. It's now 17%."

    I have got to wonder what those 17% are thinking. I have always believed that the Nixon era and his resignation and what it revealed about politics was the beginning of the US public no longer having blind faith in Civics 101 where the dirty side of politics is either ignored or not emphasized. That loss of faith was a good thing in my eyes since should not that loss be accompanied by promoting smaller and less intrusive government.

  296. Seems like the wistleblower requirement for only first hand knowledge was just recently changed to allow hearsay.
    .
    The Disclosure of Urgent Concern form was changed in August 2019 to allow hearsay where the prior form required first hand knowledge only.
    .
    Looking very much like the entire issue is a setup considering Trumps call on this issue was July 25.
    .
    https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/

  297. Ed Forbes (Comment #176387): "Seems like the wistleblower requirement for only first hand knowledge was just recently changed to allow hearsay."

    Wow. The swamp is full of slimy, poisonous critters.

  298. Mike M,
    “The swamp is full of slimy, poisonous critters.”
    .
    Sure, just listen to any interview of Brennan, Clapper, and their Obama era posse: utterly dishonest, and utterly opposed to people actually choosing their own government…. even if that means someone like Trump. Yes, they are indeed poisonous. But even worse, they are opposed to voters choosing their own elected leaders.

  299. Buzz is out there that Nancy saw Joe losing to Warren, who the Dem wall street establishment hates. Word out is that wall street will not support Warren. The impeachment inquiry trashes any hope of Joe staying in and leaves Nancy’s hands clean on forcing Joe out. It then opens the possibility of bringing Hillery back in as a last minute savior to overcome Warren.
    .
    Makes a weird kind of sense due to how flimsy the charge against Trump is and how frount and center Joe now is with a corruption charge.

  300. Ed Forbes,
    “It then opens the possibility of bringing Hillery back in as a last minute savior to overcome Warren.”
    .
    Nah… sounds like someone is smokin’ something funny. Hillary is finished.

  301. Ed, anything is possible but I don't see Hillary coming back.

    RCP shows the betting odds already favoring Warren for the Dem nomination, but I wouldn't count Biden out.

    I prefer Biden because because polls show him beating Trump by a larger margin than Warren, but if not for that I would prefer Warren. Like me she's an Okie from a working class family. I would be very delighted if she beat Trump. I would be delighted if any one of the Dems beat Trump.

  302. It will be interesting to see what prevails:
    Never Trump
    Or
    Never Warren
    .
    Positive approval for both sides is baked in well under 50%. The negative vote will likely control. Look for a very negative campaign.
    .
    As to Hillary, she wants in so bad she can taste it. Would not take much for her to come in at the request of a major portion of the party, such as the wall street portion.
    .
    For the Dem wall street party, losing with Hillary on the ticket is better than winning with Warren on the ticket. With Warren on the ticket, anti wall street is baked in.
    .
    Wall street only has political issues with Trump, but has survival issues with Warren and her policies.

  303. The MSM has never liked Biden much, and it has been obvious for a while that the NYT's has been working against Biden. Part of this is that he isn't far left enough and part is he has the audacity to be an old white man. Nobody seems particularly distressed that Biden might get taken out in the inquiry as a side effect. He is on an island. With friends like these… It has always been curious that Team Remove Trump At Any Cost could not find it in their souls to support the candidate most likely to beat Trump.

  304. Tom Scharf,
    “Part of this is that he isn't far left enough and part is he has the audacity to be an old white man.”
    .
    I suspect the bigger issue is that he isn’t far enough left. But yes, they want a candidate who will fire up the Dem base, and old white guys are not that.

  305. The Left is determined to seize power. They do not believe that they can forward their agenda with sufficient speed under President Biden and know that they can not beat Trump in a fair fight. The current invented scandal is an attempt to take down both, thus creating a vacuum into which the extremists can move. If successful, it will be the end of actual democracy in the United States, to be replaced by a sham democracy.

    ———
    p.s. – I do not think that the current situation can be understood in terms of politics as usual.

  306. The penny finally dropped.

    It struck me as remarkable that Pelosi started the impeachment inquisition before she had either the transcript or the whistleblower complaint. The explanation is obvious: she already had a copy of the complaint, which is by far the more superficially damaging document. I say superficial because it is all rumor and innuendo. The "whistleblower" gave the Democrat leadership an advance copy; maybe even consulted with them on the contents.

  307. The point is to start an impeachment inquiry, which gives them more leeway to demand documents from the White House.
    Refusal to provide these documents could then be made an article of impeachment. One of the articles of impeachment against Bill Clinton that Congress considered was that his written answers to their questions constituted contempt.

  308. Canadian Stephen McIntrye of climateaudit.org is at the forefront of the Ukraine call whistleblower investigation. Steve's research is making national news [article by Margo Cleveland] that the official form was changed in August 2019 to omit the requirement of firsthand knowledge. He also found an article published by Interfax-Ukraine, dated Aprile, 2 2016, which contradicts the current Dem talking point that Burisma was not under investigation at the time Biden issued is ultimatum. In fact Burisma's owner's property had been seized.

    https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit

  309. Mike M
    Do the courts in Australia have authority over Parliament and the GG with regard to the execution of their duties?
    They can review and block some parliamentary decisions but have to enact law that is properly passed by parliament. Gov general has sacked the Parliament once, a bit like you guys could get together and declare a President unfit. Very unpopular decision at the time.
    I cannot understand how the house of reps has gone so rogue with it’s breaking of traditions for short term gain. The biggest losers are the politicians themselves in future if they abandon responsible procedures.
    I could well see the senate going rogue and impeaching Trump on the current flimsy charges with people like Burr and Romney and McConnell? There in charge

  310. Angech, Romney is the only conservative with enough hatred of Trump as to go along with a crazed liberal mob. He's not aware the mob would have been hanging him for a concocted charge too had he won the presidency. Obama cleaned the few identifiable conservatives out of the federal government all the way down. Attorney General Barr apparently believes his investigator John Durham, looking into Russiagate, is non-partisan and above Dem influence. We'll see soon.
    .
    Here is the former Ukraine prosecutor general's story. https://www.scribd.com/document/427618359/Shokin-Statement
    It's complicated but Steve Mc does a good job in his thread of pointing to articles which explain the background. It seems the Obama administration was involved in the 2014 Ukraine coup and kept a very close hand on the government there. The prosecutor made the mistake of being independent on a different US interest in addition to continuing to look corrupt oligarch run Burisma after Hunter Biden came onto its payroll.
    .
    Biden was made point man by Obama on two countries, Ukraine and China, literally at the same time Biden's son got sweetheart deals from each. Hunter Biden had no experience or qualification in either Ukraine energy or Chinese venture capital. I'm embarrassed for my country that Biden is the US Democrat Party's most sensible "centrist" candidate. He has been leading in the poles against other Dems and also Trump. This might change now though despite the media's best attempts to direct people not to look at Hunter's gold.

  313. Re Ron Graf (Comment #176401)

    Ron, The timing of prosecutor Sokin's action to confiscate the Burisma's owner's property may be suspicious if it came after Joe Biden or others in the U.S. government had previously requested the Ukraine fire prosecutor Shokin. If this was the timing, it suggests Sokin's action was to get back at Biden because he knew Biden's son was on Burisma's board of directors.

    Up to when the property was confiscated, if Shokin had been slow to act on Burisma, it could have been because he felt the case was weak or he was still trying to negotiate a deal deal with the owner.

    On that other matter, the Whistleblower form change to omit the requirement of firsthand knowledge, had the form not been changed we might have never known what Trump did. Our not knowing wouldn't have made his actions OK.

  314. Max –

    > On that other matter, the Whistleblower form change to omit the requirement of firsthand knowledge, had the form not been changed we might have never known what Trump did.

    Did you read the counter claims?

  315. Ed Forbes (Comment #176407)
    September 30th, 2019 at 2:30 pm
    Steve M’s review of the change in whistleblower requirements. Looking more and more to be a put up job to get Trump by the CIA.
    .
    Would such action, if true, be sedition? Treason has very specific requirments that are hard it support.
    ______

    Not an "action," a reaction. Not treason, patriotism.

    The reaction included changing the whistleblower form so Trump's action could be officially exposed.

  316. Joshua (Comment #176409)
    September 30th, 2019 at 2:55 pm
    Max –

    > On that other matter, the Whistleblower form change to omit the requirement of firsthand knowledge, had the form not been changed we might have never known what Trump did.

    Did you read the counter claims?
    _____

    Hello, Joshua. Sorry, I'm not up on all that's out on this. I will try to look into counter claims. Do you have a link to a good summary of counter claims?

  317. Max –

    Counter claims are linked above (2:55 post). I think the links provide a reasonable summary.

    Do you think it's plausible that the IG was in on the secret plot?

  318. Joshua,
    I'd be curious to know your thoughts on it. In fact, I'd need to hear them before I bother to read your drive-by link drop.

    Suggestion to others: Allow Joshua to tell us his summary and thoughts before bothering to tell him yours.

    Note: I have not clicked the link nor read it and don't intend to merely because Joshua is curious to hear what I think, but doesn't want to first tell me what he thinks.

  319. Joshua,
    "I think the links provide a reasonable summary."
    Oy… Evidently you don't like to tell us what YOU think.

    "Do you think it's plausible that the IG was in on the secret plot?"
    Looks like a rhetorical question. I think you know the rule. So do YOU think it plausible the IG was in on a secret plot? Or not?

    If you aren't going to tell us, don't drop the rhetorical Q.

  320. Lol. Rather typical bad faith on display, Lucia.

    I don't particularly have an opinion. I see people making confident and rather certain conflicting claims on both sides. I see people confidently believing those claims. I don't pretend to have enough in-depth information one way or the other, but I'm curious as to how people who are confident in a particular view reconcile that confidence with counter claims.

    And no, I don't think the IG conspiracy theory is plausible. Not because I have a confident understanding of the facts, but because I generality find such conspiracy theories implausible, and because I think it's implausible that the IG was in on a secret conspiracy to get Trump.

    And no, it wasn't a rhetorical question. I'm genuinely curious as to whether Max thinks the IG conspiracy theory plausible. It seems that he might, in (it seemed to me) suggesting that the forms were deliberately changed so as to allow this particular WB report. I'd surprised if he would think the IG cinspracy even remotely plausible. But his comment suggested to me that he might – so I asked for clarification. Maybe he just thinks that the form was deliberately changed by THE IG to sllow for the WB report but not as part of a secret plot to get Trump?

    And you or anyone else should certainly feel free to either read the links or not, or let me know what you think of the links of you so (or not). I don't list any sleep. But I am still curious what people think about the counter-claims.

    But it does seem rather childish to me that you'd stamp your feet and refuse to read the counter claims because somehow you think you're denying me something by doing so.

  321. And so, I think I've certainly re-worn out my welcome to comment here, so I'll return to my lurker status (besides, I'm in Portugal and it's getting late).

    I won't comment further unless explicitly invited to fo do. But as far as I know, I won't be violating any blog rules by continuing to check to see if anyone responds to the counter-claims. Perhaps there's a way to prevent me from even reading the blog?

  322. Joshua (Comment #176415): "Rather typical bad faith on display, Lucia."

    I have had a number of arguments with lucia. I sometimes find her approach puzzling. But bad faith? Never.
    .
    Joshua: "I see people making confident and rather certain conflicting claims on both sides. I see people confidently believing those claims."

    At this site, as to the facts on this subject? Not so much, I think. At least not compared to the claims being made by the press and politicians.
    .
    Joshua: "I'd surprised if he would think the IG cinspracy even remotely plausible."

    I can't speak for Max and I have not looked into this particular theory. But although I don't like conspiracy theories, I would not rule it out. There IS a conspiracy against Trump within the Trump administration. One of the conspirators has told us so:
    ".. many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.
    I would know. I am one of them."
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/opinion/trump-white-house-anonymous-resistance.html
    .
    Joshua: "it does seem rather childish to me that you'd stamp your feet and refuse to read the counter claims"

    When someone tells me to read something without giving me reasons why, I typically ignore them. You have no right to make demands of others here.

  323. Mike – she accused me of bad faith. It isn't the first time. That is why I called it "typical," not that it would be typical with her interactions with other people. I can't say, but I assume not? I assume she hasn't done that with you.

    I make no "demands" on anyone. Of course I have no "right" to make such demands, nor any power to do so.

    Since addressing comments to me isn't an explicit invite,. I've already broken my pledge, but I couldn't resist. I'm done now. I'd be happy to continue the exchange, and if you'd like you can find me over at Anders' crib, or maybe Brandon's, or maybe Mark's (although I'm sure he wouldn't want to be seen as doing an end run in disrespect to Lucia) ? Although, it after a certain point I'm sure off-topic exchange could be annoying to the blog hosts.

  324. Joshua
    *Lol. Rather typical bad faith on display, Lucia.*
    Huh?
    You arrive, drop a link and ask other people to read it and tell you what they think. You know I prefer people– including you– tell us their own views and interpretations rather than arriving, dropping a link and asking other people to read it and tell you their reaction.

    I am not displaying "bad faith" by telling you this.

    I also reminded you that I have a rule about rhetorical questions. You know I have this rule. I am not exhibiting "bad faith" reminding you of this.

    I also have not accused you of "bad faith". I have told you I don't like specific behaviors which you did– that is the "link drop" and the "rhetorical question".

    *I don't particularly have an opinion. *
    Fine. You aren't required to have an opinion on the article you dropped a link to. But if you don't, I think you shouldn't bother dropping a link and ask us OUR opinion on the article you have no opinion on.

  325. Joshua
    **But it does seem rather childish to me that you'd stamp your feet and refuse to read the counter claims because somehow you think you're denying me something by doing so.**

    You might want to look at the comment where you dropped the link. You will notice you
    (a) did not say they contained counter-claims.
    (b) certainly didn't say WHAT claims they counter.
    (c) did not provide ANY clue what the topic at the content of the links was.

    It's all well and good to later complain that someone is "refusing" to read "counter-claims" (to who knows what). But in fact, someone is electing to not click and read who knows how long of material at the end of two links that are going to describe something… who knows what. Given the utter lack of information you provided on their content, they could be links discussing astrology, diet claims or who knows what.

  326. Joshua,
    **Perhaps there's a way to prevent me from even reading the blog?**
    Kinda sort of yes, kinda sort of no. I don't intend to try!

  327. I was mentioned up above. I do have a free wordpress site (can call it a blog I guess except I don't blog) that I use to chat with Joshua and others. It does not 'compete' with the Blackboard, on the contrary – I take conversations there when I get the sense that the regulars here find something I'm interested in tedious or annoying. Feel free, anybody who would like to talk with Joshua there. https://markbofill.wordpress.com/ These days I don't have much free time to talk.
    FWIW – I enjoy talking with Joshua when I have time. I'm not sure I know what 'bad faith' really means anymore, not sure I care. He's obviously far left of me, and sometimes he annoys the snot out of me, but sometimes it's interesting or entertaining to talk to people with substantially different points of view.
    And the clock is literally about to run out – gotta go get the spagetti off the stove. Bye for now all.

  328. mark,
    I have no objection to you having your own site!
    .
    WRT to Joshua, he does certain things I dislike. Like arriving (pretty much out of the blue), and leaving some posts that amount to "Hi, Here are some mystery links. Tell me what you think of them!"
    .
    I find that behavior totally disrespectful of other people's time. I get he might be "curious". But if he doesn't even want to spend time telling anyone what HE thinks (not even volunteering that HE has no opinion on the content of those links), he's not carrying his end of anything that might be called a "conversation". If he carries it when he's somewhere else: great! I have no problem with that. But I'd like it a lot better if he would carry his end here.

  329. mark bofill,
    " He's obviously far left of me,.."
    .
    He is appears far left of whoever is not an outright socialist. I won't engage with him because he refuses to ever clearly state his opinion…. and just tells you do do some reading homework and give him a report; it's always the same chicken sh!t shtick. I chalk it up to him not being willing (or able) to defend his views when confronted with a counter argument.

  330. I guess the beauty of having second hand information in the Whistle Blower's case allows anyone with an agenda to twist the comments to suit that agenda. What bothers me most about this whole incident is that the Whistle Blower does evidently not have to face who he accuses and neither does he have to reveal the individuals from whom he obtained the information. I could care less what happens to Trump or any other politician for that matter since most of those irresponsible bast…. get off much too easily. What concerns me is the precedent this procedure sets. It is difficult for me to think that someone could set out to "get" someone using this procedure under other circumstances.

    I have the three following non rhetorical questions:

    In an impeachment proceeding based on what I think the Democrats have to date, would not they have to reveal who these people are? Or is the Whistle Blower simply a ploy for obtaining documents in a fishing expedition? Maybe the bigger question is whether these proceedings have any basis in jurisprudence – or are required to have?

  331. Here is the Federalist article Friday that credits Stephen McIntyre for discovering the whistleblower form change. https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/
    .
    The article points out that the time stamp on the new form is just two days prior to the complaint. Clearly, the form was changed for the facilitation of an operation involving more than the anonymous whistleblower and their anonymous sources, which was misinformation on the pertinent accusation. If the IC IG can find out who was involved in the form's change in wording that would be a great start to an investigation of what had to be an internal cabal and their abuse of administration (at the least).
    .
    The article also dissects the misinformation. This is very much like the dossier. The aim of the false allegation that parallels and known truths: (Trump revealed on the air to Hannity that Giuliani was going to Ukraine), in order to start an investigation which might bear fruit. Making up pretexts for investigations using false allegations is a clear pattern. We saw a lot of planning in the Kavanagh nomination, holding his accuser's info until she could be coached by the Dem's top lawyers and strategically handled, leaking out the accusation to the WaPo to start the ball rolling just before the critical vote. There could be a national network. We need to unmask a few and put the heat on them to break up the mafia. They have enjoyed extraordinary media protection. Kudos to Steve M for being a courageous investigator.
    .
    Here is Margot Cleveland's article today pointing out the critical language deceptions played by the cabal lawyers writing the "whistleblower's" complaint in order to cover for its legal deficiencies. https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/30/did-the-inspector-generals-office-help-the-whistleblower-try-to-frame-trump/

  333. Joshua (Comment #176412)

    Max –

    Do you think it's plausible that the IG was in on the secret plot?
    ________

    Joshua, I don't think ICIG Atkinson was part of a secret plot to get Trump when Trump appointed him. I suppose Atkinson could have soured on Trump after being appointed because he discovered Trump did some bad sh*t before the conversation with the Ukrainian president. It seems more likely to me, however, that Atkinson was so disturbed by the Whistleblower's claim that he decided to look into the matter and found reason to pass it on up to Congress.

    I don’t know what the deal is on the whistleblower form. First, I heard that after the conversation with the Ukrainian president, the form was revised to include info that wasn’t first-hand for the purpose of exposing Trump, but then I heard that the revision occurred before the conversation or there never was a first-hand requirement that would have prevented the exposure. It’s confusing.

    Hopefully, the impeachment inquiry will answer unanswered questions.

  334. Lucia,
    >>mark,
    I have no objection to you having your own site!
    —————
    I know. I regret having implied such a thing; I was in a hurry because I didn't want my sauce to burn and wasn't as … specific or careful in my phrasing as I prefer to be. :/ The whole idea is absurd of course.
    .
    Steve, Lucia,
    Regarding the rest — it's all good.

  335. SteveF
    ** I won't engage with him because he refuses to ever clearly state his opinion**
    This appears to be what he just did.
    .
    **…. and just tells you do do some reading homework and give him a report;**
    Also appears to be what he just did. I'm not sure he "told" anyone to do anything. But he come out of nowhere, suggested we read material at some link and reveal our opinion about the material he'd chosen to him.
    .
    **I chalk it up to him not being willing (or able) to defend his views when confronted with a counter argument.**
    .
    I have no idea what his motive is for providing an argument to support an opinion or evev not providing an opinion but what he did here was not conversation. Perhaps he has no view to defend and that's why he doesn't tell us his view. But whatever the reason for his not telling us his views on material he suggests we read, I find that lazy on his part.
    .
    Whatever his notion of his behavior, I find his behavior makes attempts at conversation with him boring at least when he is participating here. Moreover, his behavior causes other conversations to be boring. He may be interesting elsewhere. I'm not going to hunt down his posts to find out.
    .

  337. Ron Graf (Comment #176426)
    September 30th, 2019 at 6:40 pm
    Here is the Federalist article Friday that credits Stephen McIntyre for discovering the whistleblower form change. https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/
    .
    The article points out that the time stamp on the new form is just two days prior to the complaint. Clearly, the form was changed for the facilitation of an operation involving more than the anonymous whistleblower and their anonymous sources, which was misinformation on the pertinent accusation. If the IC IG can find out who was involved in the form's change in wording that would be a great start to an investigation of what had to be an internal cabal and their abuse of administration (at the least).
    ________

    Ron, that form has been in place since May, according to a statement today by the ICIG. The Trump conversation with Zelensky occurred in August. Below is part of CNN's report on the ICIG's statement.

    In a statement issued late Monday afternoon, the inspector general of the intelligence community (ICIG) said that the form submitted by the whistleblower on August 12, 2019, was the same one the ICIG has had in place since May 24, 2018. The statement reiterated the fact that having firsthand knowledge of the event has never been required in order to submit a whistleblower complaint. "Although the form requests information about whether the Complainant possesses first-hand knowledge about the matter about which he or she is lodging the complaint, there is no such requirement set forth in the statute."

    "In fact," the ICIG's statement continues, "by law the Complainant…need not possess first-hand information in order to file a complaint or information with respect to an urgent concern. The ICIG cannot add conditions to the filing of an urgent concern that do not exist in law."

    https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/30/politics/donald-trump-inspector-general-whistleblower-complaint-conspiracy-fact-check/index.html

  338. Thanks Lucia.
    I cut Joshua more slack than I otherwise might for a few reasons that might be valid only in my imagination. For example, I find it difficult to post 'naturally' (fluidly and gracefully, maybe) in a forum where I know the majority of views oppose mine. I figure the Blackboard is like that (such a forum) for him. I do find that once we get past preliminaries Joshua will explain his viewpoints and positions.
    It's neither here nor there really.
    shrug.

  339. mark,
    Perhaps he'll end up revealing and discussing his notions with you at your blog. Which would be fine with me! 🙂

    If you have patience to deal with someone who wants us to dig out information from a rambling twitter feed and tell us our opinion of that information…. Look, my reaction is
    (a) you just told me to read a long rambling TWITTER FEED that is diffuse and nearly incoherent. And
    (b) you are curious to know what I think?

    What I think is IF you think that twitter feed contains any remotely interesting information YOU do the heavy lifting to find said information, dig it out and present it. Don't send me to a haystack and ask me what I think of the utility of any needles you think might be in there.

    And sorry, if after you ask me my opinion on those needles I ask you YOUR opinion of the needles your answer is, "I have no particular opinion about those needles…" and then grumble that you don't understand why I would "refuse" to hunt for those needles…. Sorry. But erhm… no. I'm not going to hunt for those needles (which may not even be there.)

  341. In the past Joshua has acknowledge that he is not able to evaluate many technical arguments. It wouldn't surprise me if he just delegated his arguments to others at this blog which can get technical, and that others aren't as willing to go along with it.

  342. The office of the IGIC released a report today, Sept. 30, 2019, for clarification of the form used by the Trump whistleblower. The link which follows is to the full report but I will quote their summary first.

    “In summary, regarding the instant matter, the whistleblower submitted the appropriate Disclosure of Urgent Concern form that was in effect as of August 12, 2019, and had been used by the ICIG since May 24, 2018. The whistleblower stated on the form that he or she possessed both first-hand and other information. The ICIG reviewed the information provided as well as other information gathered and determined that the complaint was both urgent and that it appeared credible. From the moment the ICIG received the whistleblower’s filing, the ICIG has worked to effectuate Congress’s intent, and the whistleblower’s intent, within the rule of law. The ICIG will continue in those efforts on behalf of all whistleblowers in the Intelligence Community.”

    https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Documents/News/ICIG%20News/2019/September%2030%20%20Statement%20on%20Processing%20of%20Whistleblower%20Complaints/ICIG%20Statement%20on%20Processing%20of%20Whistleblower%20Complaints.pdf

    After reading the report, Chrissy Clark wrote an article for the Federalist, titled Intel IG Admits It Secretly Erased ‘First-Hand Information Requirement In August.

    I read the report and couldn’t find the IG admitting he erased anything. If anyone knows what Clark is talking about, please explain.

    https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/30/intel-ig-admits-it-secretly-erased-first-hand-information-requirement-in-august/

    Clark also says “Despite the form changes and the requirement for possession of first-hand information, the ICIG statement admits the Ukraine whistleblower filed an outdated report and checked that he or she had first-hand knowledge of the experience, which the complaint itself contradicts.”

    I do not agree with Clark that the complaint itself contradicts that he or she had first -hand knowledge. The whistleblower said “I was not a direct witness to most of the events described.” I believe this statement means the whistleblower witnessed some of the events.
    This would include the whistleblowers knowledge of the call. “I was not the only non-White House official to receive a readout of the call,” he or she said. There’s also the possibility some events witnessed by the whistleblower’s aren’t described because they are classified. “To the best of my knowledge, the entirety of this statement is unclassified when separated from the classified enclosure.”

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/09/26/whistleblower-complaint-against-trump-read-full-declassified-document/3773047002/

    Questioning the form used by the whistleblower seems like a dead end for conspiracy theorist.

  343. "Questioning the form used by the whistleblower seems like a dead end for conspiracy theorist."

    Max, according to the "conspiracy" reporting the old form that required firsthand knowledge was dated May 24, 2018 and the form actually used that only had a check box if you wanted to use firsthand knowledge was dated August 2019. The IC IG statement is being scrutinized right now for its conflicts with what we thought was nailed down fact. My guess is that if the IC IG is playing word games he is playing with the wrong people. There's nobody better than Steve Mc in finding the pea in a shell game.
    .
    My guess is that the form was changed but the law was not, and thus the IC IG will be forced to clarify later that he was simply saying that the new form fit under the law. And, although the IC IG is claiming that some firsthand knowledge was used he does not identify what fact, if any was alleged from that. We know that the characterization of the call was in conflict with the transcript in almost every material way. So the allegations were not from seeing the call transcript. Left-wing conspiracy believers claim the transcript was altered but without evidence of any official hint at that possibility. If that could be proven that would be the impeachable offense, of course.
    .
    The m.o. is to intimidate the target into doing something defensive that can then be pounced on. Example, Papodopoulos remembering that Mifsud approached him being just before joining the Trump campaign when it was just after. The FBI knew the exact day before asking the question because obviously it was a setup. Boom. Felony. Diddo Michael Flynn. In that case Flynn was actually completely honest and plead guilty anyway to avoid bankruptcy and family harassment. Roger Stone lied about inconsequential contacts with his conservative network who were attempting to contact Assange. See the pattern? Carter Page escaped likely by being the most fastidiously honest human on the planet.

  344. Ron Graf (Comment #176439)
    Max, according to the "conspiracy" reporting the old form that required firsthand knowledge was dated May 24, 2018 and the form actually used that only had a check box if you wanted to use firsthand knowledge was dated August 2019.
    ______

    I'm not sure the old form said the Whistleblower should file a report only if he or she had first-hand knowledge of wrongdoing. The old form did, however, have language that could have been misleading and in conflict with the law. For example, "if you think wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions, IC IG will not be able to process the complaint or information for submission as a ICWPA."

    I haven't seen the entire form, but that sentence if taken alone is misleading because the law does not require the submitted information to be first-hand, and the law would be stupid if it did because it could discourage whistleblowers who are on to wrongdoing. Of course before the information is passed on up it must be substantiated, which is why the Whistleblower's assertions ( first-hand or not) are first investigated.

    I believe the Trump Whistleblower's lawyer knows the law and his superiors at the CIA know what they are required to do under the law.

  345. I don't intend to get dragged into this, but I see Ron Graf has said:

    "Max, according to the "conspiracy" reporting the old form that required firsthand knowledge was dated May 24, 2018 and the form actually used that only had a check box if you wanted to use firsthand knowledge was dated August 2019. "

    I don't know what "reporting" he is referring to, but no such form exists. The form the whistleblower used had boxes to check both for saying one has firsthand and for saying one has secondhand knowledge (I believe there may have been two boxes for secondhand knowledge, depending on type). I don't know where Graf gets this idea from, but it is false.

    There was a paragraph in material provided along with the form which seems to say firsthand knowledge is required, which was removed from a later version of the form. The IC IG explicitly says firsthand knowledge was not required, and the form was changed to remove that apparent conflict. It's not unreasonable to believe that change came about because of this story blowing up, but there is nothing to suggest that change was nefarious. Information provided with government forms, and even the forms themselves, can have errors. Those errors might get noticed more quickly when a lot of media attention is given to a complaint using one. Finally, while Graf says:

    " We know that the characterization of the call was in conflict with the transcript in almost every material way. "

    I don't know this to be true. My impression is the allegations have been largely substantiated, with the only discrepancies highlighted thus far being ones of minor factual matters (like who exactly listened in). Perhaps that impression is wrong, but I don't think it is appropriate to say "we know" what Graf claims to know.

  346. FWIW, I found a copy of the form someone posted online. It has boxes for:

    "I have personal and/or direct knowledge of events or records involved
    Other employees have told me about events or records involved
    Other source(s) (please explain)"

    It also has a paragraph in the information at the start of the form which seems to me to contradict the idea secondhand knowledge can be relied on. Given the law has no such requirement, my impression is someone screwed up in writing that paragraph. I can't say I find that surprising. I've seen errors just as egregious on a number of forms. One time I was asked to certify I was *not* a United States citizen in a form which only citizens were supposed to be allowed to fill out.

    https://www.scribd.com/document/427767481/Icwpa-Form-401-24may18

  347. Thanks Max –

    I hope you didn't find it rude that I was interested in getting your opinion.

  349. Max, your quoting is accurate that the IC IG statement summary says the May 2018 form was used but that summary statement contradicts the body of the statement, which admits that the form was changed recently. Thus, fake news is perpetuated. The statement is only 3 pages. Here: https://www.odni.gov/files/ICIG/Documents/News/ICIG%20News/2019/September%2030%20-%20Statement%20on%20Processing%20of%20Whistleblower%20Complaints/ICIG%20Statement%20on%20Processing%20of%20Whistleblower%20Complaints.pdf
    .
    The contradicting body admission is here:
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EFw1lHXWkAEM55J.jpg:large
    .
    Brandon, I don't have time right now to point out all the false claims but they are widely published. One claim was that Trump asked the Ukraine leader eight times to find dirt on Biden. The most critical false claim is that Trump mentioned withholding the aid. He didn't. And there is now evidence the Ukrainians were aware that Trump had delayed the aid, he says in order to try to gain time to get Europe to kick in.
    .
    Trump's requested "favor", contrary to MSM reporting, was to look into the 2016 Dem collusion with Ukraine's previous administration. IIRC Ukraine president brought up Biden. Trump specifically mentions the server and Crowdstrike, leading one to believe that Trump has information that the "Russian hackers" may have been Ukrainian intelligence contractees. This would fit with Steve McIntyer's forensic analysis of the malware code pattern (almost two years ago now).
    .
    That citizens can no longer rely on the media for truth is the real scandal.

  350. HaroldW,
    “Keynote by Susan Solomon, wrap-up by Kerry Emanuel, and two panel discussions.”
    .
    I’d rather have my teeth drilled without Novocain.
    .
    Really, you already know what they will say, and the policies they will suggest: drastically reduced energy use (and reduced material wealth) for most people, and huge tax increases to fund “climate justice”. Of course not for everyone. Not for people like hedge fund managers who will always pay a very low tax rate, and who have money to pay exorbitant energy prices and to buy carbon off-sets (AKA indulgences) so they continue to fly private. Not lefty ‘political leaders’ who leech off productive people, and of course, not important people like climate scientists… who will never face the actual consequences of their preferred policies.
    .
    When those jerks start to walk the walk, I’ll be more inclined to listen to their BS talk; they are hypocrites of the highest order

  351. Ron Graf, I can't see whatever contradiction you claim to point out to Max, but I'll let him ask you to explain. What I find more interesting is you say you say false claims were widely published, then cite an example not found in the whistleblower's complaint. That would seem to indicate your issue is with how people (supposedly) reported what the whistleblower said, not what the whistleblower actually said. If that's true, I'm not sure what the point is. The whistleblower's complaint doesn't become less credible because people may have misrepresented it. If that's not true, then you are simply wrong about what his complaint said.

    Similarly, you say:

    "Trump's requested 'favor', contrary to MSM reporting, was to look into the 2016 Dem collusion with Ukraine's previous administration. IIRC Ukraine president brought up Biden. "

    Trump brought up Biden so I'm not sure why you'd think otherwise. Moreover, while he asked for a favor to investigate some crazy conspiracy theory involving the 2016 stuff, the transcript released by the White House also has him saying:

    "The other thing, there’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it … It sounds horrible to me."

    I have no idea how you claim Trump asking for a separate favor means he didn't ask for this favor as well. Especially not when the whistleblower referred to both requests in his complaint. The whistleblower alleged two requests were made, the transcript released by the White House shows two requests were made, and you claim the fact one request was made means the whistleblower was wrong when he said the other request was made. I cannot follow your logic.

    "Trump specifically mentions the server and Crowdstrike, leading one to believe that Trump has information that the "Russian hackers" may have been Ukrainian intelligence contractees. This would fit with Steve McIntyer's forensic analysis of the malware code pattern (almost two years ago now)."

    That may lead some people to believe Trump has some super secret, mystery evidence he doesn't tell anyone, that Ukrainian operatives were behind the DNC hacking. I think it'd lead more people to believe Trump holds delusional beliefs unconnected to any sort of factual basis.

    Of course, I also know nothing in any forensic analysis Steve McIntyre has done indicates what you claim. Even he wouldn't say it does. Having a basic understanding of issues may cause someone to reach different conclusions than you.

  352. >There was a paragraph in material provided along with the form which seems to say firsthand knowledge is required,

    This might not be a contradiction. Firsthand info is required for IG to find the info credible, but the urgent concern form itself could have secondhand info. IG could then uncover firsthand info in his 14 day investigation.
    However, there is also a part that says IG will not act on a complaint without firsthand information.

  353. Correction. I wrote: "And there is now evidence the Ukrainians were aware… I meant "No evidence."
    .
    Brandon, I will accept your correction that Trump brought up Biden after the Dem meddling in 2016. Are you saying the whistleblower made no accusation of quid pro que? I will have to read it through. The media reports I saw say it did claim the aid was used as pressure. Also, I will look for the links to the posts by Steve and other who did the forensic analysis of the malware code definitions and comparing with the past published attacks and patterns.
    .
    I mentioned how the US IC entrapped Papodopoulos. The irony about his felony lie about being approached by Mifsud before joining the campaign is that Mifsud was likely hired by the US IC specifically to target Papodopoulos. It's widely known now that Mifsud was western IC asset, not a Russian, directly contrary to this year's Mueller report. And, for Mueller to have spent 25-30 million over two years and not to know that his workers were Clinton lawyers or not to even to have ever heard of Fusion GPS, how can liberals not expect conservatives to be "conspiracy theorists?" They can't. If Trump were NOT asking questions of the western IC agencies that were involved in Spygate he would be derelict.
    .
    Brandon, Max and Joshua, do you really want the US to be the country where the political opposition is clandestinely eliminated? I hope not. Do you think it's impossible that your children might adopt the political beliefs of the "opposition," whatever that might mean, at some point in the future? I know you must agree the rationality that political results are more important than truth and equal justice is a shortsighted perception.
    .
    The question to the IC IG was did the whistleblower form get changed for this particular case. The IC IG answer is the law had not changed. Do you all accept this as a valid reply as legitimate? Real question.

  354. MikeN, that cannot be true. First off, the paragraph in question doesn't even fit the scenario you describe. It discusses the information provided in the complaint, saying firsthand knowledge is required for that. It does not allow, as you suggest, the IG to come up with such knowledge in response to secondhand knowledge provided in an complaint. Second, the law has no requirement of firsthand knowledge, and the IG does not have the authority to arbitrarily add requirements like that.* Finally, the whistleblower checked boxes indicating he was providing both first and secondhand knowledge, meaning none of this would even be relevant.

    *It's worth noting when Trump's administration attempted to prevent the complaint from being given to Congress, they created an eleven page memo arguing why the complaint did not meet the standards required. It did not contain a single mention of this argument, that firsthand knowledge is required or that the whistleblower lacked such. Apparently Trump's legal counsel disagrees with what Trump and others are saying about this.

  355. Ron Graf, you "correct" yourself to say there is no evidence Ukraine was aware the United States had withheld aid. I can't begin to react properly to that. Congress's vote to provide that aid was public. The idea Ukraine didn't know about the vote, or that it somehow didn't notice the aid fail to arrive when the vote would have led to it arriving, is bizarre in more ways than I can explain.

    "Brandon, Max and Joshua, do you really want the US to be the country where the political opposition is clandestinely eliminated? I hope not. Do you think it's impossible that your children might adopt the political beliefs of the "opposition," whatever that might mean, at some point in the future? I know you must agree the rationality that political results are more important than truth and equal justice is a shortsighted perception."

    I'm not going to answer your rhetorical questions, but I will assure you, I do not agree "results are more important than truth" much less that "equal justice is a shortsighted perception." I care a great deal about the truth, which is why I make efforts to learn it.

    "The question to the IC IG was did the whistleblower form get changed for this particular case. The IC IG answer is the law had not changed. Do you all accept this as a valid reply as legitimate? Real question."

    This question seems bizarre to me as the form the whistleblower used was the old form, not the one that was changed. I don't know why it would why matter a form the whistleblower didn't use was changed. If there is a reason that'd matter, you haven't provided it.

    To be clear though, if the question put to the IC IG was what you claim, an accurate response would be, "The form he used was not changed so no, it was not changed for this particular case."

  356. It appears Ron Graf may have edited his comment to add a paragraph directed at me. I'll responded to the text I didn't see before:

    "Brandon, I will accept your correction that Trump brought up Biden after the Dem meddling in 2016. Are you saying the whistleblower made no accusation of quid pro que?"

    No. I am not saying this. I have no idea why you ask me if I am saying this, but to be clear, this is nothing like anything I've ever said. Since it has come up, I will note the whistleblower's complaint does not go into specifics as to what form of pressure Trump is alleged to have used. It does, however, state:

    "As of early August, I heard from U.S. officials that some Ukrainian officials were aware that U.S. aid might be in jeopardy, but I do not know how or when they learned of it."

    There are many ways the most powerful country in the world might pressure another country to do something. The whistleblower explicitly alleges some form of pressure was used. He also says he was informed Ukrainian officials were aware military from the United States was at risk.

    So no, I am not saying the whistleblower alleged no quid quo pro.

  357. This is nuts. Trump and Zelenski were not talking to pass the time of day ot to exchange recipes. Such a conversation will always have an element of this is what you can do for me and this is what I can do for you.

    Oh wait a minute. If they were just exchanging recipes, that would be a quid pro quo.

  358. Mike M
    **If they were just exchanging recipes, that would be a quid pro quo.**
    Only if you say…. "You give me your secret family recipe for brownies, and I'll give you my secret family recipe for Caesar Salad.
    .
    I'm sure Melania must have access to a secret family recipe for Potitsa (Potica) and I want it!

  359. Brandon, the form says firsthand information is required for the IG to find an urgent concern 'credible'. It does not say that the whistleblower's complaint must contain firsthand information, which is of course contradicted by the boxes on the form.

  360. Mike M. (Comment #176453)
    October 1st, 2019 at 9:04 am
    "This is nuts. Trump and Zelenski were not talking to pass the time of day ot to exchange recipes. Such a conversation will always have an element of this is what you can do for me and this is what I can do for you."

    And nobody would care if the favor was something intended for the betterment of the United States or its people. The reason people care is this was intended for the betterment of Donald Trump. If Trump said, "Do me a favor and donate one million dollars to the United States government," nobody would say that was basis for impeachment. If he said, "Do me a favor and give me, personally, one million dollars," a lot of people would say that was basis for impeachment.

    MikeN (Comment #176455)
    October 1st, 2019 at 9:31 am
    "Brandon, the form says firsthand information is required for the IG to find an urgent concern 'credible'. It does not say that the whistleblower's complaint must contain firsthand information, which is of course contradicted by the boxes on the form."

    To be precise, the form says nothing like this. It is material provided with the form that says firsthand information is required for the complaint to be processed. But to be clear, that material does say the complaint must contain firsthand information to be processed:

    "If you think that wrongdoing took place, but canprovide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions, IC IG will not be able to process thecomplaint or information for submission as an ICWPA."

    I don't understand how you claim material says a complaint need not contain firsthand information when that material says a complaint without firsthand information cannot be processed. Could you explain?

  361. Food "science" is once again being exposed. Apparently the evil of red meat, or should I say the unconscionable ingestion of such by those lacking even the merest shrivel of morality, is found to be lacking.
    https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/09/30/765722916/no-need-to-cut-back-on-red-meat-controversial-new-guidelines-lead-to-outrage
    .
    "She says the papers show that the quality of the evidence behind the current recommendations to cut down on red and processed meats is not as strong as people may have been led to believe. "We should just be transparent," Laine says. "I think we should be honest with the public that we don't really know."
    .
    What is striking here is the emotional reaction to this latest revelation by the food "science" community, a gigantic red flag that dogma is present.

  362. lucia (Comment #176454): "Only if you say…."

    Yes, I know. A quid-pro-quo requires a specific this in exchange for a specific that. I was only attempting to make fun of the silliness of the claim that "I'd like you to do me a favor" amounts to a quid-pro-quo.

    ————
    Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #176456): "And nobody would care if the favor was something intended for the betterment of the United States or its people."

    Prosecuting public officials who break our laws is for the betterment of the U.S.and its people.
    .
    Brandon Shollenberger: "The reason people care is this was intended for the betterment of Donald Trump"

    But there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. When the President does something that benefits the country, he is likely to benefit as well. It crosses the line when he does something for his sole benefit, without regard to the good of the country.
    .
    Trump did not ask for dirt on Biden. He did not ask for made up charges. He asked for an investigation into facts. That is perfectly appropriate. Unlike what the Dems have done in going to foreign governments looking for dirt.

    By claiming that any investigation into the Hunter/Joe connection is off limits, the Dems are effectively claiming that Biden is above the law.

  363. Brandon, that was the second part of my comment above, after 'However,'. I agree it does produce a contradiction, which might be resolved by the definition one uses for 'process'. For example, you can say this would mean your complaint won't be forwarded to Congress, but that's a stretch.
    Before that, it says for a complaint to be found credible, firsthand information is required. This is different from 'the urgent concern form must contain only firsthand information'.

  364. Mike M.
    **But there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. When the President does something that benefits the country, he is likely to benefit as well. **

    Yes. There is something wrong with a president asking for something that primarily, mostly or only benefits HIM and using his executive power to do this.

    If you want to argue what he asked for was intended to benefit the country… ok. Argue that. But say so directly. Also, if it IS his intention to do something like this, it would be better if he told the public directly, or had someone else make the request after having it go through channels so it can be absolutely clear there isn't an "or else" attached to it.

    What Trump's intention was…. not sure. (He's a lose cannon and it's often impossible to figure out what he means.) But suggesting that it's somehow ok for him to ask for something that mostly benefits HIM is just wrong.

    **By claiming that any investigation into the Hunter/Joe connection is off limits, the Dems are effectively claiming that Biden is above the law.**
    I don't know who is claiming that investigation is "off limits" nor to whome it is off limits. But such a claim would also be wrong.

  365. MIke M.:
    "Prosecuting public officials who break our laws is for the betterment of the U.S.and its people."

    I'm baffled as to which of our laws you think may have been broken seeing as I've seen nobody even attempt to make a case such has happened. Perhaps you could explain? In the meantime, some would say anything that benefits Trump's administration benefits the country because Trump is good for the country. I hope you don't need me to explain why that's a bogus argument.

    "But there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. When the President does something that benefits the country, he is likely to benefit as well. It crosses the line when he does something for his sole benefit, without regard to the good of the country."
    .
    By claiming that any investigation into the Hunter/Joe connection is off limits, the Dems are effectively claiming that Biden is above the law."

    Trump didn't ask for investigations into corruption in general. Biden asked a person be fired for failing to investigate corruption thoroughly enough, a request made by numerous people, organizations and governments throughout the world. Trump asked Biden be investigated for that. One person said, "Please go after my enemy." The other person said, "Please fire this person who is letting corruption go unchecked."

    Trump didn't ask for investigations in general. Trump didn't use official channels or his own government to attempt to investigate the wrongdoing he alleges. What he did was use backchannel communication to say, "Do me a favor and go after my enemies."

    If someone wants to see more thorough investigation into corruption in a country like Ukraine, I'm all for that. That's exactly what Biden, and many people throughout the world, wanted when they tried to get Ukraine to fire a guy for failing to go after corruption when it was his job to do so. But that's not what Trump did. Trump said, "Investigate my enemies." Saying it is wrong for Trump to pressure countries to specifically target his enemies is not, in any way, saying someone is above the law.

    Trump could have gone to any number of people in his own government to start an investigation if he had a legitimate concern. There are people in his government who have been specifically tasked with investigating corruption in Ukraine. But if he had asked any agency to specifically target his enemies, there'd have been a riot because that's not legal. He had to turn to people outside his government to do this, and even then, it still wasn't legal.

    I'm confident in saying if Obama did the same thing with Trump, nobody here would say it was okay. The only reason it is "okay" to people here is it was Trump doing it to "the Dems."

  366. The Biden video of him saying he got the prosecutor fired if they wanted their billion dollars, looks like the story was made up.
    Only Biden can't defend himself by saying he lied.

  367. MikeN (Comment #176460)
    October 1st, 2019 at 11:14 am
    "Brandon, that was the second part of my comment above, after 'However,'. I agree it does produce a contradiction, which might be resolved by the definition one uses for 'process'. For example, you can say this would mean your complaint won't be forwarded to Congress, but that's a stretch.
    Before that, it says for a complaint to be found credible, firsthand information is required. This is different from 'the urgent concern form must contain only firsthand information'."

    I don't understand your reasoning. The paragraph begins by saying to find a complaint "credible," it must contain firsthand information. It ends by saying a complaint won't be processed if it doesn't contain firsthand information. I see no contradiction between the two statements. One sentence says a complaint won't be processed, another sentence says it won't be found "credible." The latter follows from the former. A complaint won't be found "credible" if it isn't even processed. You said:

    "It does not say that the whistleblower's complaint must contain firsthand information, which is of course contradicted by the boxes on the form."

    But as I showed, it does say the complaint must contain firsthand information to be processed. I don't know how to reconcile saying it needs to have firsthand information to be processed but doesn't need to have firsthand information. (I also don't understand how boxes which allow for first or secondhand information contradict the idea firsthand information is not necessary, but perhaps your sentence got muddled with the double negatives.)

    I get the two sentences in question are different, but being different isn't the same as being contradictory. It is common for people to say things multiple times with different degrees of specificity.

  368. Joshua (Comment #176443)
    October 1st, 2019 at 2:39 am
    Thanks Max –

    I hope you didn't find it rude that I was interested in getting your opinion.
    ___________

    No, I wasn't offended. I still don't understand all the fuss over the what whistleblower form was used. I think the Trump whistleblower could have used any form as long as that form complied with the law. I can't see the law requiring a specific form, and I'm not sure the law even requires a form.

  369. The form saga is just an attempt to prove a conspiracy to get Trump specifically because they don't like him versus doing the good will of the people to remove corruption for the betterment of society.
    .
    There is no point in this for me, of course they are trying to get Trump specifically because they have a preexisting bias against Trump. There is almost certainly political motivation behind this latest drama.
    .
    There does exist a possibility that there is both a political motivation and an actual legitimate case. The standards of evidence for partisans are widely disparate here.
    .
    One need only ask what Team Impeach would think of Don Jr. sitting on the same board as Biden Jr., I'd suggest that this would be seen as an abuse of office that requires an investigation. If Pelosi asked Ukraine for help uncovering influence pedaling by Don Jr. it would be seen as doing the Lord's work by the usual suspects.
    .
    It was a dumb and unnecessary move by Trump, and likely a spontaneous loose cannon Trumpism.

  370. Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #176462): "I'm baffled as to which of our laws you think may have been broken seeing as I've seen nobody even attempt to make a case such has happened."

    Then you have not been paying attention.
    (1) The Prosecutor General started investigations into Burisma and its owner, Zlochevsky.
    (2) Zlochevsky fled the country.
    (3) Burisma put Hunter Biden (and others) on its board for no apparent purpose other than the influence they could peddle.
    (4) Joe Biden used his official position to force the Ukrainian government to fire the Prosecutor General as part of an explicit quid-pro-quo.
    (5) The investigation into Burisma and Zlochevsky was dropped.

    If you can't see the appearance of illegality in that, then you are clamping your eyes shut.

    There are two questions that must be answered in order to get a better idea of whether there was illegality involved:
    (a) Was Shokin conducting a vigorous investigation into Burisma/Zlochevsky at the time he was fired?
    (b) Was the investigation closed because there was nothing there or for fear of alienating the U.S. government?

    We don't know the answers to those questions. Getting the answers would seem to require investigative powers in Ukraine. It is reasonable to ask them to look into it.

  371. Lucia: " But suggesting that it's somehow ok for him to ask for something that mostly benefits HIM is just wrong."

    I disagree with your perspective to a substantial degree here. Presidents do things for their own benefit all of the time. They rarely act out of purely altruistic motives.
    ….

    In this case, there is overwhelming evidence that Hunter Biden had engaged in acts of corruption with the assistance of his father (who was Obama's main point person with Ukraine) and that it was ignored notwithstanding the strong evidence and public knowledge of it. Biden should be investigated. If Trump did the right thing for the wrong reason or for a mixture of the wrong reason and the right reason, I see no issue.

    ……
    Also, as far as I know there is no specific objective procedure free of politics to seek evidence related to crimes committed by Americans in foreign countries, particularly those as corrupt as the Ukraine. There may be procedures in place by utilized by intelligence agencies, the AG, and the FBI to get this information, but under the Constitution they all work under the authority of the President. (I realize that many in the intelligence community don't believe they are bound by the Constitution and are actively working to undermine Trump) I would point out for example, that the AG has zero authority to act independently of the President by way of his authorizing statute, which I have read. Would assume that is the same for the FBI and the CIA. So, if Trump were to ask them to seek an investigation of Biden, it would be subject to the same criticisms that everyone is now making of Trump.
    …….

    What Trump did with the Ukraine was a little clumsy, but at worst a 5-yard penalty. He didn't ask for dirt, he asked for an investigation.

    …….

    To give you an idea of how crude the Ukraine's "justice system" is, an American lawyer, John Burretta, with no experience in Ukrainian law (but strong ties to Democrats and Clinton) was hired to clear Burisma. See https://www.kyivpost.com/business-wire/john-buretta-us-important-close-casesagainst-burisma-nikolayzlochevskyiin-legally-sound-manner.html?cn-reloaded=1&cn-reloaded=1 for his admission that he has no experience in Ukrainian law and basic facts. His services were obviously in the service of a pure political power play and not traditional legal representation. He was also associated with Karen Tramontano, who was deputy chief of staff under Clinton. See https://www.scribd.com/document/427616178/Ukraine-PGO-Memo-Translation Doesn't give anyone confidence that there are objective, transparent ways to get the information.

    JD

  372. OK_Max: "I can't see the law requiring a specific form, and I'm not sure the law even requires a form."
    I'm fairly certain that the law doesn't specify a form; I can't think of any which do.

    But if "the law" refers to the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act, which seems to be the one discussed, I don't see how it applies. From Wikipedia (yes, I know I shouldn't, but it's an easy source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Community_Whistleblower_Protection_Act),
    "The Act defines a matter of "urgent concern" as:[2]

    1. a serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law or Executive order, or deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operations of an intelligence activity involving classified information, but does not include differences of opinions concerning public policy matters;
    2. A false statement to Congress, or a willful withholding from Congress, on an issue of material fact relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity; or
    3. An action constituting reprisal or threat of reprisal in response to an employee's reporting an urgent concern."

    I don't see the issue falling under any of these categories.

    Yes, that doesn't affect the defensibility of Trump's actions. But it does raise the question as to why the complaint was taken forward apparently under the auspices of the Act.

  373. Tom Scharf,
    One of the vocal critics of the new paper (who wrote to the journal to block its publication!) is Frank Hu, the chair of the Department of Nutrition at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Here is a direct quote:
    .
    "To improve both human health and environmental sustainability, it is important to adopt dietary patterns that are high in healthy plant-based foods and relatively low in red and processed meats."
    .
    Since when does 'environmental sustainability' become a factor in dietary studies? That is just bizarre. Green storm-troopers are everywhere.

  375. Mike M. (Comment #176467)
    October 1st, 2019 at 12:54 pm
    Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #176462): "I'm baffled as to which of our laws you think may have been broken seeing as I've seen nobody even attempt to make a case such has happened."

    "Then you have not been paying attention."

    Nothing you claim happened appears to violate any United States law. What you describe is shady, and perhaps in violation of some Ukrainian law, but I can't imagine what United States law you think was broken. Being derisive toward me rather than just pointing to some law you think was broken won't help me figure out what law you think was broken. That's especially true when you leave out crucial details like when you say:

    "(4) Joe Biden used his official position to force the Ukrainian government to fire the Prosecutor General as part of an explicit quid-pro-quo.
    (5) The investigation into Burisma and Zlochevsky was dropped."

    Ignoring the fact the stated reason Biden, and many others throughout the world, strove to get the prosecutor fired was he was failing to do his job in pursuing corruption cases. The prosecutor was even accused of dragging his feet on the investigation into Burisma, the company you're suggesting Biden was protecting by trying to get him fired.

    Maybe there's some way to square the idea many people called for the prosecutor to be fired for failing to pursue corruption cases and the idea he was fired to prevent him from pursuing a corruption case. Nobody has attempted to make one though. Instead people making claims like yours ignore the matter, saying things like:

    "There are two questions that must be answered in order to get a better idea of whether there was illegality involved:
    (a) Was Shokin conducting a vigorous investigation into Burisma/Zlochevsky at the time he was fired?"

    There isn't a shred of evidence he was actively pursuing any such case, much less a vigorous one. And the idea contradicts pretty much everything known about the man. Even if one believed it might be true, that would do nothing to explain why so many other people, organizations and governments called for him to be fired for not pursuing corruption cases.

    So I still don't know what United States law you think was broken, and the facts you allege don't seem to indicate one was. Moreover, the facts you don't mention seem to offer incredibly strong evidence none were.

  376. By the way, I want to emphasize this claim is rather misleading:

    "(4) Joe Biden used his official position to force the Ukrainian government to fire the Prosecutor General as part of an explicit quid-pro-quo."

    While Biden's role in implementing United States policy of pursuing anti-corruption efforts in the Ukraine did help result in him threatening to withhold loans to Ukraine in order to get a prosecutor fired for not doing his job, there were many other factors involved. Biden was just one of the many voices calling for Shokin's removal. Perhaps his spoke louder than most, but there were protests outside the guy's office calling for him to get fired. He was widely hated because he was viewed as being corrupt, using his job to protect the very people he was supposed to prosecute.

    People keep failing to mention anything like that, trying to portray him as having been fired for pursuing a corruption case that involved Biden Jr. by his father alone. That's nonsense. Pretty much everyone involved in pursuing anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine called for Shokin to be fired. Maybe Biden's threats pushed someone past the "breaking point" and caused Shokin to get fired, but they were hardly the only factor as people try to suggest.

  377. > Brandon, Max and Joshua, do you really want the US to be the country where the political opposition is clandestinely eliminated? I hope not.

    Of course… but… first, I don't think it's clear that description fits for what is going on.

    However, I do have some concern about what's going on, on both sides. In the one hand, I think that Trump has acted in ways which are, legitimately characterized as an abuse of power. It certajnly seems to me that he leveraged his power as president, and as the lead protector of the rule of law, for personal, trivial, venal, cheap political gain.

    On the other hand, I'm concerned about Demz using the institution of impeachment to pursue political goals. Sure, impeachment itself IS political, but I'm not sure what the criteria are that really make what Trump has done as categorically different in such a way as to justify impeachment. I'm not sure I've seen an argument yet that makes a convincing case. There is an element where it's questionable as to whther Demz are pursuing impeachment because they find Trump morally and ethically repugnant – and his policies abborant. Well, OK, so do I – but the opposing party pretty much could always feel that way about the president, and I'm not sure that impeachment should be grounded in such justifications (not that Demz articulate those justifications – they claim more dramatic justifications).

    For, now, I'm observing the arguments being made. Just as I don't think the Demz have made a convincing case, the Pubz argument that Trump was truly protecting America and fighting corruption are absurd d. Does anyone really think that Trump cares one bit about corruption, or about anything other than his own self interest?

  378. > Does anyone really think that Trump cares one bit about corruption, or about anything other than his own self interest?

    And your answer is? (Unless of course you intended to leave a hanging rhetorical question)

  379. HaroldW (Comment #176469)

    "Yes, that doesn't affect the defensibility of Trump's actions. But it does raise the question as to why the complaint was taken forward apparently under the auspices of the Act."
    ______

    Harold, I see your point. I believe it would be bad, however, to confine CIA whistleblowers just to what goes on with CIA staff, and I hope that was not the intention of the act.

    As for Trump's actions, here is a ink to the campaign law in case you haven't read it: https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/feca.pdf

    If you go to page 81 of the linked document, you will see the following:

    "§ 30121. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals (a) Prohibition. It shall be unlawful for—

    "§(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national."

    Now go to subparagraph B and you will see the this

    "Prohibition. It shall be unlawful for— (1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make— (A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;"

    I believe the “other thing of value” solicited by Trump in his conversation with the Ukranian president was dirt on Biden.

  380. > And your answer is? (Unless of course you intended to leave a hanging rhetorical question)

    I don't know the answer. That's why I asked the question.

    Do you believe that?

    Some puerile seem to believe that. Perhaps sums prime here. Do they really? What do you think?

  381. > And your answer is? (Unless of course you intended to leave a hanging rhetorical question)

    I don't know the answer. That's why I asked the question.

    Do you believe that?

    Some people seem to believe that. Perhaps some people here. Do they really? What do you think?

  382. Joshua (Comment #176475): "Does anyone really think that Trump cares one bit about corruption, or about anything other than his own self interest?"

    Trump cares about the United States and its people. More than any other prominent politician in the country.

  383. Biden said they better fire the prosecutor before he left if they wanted the money.
    Biden was not in Ukraine when the prosecutor was fired. The leader of Ukraine was in US around the time.
    Biden added some color to the story, and probably himself as well.

  384. Mike M-

    > Trump cares about the United States and its people.

    Thanks. And if there's one in such a small sample size, I'm guessing we can asse there are many.

    And not just an opinion, but a statement of fact. Clearly not a rhetorical qiestion, then.

  385. Mike M-

    > Trump cares about the United States and its people.

    Thanks. And if there's one in such a small sample size, I'm guessing we can asse there are many.

    And not just an opinion, but a statement of fact. Clearly not a rhetorical qiestion, then.

  386. OK Max Re: Contributions by Foreign Nationals

    I think the campaign law is being stretched beyond its intent in this instance in terms of the arguments you are making. The campaign finance law was surely designed to prevent financial contributions from influencing elections. How asking for an investigation from a foreign government when there is clear evidence of corruption is improperly receiving financial benefits does not appear to be within the ambit of the act to me.

    ……..

    However, if we are going to stretch in kind contributions this far, then Christopher Steele undoubtedly made in kind contributions to the Clinton campaign when he went all over Washington (almost surely at least partly on his own dime) to get his dossier out. Also, Sally Yates and James Comey who signed off twice on the fraudulent FISA application in furtherance of Steele's and the Clinton campaigns efforts to spear Trump with foreign help could also potentially be prosecuted for making in kind contributions in furtherance of the designs of a foreign national. We could go on and on with this line of reasoning, up to and including both Clinton and Obama.

    If you are interested in the basics of the "legal niceties" here you can view Andrew McCarthy's summary here. https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/how-about-a-bipartisan-treaty-against-the-criminalization-of-elections/

    JD

  387. JD can correct me but I believe the campaign finance laws are almost never enforced and usually resolved by a campaign giving back suspect money. I've never heard of a prosecution under these laws. It's a stretch to see a "crime" here. Presidents ask other world leaders for things of value all the time, its their job. If Trump asks Germany to pay more for NATO so that he an spend less and invest the money in the economy so he can get re-elected, so what? Is that a campaign contribution? Roosevelt for several years actually conspired with Churchill to get the US more involved in the war. Congress didn't know about these contacts. It was his job and the nation was grateful for it. Bill Barr is doing an international investigation of the origins of the Russian investigation. Assistance from foreign governments is just fine. There are treaties that actually require it.

    The problem here is that Trump is a fighter and always pushes back in a way previous Republicans did not. This is what causes the hatred for Trump. It is actually a mental disorder that causes people like Shiff to make up conversations that never took place and claim over and over again that he had direct evidence of Russian collusion when that was a falsehood. Bush pretty much just let people hammer him with all kinds of falsehoods and libels. Sometimes people get used to getting away with libels and then get annoyed when someone pushes back.

  388. Joshua
    ** Does anyone really think that Trump cares one bit about corruption, or about anything other than his own self interest?**

    Oddly..well…yeah…no….yeah..no… ok here goes.

    First: I was hoping for a heart attack by now. Or failing that, Thor throwing down a lightening bolt and taking him on. But Trump is such an odd guy and I think he can "care" about all sorts of mutually exclusive things at ones.

    So, in some sense, I think he "cares" about corruption and would like it to be done away with.

    But I'm pretty sure he also was perfectly willing to live with and have dealing with corruption during his business life and saw it as "doing business".

    And having said that: I suspect Trump's main gripe against Biden isn't that Biden didn't anything bad to the country. Rather Trump is grouchy as heck that (at least from his view) the bureaucracy, or entrenched civils servants at places like FBI, CIA, Justice, seem to give a pass to people like Biden even when they do very real things wrong while slamming on him for..well… the whole Russia collusion thing.

    So I even though I think in *some* sense Trump might "care" about corruption, I don't think that's the main thing that was motivating him when he started on what might have been a weird rambling gripe fest with Ukraine.

    I don't buy the "Trump was being noble and trying to save the country". But I sort of also don't buy the "Trump was actually trying to put pressure on the president of Ukraine." I certainly don't the he was doing the latter to help him win the 2020 election. (Because… honestly, I don't think it's occurred to him that he needs to get *Biden* out of the way. And it's not his style to *even thing* he needs the President of Ukraine. I think he's say something like "(some adjective) Biden" in a snide voice and that will work.

    I strongly suspect Trump was doing what lots of people do (and what presidents ought to have learned not to do on the phone to heads of state). He was *griping*. Doing a whole "poor poor pitiful me". And aren't the "other guys terrible" thing that every had heard lots of people do.

    The guy is unsuited to the office. He's a pig. He's unreflective. A president shouldn't be doing that sort of thing on the phone, and it sounds horrible.

    But yeah… in *some* sense, he might "care" about corruption. But I don't think that explains his conversation with the pres of Ukraine.

    Honestly, I think this sort of thing might have been inevitable. He constantly tweets things, then contracts, says incomprehensible things…. It's sort of a weird Greek Tragedy twisted into farce… or something. Gosh it's tiring. But it's going to go on and on.

  389. David — Don't really know how often campaign laws are enforced. Not my area.

    ……
    Will say that a lot of Trump's problems are self-inflicted. In my mind, he gives no real loyalty to anyone and then receives no loyalty in return. Anyone working for him worries about themselves first and Trump second. If he had a cadre of loyal people he could stamp out the coup attempts. However, across his administration, there are many disloyal people who will be happy to spear him if they got a chance. If this was a more traditional presidency, he would have loyalists enforcing loyalty by others. I just don't see loyalty across the board, and I think it is hurting him.

    Can you imagine anyone in a Clinton or Obama administration filing a whistleblower complaint of the nature of the recent one that has been filed against Trump? For example, dozens of people were aware of Clinton's private email server, but very little push back against her clearly illegal action came from within the Obama administration. Also, about 130 million dollars just sailed into the Clinton foundation while she was Secretary of State without a peep from a whistleblower.

    JD

  390. David Young asks:

    "residents ask other world leaders for things of value all the time, its their job. If Trump asks Germany to pay more for NATO so that he an spend less and invest the money in the economy so he can get re-elected, so what? Is that a campaign contribution?"

    Um… no. Giving money to NATO is not contributing to Donald Trump or his campaign. Giving "dirt" on Trump's enemies to Trump, outside any official channels, is giving something to Trump or his campaign.

    "The problem here is that Trump is a fighter and always pushes back in a way previous Republicans did not. This is what causes the hatred for Trump."

    I'm pretty sure a person who does htings like brags about sexually assualting women, uses racial slurs, promoted bigoted and insane conspiracy theories, repeatedly insults anyone who says anything he dislikes and repeatedly fabricates claims about anything and everything may get hated for reasons other than he "always pushes back."

    Serious question David, why do ydo you think so many conservatives hate Obama? Given what you stated, as fact, is the reason for the hatred for Trump, I'd be curious to see your explanation for similar things on the other "side."

  391. JD Ohio says:

    "For example, dozens of people were aware of Clinton's private email server, but very little push back against her clearly illegal action came from within the Obama administration."

    There was nothing "clearly illegal" about Clinton having a private e-mail server. Heck, having a private e-mail server wasn't, in and of itself, illegal in the first place. It might have been used in some unlawful ways, but that wouldn't be clear to many people. Most people would not know how the server was being used to know there might be/was a problem. And even if they knew how the server was being used, they could well not know enough about the legal requirements to know it was unlawful.

    Clinton's use of a private e-mail server was dumb and wrong, but even now, with a wealth of information that wasn't public at the time, it is difficult to show anything about it was "clearly illegal." Comparing Clinton using a private e-mail server to what Trump did is silly. Even knowing what we know now, it likely wouldn't have even met the requirements for the reporting method used by this latest whistleblower.

    The strangest thing about the obsession over Clinton's e-mails is there were things in Obama's tenure that were much more clearly illegal. For an amusing example, Obama's Twitter account was used unlawfully, with the group managing it under his name violating multiple laws governing nonprofits. It was to the point the nonprofit was able to put words in Obama's mouth, getting him to publicly claim to have made statements they had actually made.

  392. Joshua (Comment #176484): "if there's one in such a small sample size, I'm guessing we can asse there are many."

    The rallies that Trump holds are far better evidence that many people believe that he cares about the United States and its people. Also, the election that he won. Trump supporters realize that he is fighting for them and their country against the international elites.

    Most people in the U.S. have figured out that the elites have been running the country for the benefit of the elites, not for the good of the country and its people. But they are divided by ideology and party; so they fail to unite to take their country back.

    The people are arguably further divided by Trump's style, hence the many comments along the lines of "if only Trump were not so repulsive" and "Trump is his own worst enemy". That assumes, without evidence, that a less combative individual could avoid being crushed by the elites. I am convinced that is not true. So although I dislike Trump's style, I am willing to put up with the bad for the sake of the good.

    ————-
    lucia (Comment #176487): "And having said that: I suspect Trump's main gripe against Biden isn't that Biden didn't anything bad to the country. Rather Trump is grouchy as heck that (at least from his view) the bureaucracy, or entrenched civils servants at places like FBI, CIA, Justice, seem to give a pass to people like Biden even when they do very real things wrong while slamming on him for..well… the whole Russia collusion thing."

    I agree. But I would add that the elites getting a pass for such things damages the country to a far greater degree than the acts they get away with.

  393. Joshua
    **Does anyone really think that Trump cares one bit about corruption, or about anything other than his own self interest?**

    I saw someone suggest this was rhetorical, and it does look like it is. I did answer it– and to do so, I read it as less extreme than the way you actually wrote it. But I think it's worthwhile for you to understand why this really, truly looks rhetorical (even if you want to say you asked it because you want to know the answer.)

    Of course,
    (1) it was just a bare question.
    .
    (2) it was at the absolute end of a long comment. That really looks like it is intended as a "closing point".
    .
    (3) It is worded in a VERY extreme way. The use of "one bit" and "anything" makes it quite obvious the answer MUST be "YES" at least a few people are going to think he cares *at least* "one bit" about corruption. (I do.) It's also obvious he cares about *at least* one thing other than his own self interest. It's not much of a hurdle. Among other things, I think he probably cares about Baron and Ivanka as much as his own self interest. Likely there are a few more things he cares about more than his own self interest.

    Hes' a strange dude. But just as I think Hillary cares about Chelsea possible more than Hillary's own self interest, I think Trump cares about his kids more than his self interest. Both are pretty dang self interested: but yes. I think both care about *at least one thing* more than their own self interest.

  394. I doubt Trump thought he was doing anything worse than the average politician at that level. He did in the open in front of others and released the transcripts and complaint almost immediately. One could say he was doing the normal grimy work of a politician in his mind except he is an awkward reckless amateur at the job. If the Clintons set out to lean on the Ukraine you can bet it would be in a much more professional manner with a couple levels of detachment.

  395. Tom
    **One could say he was doing the normal grimy work of a politician in his mind except he is an awkward reckless amateur at the job.**

    That's what I suspect is in his mind.

    **If the Clintons set out to lean on the Ukraine you can bet it would be in a much more professional manner with a couple levels of detachment.**
    Oh. Absolutely. They were honed politicians. It's why they succeeded in enriching themselves lavishly.

  396. The Harvard Asian discrimination case has been ruled on. No discrimination according to the judge.
    https://www.npr.org/2019/10/01/730386096/federal-judge-rules-in-favor-of-harvard-in-admissions-case
    .
    "This decision helps to reinforce this idea that there are legal ways to incorporate a racial-equity focus in the efforts of higher education leaders to create opportunities and support the success of underrepresented students of color."
    .
    Ha ha. What a joke. It's amazing how some find discrimination lurking everywhere where others can't see it right in front of their nose. There appears to be lot of prejudice involved in what constitutes discrimination.
    .
    I sure hope this gets appealed up the chain and the outcome of this case tightens up the legal requirements for discrimination. As it is, it is in the eye of the beholder which results in legal chaos. Obviously those with self professed good intentions could never discriminate.

  398. JD Ohio (Comment #176488): "In my mind, he gives no real loyalty to anyone and then receives no loyalty in return."

    Perhaps. But for the most part, it is not Trump appointees who have been stabbing him in the back.
    .
    JD Ohio: "across his administration, there are many disloyal people who will be happy to spear him if they got a chance. … Can you imagine anyone in a Clinton or Obama administration filing a whistleblower complaint of the nature of the recent one that has been filed against Trump? …"

    That is definitely true. But the people going after Trump and letting Clinton/Obama pass have not been political appointees. They are career mandarins. They are loyal to an establishment that includes Clinton, Obama, and most prominent politicians from both parties. Trump is opposed to that establishment. The mandarins are also almost all Democrats. So their loyalty goes something like: establishment Democrats, establishment Republicans, anti-establishment Democrats, anti-establishment Republicans, Trump. Trump is not just and anti-establishment Republican, he is one who is strong enough to scare the mandarins.

  399. Mike M –

    > > Trump cares about the United States and its people.

    I'm not sure what "cares about the United States" means, exactly. How do you distinguish between those who do or don't "care about the US.?". What are the criteria you use? The whole frame seems pretty jingoistic or shallow to me – more useful as a way to divide people in a partisan or castigating fashion than anthing else.

    I'd gueas say he cares about the United States in a
    sense. It's not like he wants the country to collapse – because that would reflect badly on his presidency, or negatively affect his family, or negatively affext his finances.

    I'd say that Trump cares about some of its people, and runs from indifferent to explicitly hostile to others of its people – largely in association with whether those people support his presidency.

    Lucia –

    Thanks for the response

    > But Trump is such an odd guy and I think he can "care" about all sorts of mutually exclusive things at ones.

    Sure. But maybe then so can we all. Maybe with him the discrepancies seem more apparent – he strikes me as caring little about logical consistency or coherency.

    > So, in some sense, I think he "cares" about corruption and would like it to be done away with.

    He stikes me as highky corrupt, and someine who has associated with a longkng of corrupt people for a very long time (e.g., Michael Cohen, Manifort types, etc.). To a very high degree. So from that, I gather that he has no generic sort of concern about corruption, and to the extent that he might be, it is only in the context of how it might affect him.

    > But I'm pretty sure he also was perfectly willing to live with and have dealing with corruption during his business life and saw it as "doing business".

    I. Agree

    > And having said that: I suspect Trump's main gripe against Biden isn't that Biden didn't anything bad to the country. Rather Trump is grouchy as heck that (at least from his view) the bureaucracy, or entrenched civils servants at places like FBI, CIA, Justice, seem to give a pass to people like Biden even when they do very real things wrong while slamming on him for..well… the whole Russia collusion thing.

    I doubt he cares about giving a pass to people like Biden if those people getting a pass serves his interest in skmw way. His concern about Biden's corruption, imo, is entirely a function of whether Biden's corruption can be leveraged to Trump's benefit.

    > But I sort of also don't buy the "Trump was actually trying to put pressure on the president of Ukraine."

    I have little doubt that Trump "speaks in code" so as to deliberately obfuscate his message. Plausible deniability is a useful tool. I don't KNOW that Trump was applying pressure to the president of Ukraine, but it certainly seems plausible to me that he was – particularly given the full context. I certainly think that a president who has some kind of generic concern about corruption would be careful to avoid situations which foster such interpretations the appearance of impropriety.

    > I certainly don't the he was doing the latter to help him win the 2020 election. (Because… honestly, I don't think it's occurred to him that he needs to get *Biden* out of the way.

    I don't share your certainty. I think it is entirely plausible, although I also think it's plausible that he was simply seeking diet on Biden just because Biden is a leading Democratic politician, and finding dirt on Biden can reinforce a sense of unity among trump's political constituency. It needn't be exclusively because he is strategically thinking of gaining advantage in a campaign against Biden. In fact knocking out Biden could, actually, be a counter-productive strategy if it leads to a stronger Dem candidate. So I don't think it's a product of a nuanced strategy – it's just rhe kind of thing he does. Attack, and use whatever means you have available to advance the attack. It's rather a scattershot and mass approach.

    > And it's not his style to *even thing* he needs the President of Ukraine.

    I agree with that.

    I think he's say something like "(some adjective) Biden" in a snide voice and that will work.I strongly suspect Trump was doing what lots of people do (and what presidents ought to have learned not to do on the phone to heads of state). He was *griping*. Doing a whole "poor poor pitiful me". And aren't the "other guys terrible" thing that every had heard lots of people do.

    > seems plausible to me

    > The guy is unsuited to the office. He's a pig. He's unreflective. A president shouldn't be doing that sort of thing on the phone, and it sounds horrible.

    Agreed

    > But yeah… in *some* sense, he might "care" about corruption. But I don't think that explains his conversation with the pres of Ukraine.

    Agreed. That explanation seems highky implausible to me.

    > Honestly, I think this sort of thing might have been inevitable. He constantly tweets things, then contracts, says incomprehensible things…. It's sort of a weird Greek Tragedy twisted into farce… or something. Gosh it's tiring. But it's going to go on and on.

    It will for me – in part because he seems to think that this kind of thing always works to his advantage.

  400. Brandon, You didn't read my comment. There is an official DOJ investigation of the origins of the Russia collusion investigation which in retrospect was based on foreign "dirt" from Steele and others paid for by the Clinton campaign. It is perfectly legal and normal for Barr and Trump to ask foreign governments for help with this as foreigners were intimately involved in the whole thing. There is also evidence that foreign governments were used by the FBI and CIA to spy on Trump campaign officials overseas because its illegal for the FBI to do it in the US. Popadopolous for example.

    The fact that you don't like Trump doesn't change these facts. I personally want to see this investigated thoroughly because it goes to the whole issue of accountability of government officials.

  401. "This decision helps to reinforce this idea that there are legal ways to incorporate racism in the efforts of higher education leaders to create opportunities and support the success of underrepresented students of color."
    .
    Fixed it.
    .
    "I'm sorry you didn't make it into our institution, but we have too many people who look like you here." Look these people in the eye and tell them what you really mean.
    .
    *Every* *single* *student* that applies is underrepresented within the institution. They deserve better.

  402. Joshua,
    With respect to thinking Trump highly corrupt, one has to then describe what "highly" would mean. I think he is at least a little corrupt– in the sense of dealing with corrupt people. I think he is no more, and likely less corrupt than the Clintons. (I would never vote for the Clintons because of their corruption.) He may be less corrupt than Biden. (Note: I voted for neither Clinton nor Trump. I voted for the crazy guy from New Mexico who was certain to lose.)
    .
    Oddly, people who are corrupt in "way A" can object strongly to corruption of "type B". This happens in sub-groups like the mafia. Weird… but happens.
    .
    I don't see his concern about Biden is *itself* corruption. Yes… he might let it slide if it's on his side. But then, so would Pelosi, or Clinton or Biden and so on. I don't necessarily see that as corruption. (It can slide into it, certainly. But it is not *itself* corruption.
    .
    **I have little doubt that Trump "speaks in code"**
    Nah. I don't buy any of these "playing 3 D chess" things from either his supporters or detractors. I doubt he can even play 1 D chess!

    .
    I gotta go practice.

  403. You have to assume that something useful is learned in a politician's 30 year career engaging with the system and elections. All career politicians tend to end up looking similar. What might those lessons be? A great test case is to throw in a wild bull into that environment and observe what happens. Chances are they won't last long when everyone has their knives out.
    .
    The system is treating Trump like a virus and trying to eliminate him, he does not belong and everyone in the system knows it. One can only imagine what the system would look like if it was chock full of Trumps, a pretty scary thought to those in the system. Protection of the system is paramount, or "protection of democracy" as it is usually curiously stated by those within.
    .
    However for many of the people who put Trump in the system this is the intended affect. An unambiguous warning signal that the system has become too distorted and self serving. Trump will be expelled from the system at some point and it will be interesting to see how the system reacts after their tears of joy. They will not want to repeat the experience, if they don't throw enough bones to the rubes then they will get more of the same.

  404. At a casual reading of the IC IG's Monday statement one would think that there was nothing to the allegation that the form was changed. I have questions though.
    .
    1) Did the whistleblower get form with the language requiring firsthand knowledge or not?
    .
    2) If so, why didn't the IC IG simply say so instead of stating it was the practice "at the time of the Aug 12" the complainant filed to provide the notice of requirement of the firsthand knowledge? Did he really mean "UP TO" that time? That would change everything.
    .
    3) If the old form required firsthand knowledge why was there a checkbox for both firsthand and secondhand knowledge? One would think the secondhand knowledge checkbox would not only be irrelevant but contradictory to the warning paragraph, (regardless if that was inconsistent with the statute).
    .
    4) If the complaint was filed on the old May 2018 form, as the IC IG claims, why does the ICIG go through the explanation of the new forms being created as the result of the new hotline program managers hiring in June 2019?
    .
    https://www.odni.gov/files/ICIG/Documents/News/ICIG%20News/2019/September%2030%20-%20Statement%20on%20Processing%20of%20Whistleblower%20Complaints/ICIG%20Statement%20on%20Processing%20of%20Whistleblower%20Complaints.pdf

  405. Joshua (Comment #176500): "I'm not sure what "cares about the United States" means, exactly. … The whole frame seems pretty jingoistic or shallow to me …"

    It was your frame.

  407. “…During an appearance on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, Hillary was asked if she had endorsed anyone.
    “No,” she responded, “no I’m not going to.”..”

    And some saying I am smoking funny stuff on thinking HC wants to get back into the Great Game. With Joe shortly out of the picture, and Bernie likely out due to a heart condition, the plot thickens. One “small accident“ to Warren and the game is afoot.
    .
    None of the remaining candidates would stand a chance against Hillary in the primaries. She would get her clock cleaned by Trump again, but as noted before, Wall Street would rather lose to Trump than win with Warren. Lots of cash available to see Warren go down. Wall Street is in an “anybody but Warren” mood.

  408. David Young (Comment #176501)
    October 2nd, 2019 at 8:35 am
    "Brandon, You didn't read my comment."

    I find this statement remarkable given you don't cite any errors in my comment or any statements made in the comment of yours I responded to which I supposedly failed to consider. I assure you, I did read your comment. Randomly saying I didn't and failing to explain how anything I said was wrong os misinformed is not likely going to make people believe you.

    It's fine if you don't want to respond to what people say. What makes it weird is when you still address your comments to them.

  409. Brandon, the line is "
    If you think that wrongdoing took place, but can provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions, IC IG will not be able to process the complaint or information for submission as an ICWPA."

    It is possible this is a repeat of 'finding the complaint credible', not that the submission will be ignored out of hand. Not 'process the complaint', but instead 'process the complaint for submission' meaning 'submit the complaint'.

    This does maybe still exclude my scenario of IG coming up with firsthand info during an investigation, because it says
    ' but can provide nothing more than second-hand or unsubstantiated assertions,' .

  410. Ed,
    Hillary may still dream. Highly unlikely to hold office again, in my view. She committed a grievous sin; she lost to Trump. Nobody much will want to gamble on her again I think. [Edit: I disagree with the notion that she'dwin the primary.].

  411. Mark, if something “unfortunate” were to happen to Warren, who in the current batch could beat her? The base still believes 2016 was “stolen” from them and don’t really blame Hillary. Wall Street would stick with Hillary and ensure she has plenty of money to campaign with.
    .
    Chances in the general have almost nothing to do with the chances in the primary due to how fired up the base is. A major portion of the Dem base would relish a 2016 do over.
    .
    I need to head over to a betting site and lay some money down for Hillary to run, win the primary, and lose to Trump.

  412. MikeN, I'm not sure I understand how you're claiming someone will not "process your complaint" means they will take your complaint, examine it, possibly do investigations based on it but not pass it on to Congress. I don't know what you think the word "process" in this context means, but it doesn't seem to match anything I can imagine.

    That said, I think we've wasted enough time on this semantic parsing. The paragraph in question was deleted for being (at least potentially) misleading. There was never any requirement whistleblowers have firsthand knowledge, even if some material may have falsely claimed (or at least suggested) there was. And the whistleblower claimed to have firsthand knowledge, meaning he'd have met that non-real requirement anyway.

    Is it possible some amount of semantic parsing could show that paragraph wasn't flat-out wrong, merely highly misleading? I guess. I don't see how, but if someone wants to try to find one, best of luck to them. I can't see what possible relevance it might have as anything other than an academic exercise though so I'm going to drop the subject.

  413. Ed,
    You're yanking my chain, I get it. Still. Biden and Sanders are *not* out of the race. Even if they were, and even if Warren were to commit suicide by shooting herself six (6) times in the back of the head, Hillary *still* wouldn't win the primary. It'd be Buttigieg or Harris. Hillary Clinton lost at the height of her power and popularity against an opponent who was perceived to have virtually no chance. She was Yamato at Midway; she threw away the DNC fleet. It's easy to say her base believes the election was stolen from her, but I'm pretty sure plenty of democrats are way smarter than that. She isn't going to be the one the democrats pin their hopes on to defeat the Donald, because out of all the possible contenders she's the only one who has *already lost* to Trump.

  414. Ed Forbes (Comment #176512)

    I need to head over to a betting site and lay some money down for Hillary to run, win the primary, and lose to Trump.
    ______

    Ed, anything is possible, but I doubt Hillary will run in 2020. I don't know why you think she can't beat Trump if she does run. The four-year change in demographics doesn't favor Trump.

    If you like taking risks, a lottery ticket offers greater rewards.

  415. MikeN
    My prediction is Trump wins Iowa, Ohio, NV, FL, Penn, NH, NC, Colo by 1.4, Maine by 1.3, NM by .4, Wisc by .2, lose Mich -.5, Virg by -1.5
    for 317 electoral votes.

    Max_OK (Comment #154942)
    November 7th, 2016 at 6:42 pm

    I have played the lottery, and I think I know how MikeN feels.

  416. Ok/Mike,

    I doubt Hillary will run. Though… yah never know. If people actually start kicking the bucket or bowing out, she might. But I doubt she'll get the nomination this time. She can't win it on her own, and she won't have extras she didn't actually win at the ballot.

  417. Brandon, You completely missed the substance of what I said and instead repeated your simplistic and largely incorrect statement about "dirt" on an opponent. Your comment was unresponsive to the main points.

    There is an ongoing DOJ criminal investigation into the origins of the Russia probe and probably also Ukraine collusion with Democrats to find "dirt" on Trump's campaign manager. It is perfectly legal to ask other heads of state to cooperate in these matters. In fact, there are treaties that actually require such cooperation in many cases.

    The Biden thing was a second thought, but not illegal either. The Hunter Biden thing stinks and there is probably criminality involved and Ukraine cooperation will be needed to find out. In any case campaign finance violations are typically treated as civil violations and not criminal ones. This is a giant nothing burger and about normal interactions between heads of state.

    I personally think the Democrats are desperately trying to create a false impression that Trump is unfit before the IG report on FISA abuse comes out and/or Barr indicts a host of former Obama officials. That's the story they really fear because it might show a deeply corrupt Obama administration.

  418. MikeN (Comment #176516)

    I have played the lottery, and I think I know how MikeN feels.
    ________

    That's good, but about what?

  420. David Young, asserting someone hasn't read what you wrote without addressing what they said or how it failed to address what you wrote is strange. Responding to someone pointing that out by repeating yourself, again failing to explain how what they've said was wrong or unresponsive to your initial remarks is bizarre.

    I responded to two things you said. You didn't point to any errors in my responses, and you haven't reference either point I responded to. They were:

    "Presidents ask other world leaders for things of value all the time, its their job. If Trump asks Germany to pay more for NATO so that he an spend less and invest the money in the economy so he can get re-elected, so what? Is that a campaign contribution?"
    "The problem here is that Trump is a fighter and always pushes back in a way previous Republicans did not. This is what causes the hatred for Trump."

    For the former, I pointed out the comparison was nonsensical as asking for things for the sake of the country is different than asking for things for the sake of oneself. For the latter, I pointed out Trump is and has done many things that could reasonably engender hate other than what you described.

    I don't see how what you now claim was "the substance of what [you] said" was present in your initial remark. It seems after I disagreed with what you said, you chose to completely change what you were saying, ignoring everything you had said before.
    And you did this while claiming I didn't read what you said.

    As I said, it seems bizarre.

  421. Everyone seems to assume that Biden, Warren, and Sanders are the only candidates with a chance at the Dem nomination. But polls have basically split the Dem vote into 1/3 Biden, 1/3 Warren+Sanders, 1/3 other (including undecided). I don't see how one can just write off the last 1/3, especially since most of those voters are probably the less involved who have not yet paid much attention and probably won't like the more extreme candidates. Yes, it is a weak group, but the entire field is weak. As the primaries approach, someone (Klobacher?) might emerge from that group, especially if the Biden campaign falls apart.

  422. Tom Scharf and others,

    Red meat. As soon as someone who claims to be a dietary expert or nutrition scientist says that you shouldn't consume or consume a minimum of red meat, I tune them out. Also, I don't think that anyone is a dietary expert and nutrition science is currently an oxymoron ( see, for example, here: https://www.foodrenegade.com/why-i-dont-trust-nutrition-scientists/ ). It turns out that most dietary studies are retrospective and depend on the subjects memory of what and how much they ate. Those studies are almost certainly bogus. It turns out that if you sum up the calories claimed to have been eaten, all those people should be dead or at least look like liberated death camp survivors.

    The Mediterranean diet thing is, as I remember, based on a study that is even more a joke than most other dietary studies. They did their survey during Lent in mostly Catholic countries. Of course the diet is going to look like it's low in red meat and high in fish. But that's not what they eat over the full year.

    The problem with trying to do prospective studies where people actually keep accurate track of what they eat or are provided specific diets is that everybody will quickly drop out.

  423. Judge finds that Harvard doesn't intentionally discriminate against Asian-Americans.

    The Humpty Dumpty Theory of Language strikes again.

    "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean- neither more nor less."

    If what Harvard is doing isn't intentional discrimination, then those words don't mean to the judge what everyone else thinks they mean. Btw, guess who appointed the judge to the Federal bench. If you said Barack Obama, you win the prize.

  424. MikeM, the only reason Klobuchar hasn't dropped out is in case Biden falls apart.
    You are correct the undecided makes these recent polls somewhat meaningless.
    In the Iowa caucuses, people can(must?) choose someone else if there are not enough people in support of their candidate. That other third of the vote will move around, and at the caucus level.

  425. DeWitt,
    Just remember, there are no ‘Obama judges’….. which is just more mindless Humpty Dumpty nonsense, consistent with Roberts ducking every instance where a law is plainly contrary to the Constitution. It was clear what the outcome of the Harvard case would be when an Obama judge was selected to hear it. The long delay in issuing the judgement was due to the judge trying to provide the appeals court that gets the case with as much justification as possible for continued discrimination in Harvard admissions.
    .
    On to the appeals court, and then the SC.

  426. My original comment talked about the DOJ investigation. What you are doing is a pattern for you. You ignore the substance of what is said and instead focus narrowly on a few words you disagree with. In this case your "dirt" statement is factually inaccurate. Trump asked for help with an active criminal probe that intersected Ukrainians actions during 2016. Biden was an afterthought but still probably related to Barr and Durham's investigation.

  427. Lucia –

    > The use of "one bit" and "anything" makes it quite obvious the answer MUST be "YES" at least a few people are going to think he cares *at least* "one bit" about corruption. (I do.)

    OK. Fair enough. It was a poorly worded question.

  428. Lucia –

    > With respect to thinking Trump highly corrupt, one has to then describe what "highly" would mean.

    What I meant is that there is a long history of involvement with people like Cohen, Roger Stone, etc.

    > I think he is no more, and likely less corrupt than the Clintons. (I would never vote for the Clintons because of their corruption.) He may be less corrupt than Biden. (Note: I voted for neither Clinton nor Trump. I voted for the crazy guy from New Mexico who was certain to lose.)

    Obviously, his level of corruption exists independent of comparisons. So the way I look at it is that whether the Clintons were equally corrupt doesn't speak to his level of corruptness, or the plausibility of him being concerned about corruptness as some sort of principle
    .
    > But then, so would Pelosi, or Clinton or Biden and so oni have a similar reaction there.

    > I don't necessarily see that as corruption. (It can slide into it, certainly. But it is not *itself* corruption.

    I don't really understand what you're saying there.
    .
    >. **I have little doubt that Trump "speaks in code"**
    Nah. I don't buy any of these "playing 3 D chess" things from either his supporters or detractors. I doubt he can even play 1 D chess!

    I doubt he plays chess. But I think he has a very effective strategy. It is limited in a sense, in that it doesn't vary much. But it doesn't have to. It's a one size fits all strategy. I think there's good evidence that it fiows directly from Roy Cohn, and his strategy.

    The "speaking in code" would be part of that strategy. It isn't particularly complex or sophisticated unto itself. I don't think that Michael Cohen was making it up when he described Trump's use of that strategy over the many years they worked together. It strikes me as a strategy that "corrupt" people use fairly frequently. It doesn't take a lot of spontaneous skill or agility in real time, if one has developed the basic technique over a period of time, and learned it from mentors (like Roy Cohn).

    .

  429. > The rallies that Trump holds are far better evidence that many people believe that he cares about the United States and its people.

    My poorly worded question wasn't meant to suggest that I think he doesn't "care about the United States" (again, with a caveat that I find that phrase pretty meaningless and banal) or "it's people."

    Let me just make it simpler, I think he has no particular concern about corruption per se – and that he is very concerned about his own political best I terest. At times, he portrays his concern about self
    Interest as concern about corruption, but I think that's a shallow and obviously transparent strategy of political expediency.

    As for his crowds at rallies, my impression is that most of the people that comprise those crowds wouldn't really see Trump as particularly concerned about corruption either. I don't think that msny people see him that way. I think that many people, even among those who support him, think that he's a liar and an unethical person. That doesn't seem to me to dovetail very well with being concerned about corruption. But many people also are willing to overlook those traits because they identify with him in powerful ways (basically, because he reflects their hatred of libz) . Many of his fans, say members of the evangelical community, previously felt that someone with Tump's ethics would be disqualified from holding high political office, but they've changed in their view on that issue. That doesn't mean that they no longer think that he has done those things in his personal life that they would previously have considered disqualifying. They've just changed in how they look at the importance of those behaviors

    > Most people in the U.S. have figured out that the elites have been running the country for the benefit of the elites, not for the good of the country and its people. But they are divided by ideology and party; so they fail to unite to take their country back.

    Do you think that Trump isn't an "elite," and not one of the "elite" that are "running the country?" (another term I find quite jingoistic and rather meaningless, btw). How do you define the "elite" who are "running the country?"

  430. Brandon: " I pointed out the comparison was nonsensical as asking for things for the sake of the country is different than asking for things for the sake of oneself."
    .
    Are you saying that asking to investigate Victor Shokin's fresh affidavit and five others alleging Biden's corruption is only for Trump's personal gain? (not rhetorical) BTW, the story about the corruption broke in the NYT in December 2015 that Shokin was investigating Burisma. It then took Biden a few months to get Shokin fired. Shokin swears under oath that the Ukraine president asked him to resign due to Biden, and made that clear.
    .
    My opinion is that the about the only thing of value that qualifies as a quid pro quo is personal direct monetary gain. Otherwise every pork barrel piece added to any legislation should be getting somebody removed. If that happened congress would have trouble finding quorums.
    .
    Johua, the guy you voted for, his named is Gary Johnson. My son also voted for him. I would have too but never forgot getting burned by voting for Ross Perot.
    .
    DeWitt, my other son is currently at Harvard. I did't pay anyone off, honest. I'll ask him if he hangs with Malia Obama.
    .
    Newsflash — Schiff knew about the "whistleblowing" before the complaint was filed. We might have to change its name to "Whistlegate." https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/02/us/politics/adam-schiff-whistleblower.html

  431. David Young, your initial comment was 251 words, including some strange, irrelevant rambling about World War 2 after which you wrote these 28 words:

    "Bill Barr is doing an international investigation of the origins of the Russian investigation. Assistance from foreign governments is just fine. There are treaties that actually require it."

    How is one supposed to know this is "the substance" of your comment, buried in the middle of other things which are not "the substance"? And even if you feel this 10% of your comment is "the substance" while the rest is… something else, why should that mean people can't discuss the other 90% of your comment? Why should people be precluded from discussing the things you write which they want to discuss? Why should you get to ignore 90% of what you say, insisting people only get to discuss the other 10%? I don't know the answer to any of those questions because it seems you just arbitrarily decide what people should and should not respond to.

    Beyond which, what you claim to have said before isn't the same as what you said before. There's no way a person could know the supposed criminal probe into Ukrainian actions during 2016 you refer to now (even though none exists) is connected to the origins of the Russian investigation (an investigation which has absolutely no connection to Ukraine). Even if they did, there's no way someone could know that is supposed to be connected to the Biden Jr., which has no relation to the topic at all. I know you say:

    "Biden was an afterthought but still probably related to Barr and Durham's investigation."

    But the reality is there isn't any basis for connecting these things. You didn't even claim there was one in your initial comment. If this issue really were "the substance" of your comment, perhaps you'd have been better off devoting more than 10% of your words to it. Then perhaps you could have explained what connections you think there are between any of these things.

  432. Ron Graf:
    "Are you saying that asking to investigate Victor Shokin's fresh affidavit and five others alleging Biden's corruption is only for Trump's personal gain?"

    I don't know what you're referring to since you don't bother to give any specifics or references and Trump didn't mention such. With the caveat I can't speak to the specifics of your question, I will say yes, it was unquetionably for Trump's personal gain that he specifically asked his political rival be investigated.

    This is like a police officer stopping someone he dislikes for speeding every chance he gets while not stopping other people for it. Some people would inevitably defend him saying, "Speeding is bad, why are you defending it?!" If Trump actually cared about corruption in Ukraine, why didn't he try to pursue any investigations of anyone else? Why was the only target his rival? (For that matter, why has he smeared the people who are trying to fight corruption while siding with people enabling it?)

    "It then took Biden a few months to get Shokin fired. Shokin swears under oath that the Ukraine president asked him to resign due to Biden, and made that clear. My opinion is that the about the only thing of value that qualifies"

    Then you're a fool. Biden was one of many voices pushing for Shokin to be fired. He wasn't even the person in the United States government who came up with the idea. It came up through the ranks of diplomatic staff due to displeasure over Shokin failing to pursue corruption investigations. And when Biden did get involved, he had the support of the government at large. As well as teh support of tons of people, organizations and governments across the world.

    Pretending Biden did this alone is dishonest. Saying all you care about is the self-serving remarks of a man widely accused of enabling corruption through his inaction is… well, worse.

    "a quid pro quo is personal direct monetary gain."

    No. Just no. I can't read any further into your comment. This is too dumb.

  433. DeWitt Payne (Comment #176523)
    October 2nd, 2019 at 7:25 pm
    Tom Scharf and others,

    "The problem with trying to do prospective studies where people actually keep accurate track of what they eat or are provided specific diets is that everybody will quickly drop out."
    ______

    DeWiit, I would be surprised if people didn't know what they eat and drink regularly and what they consume only rarely. Obviously, they should know what they don't eat or drink. I doubt, however, most know how many calories they consume.

  434. Max –

    Self-report data in general, and on food consumption in particular, is notoriously unreliable. I've been doing some work with someone who researches the effects of physical activity and diet on obesity. A technique she's usually more recently involved participants photographing their plates of food before and after eating, and having analysts estimate calories and other metrics based on those photographs.

  435. Ron –

    I wouldn't give up the opportunity to cast a meaningful vote against Trump, but truth told I'd kind of prefer to vote for Weld over any of the dem candidates. I don't like any of them personally or stylistically with the exception of Buttegeig, and although I disagree with Weld more on most political issues, I prefer him personally and stylistically to most of the dems and kind of think that we may need someone like Weld to break this cycle of antipathy and division. I'd sacrifice on political grounds to get some colaboration and bipartisanship on issues like infrastructure.

  436. Brandon: "I don't know what you're referring to…"
    It's been in the conservative news for six months. One of the benevolent aspects of this site is the news crossover.
    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/09/29/rudy_giuliani_trump_is_being_framed_this_document_shows_ukrainian_prosecutor_under_oath_saying_he_was_fired_for_investigating_hunter_biden.html
    .
    "This is like a police officer stopping someone he dislikes for speeding every chance he gets…"
    Equal application of the law is a funny argument for liberals to be making. If Trump's point man on Ukraine suddenly had his son get recruited to the board of one of the most powerful Ukrainian companies I think Trump would have that investigated too. Just a hunch.
    .
    I was defining a quid pro quo for threshold for official disciplinary action to be taken, not the dictionary's "this for that."
    .
    Joshua, I sort of agree with you that Trump has gained support by those who otherwise think he's a pig. Lucia might be one. I'm not sure of your logic that it could only be because of the THEIR corruption, however. It could also be a reaction to the reaction, derangement, resistance, socialist revolution, etc…

  437. DeWitt Payne (Comment #176524)

    Judge finds that Harvard doesn't intentionally discriminate against Asian-Americans.

    If what Harvard is doing isn't intentional discrimination, then those words don't mean to the judge what everyone else thinks they mean.
    _______

    "Both sides clashed over of a 2013 internal report at Harvard examining race in admissions. It found that if the school weighed applicants based on academics alone, 43% of the admitted class would be Asian American, while in reality, it was 19%."

    https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2019-10-01/harvard-admissions-lawsuit-ruling

    Those numbers sure would look like discrimination against Asian Americans if academics alone determined admissions, but Harvard considers race and other factors in choosing applicants in order to have diversity.

    I could be wrong but I think the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Affirmative Action in a Texas U case. I don't know how the Harvard case differs. I have mixed feelings about Affirmative Action.

  438. Joshua (Comment #176537)
    October 2nd, 2019 at 9:53 pm
    Max –

    "Self-report data in general, and on food consumption in particular, is notoriously unreliable."
    _____

    Sure, people or unaware or even lie about what they eat and drink. More than once I've heard "I try to lose weight, but can't, and I don't know why." Well I know why, it's because you have consumed more calories than your body burned.

    But if the interest is in kind of food and drink consumed rather than the amount, I think you can rely on vegetarians not eating meat and teetotalers not drinking alcohol (unless lying). You can rely on Japanese eating lots of fish, Irish drinking lots of Guinness, Oklahomans eating lots of fried foods and greasy dishes such as sausage gravy on biscuits.

    Another approach is to gather data on sales by types of food and drink. People consume what they buy, minus what they throw away. That data should be available for the U.S. and other developed countries. Probably that's been studied.

  439. Joshusa,
    **Self-report data in general, and on food consumption in particular, is notoriously unreliable.**
    Yes. I'm on a diet today.
    Self report consumption for food for today: 1 small radish.
    Actual consumption:

    breakfast: 2 eggs, 3 slices of bacon, two pieces of toast *for breakfast*
    10 pm snack: 1 hershey bar. I am not disclosing the size of said bar…..
    Lunch: 1 small radish.
    3 pm snack: Bought and consumed 1 4oz "snacking chocolate" while in the line buying food at Trader Joes.
    3:15 pm snack: in the car while waiting: 1/2 of 100 grams of hazelnut intended as coating on salmon.
    6:30: Husband made hazlenut crusted salmon, salad and etc. I told him I was on a diet and merely "looked" at the food as he ate.
    10:00 pm I am starving. Ate refrigerated "left over" hazelnut coated salmon, found a dove bar in the fridge, ate that, found two old pieces of left over pizza in fridge, washed them down with 2 glasses of pinot grigio.

    But really, I only ate 2 radishes… all… day….

  440. Joshua
    ** So the way I look at it is that whether the Clintons were equally corrupt doesn't speak to his level of corruptness, or the plausibility of him being concerned about corruptness as some sort of principle**

    Well, yeah. Kinda, sorta. But when someone uses an adjective, we sometimes need to calibrate. Does "very corrupt" mean more or less than the corruption of X? You can certainly be true he is "very" corrupt, but if I am to agree, we need to agree on what the level of "very corrupt" means. That requires comparison.

    But if your point is: He can be corrupt even if the Clintons are corrupt: Of course. The can both be curript. It's not either/or. But I think we still need to establishe what "very " corrupt means. Does it mean *more* corrupt than the Clintons? or is it Less? If we can't pin down what "very corrupt" means– using other examples– I (and presumably others) can't figure out if we agree with your diagnosis of "very corrupt"

    So yes… we can say he is corrupt w/o talking about the Clintons. But he's a politician. And a president. So the question of whether he is more or less corrupt than other presidents or politicians is, in my view, worth discussing.
    .
    Otherwise, we are debating whether his more corrupt than St. Stephan, or Sister Theresa, the Budah & etc. There isn't much point in nailing down that we both agree he is more corrupt than Saints. He's a politician: on *that* level, is he particularly corrupt. Because, yes, relative to Budah, he is probably "very corrupt. But if that's all "very corrupt" means.. well.. ho hum.

    (And WRT to impeachment of a president, that's actually the level relative to politicians, not the Budah, that matters. Because, honestly, I don't really want Budah to be president.)

    **I don't really understand what you're saying there.**
    I'm saying
    .
    "I don't see [Trump'] concern about Biden is *itself* corruption. "
    .

    You quoted the elaboration. But basically: I don't see this as corruption. Maybe you do, and we could discuss that. But I don't see Trump being concerned with (alleged) corruption by Biden as being, in and of itself, corruption.

  441. Joshua,
    **Let me just make it simpler, I think he has no particular concern about corruption per se
    **
    Per se? Mostly…I agree with you… yeah… Not "corruption per se".
    .
    Or failing that, he may not be very good at detecting corruption “per se”. He is able to see corruption when the outcome pisses him off. (He is hardly unique in this!)
    .
    **I think that's a shallow**
    .
    Well… I think Trumps’s shallow…. So almost anything he says is related to something shallow. (That’s why I can’t take accusations of “code” seriously. Communicating in code requires a degree of “depth”)
    .
    **comprise those crowds wouldn't really see Trump as particularly concerned about corruption either.**
    Oddly… not sure about this… some of them MIGHT see him as concerned about that. ( Many of these people ALSO can’t identify corruption “per se”. But they aren’t the only ones who can’t. MOST people can’t.)
    .
    **think that he's a liar and an unethical person**
    .
    Oh.. I think many of his supporters think (in fact know) he lies. A LOT.
    .
    But they don’t think he’s unethical.
    .
    By reflection, many of Bill Clinton’s supporters thought he lied, but was not unethical. (We could compare and contrast the lies. But Clinton clearly lied— and often prevaricated. Trump… it’s weird. It’s sometimes outright lies. It’s sometimes “BS”. I need to find the link to the scholarly paper “On Bullshit”.)
    .
    So, in fact, it's pretty common for people to recognize someone lies (a lot) and yet not conclude they are unethical.

    .**many people also are willing to overlook those traits because they identify with him in powerful ways**
    .
    Well.. yeah. That was the same reasons some Clinton supporters gave him (and Hillary) a pass for many of his very bad traits– including obvious corruption. So: yes. People do this. Alla da time… They just do it for different people and for different reasons.
    .
    The often don't understand why *other* people give someone a pass for *other* reasons… but.. oh… well. It's a thing people do. But Trump and Clinton supporters do/did it. Others will in the future. Others did in the past.
    .
    **Do you think that Trump isn't an "elite," and not one of the "elite" **’

    Oh.. well.. yeah. “Elites’ is a word now. In SOME ways Trump is “an elite” and in other ways not But obviously, he was born with a sterling silver spoon in his mouth…
    .
    Trump doesn't "act" elite. But of course, that doesn't make him "not elite".

  442. Brandon, your latest comment is a perfect example of why talking to you is pointless. You focus on legalistic textual analysis and don't deal with substance. My main point is that "dirt" is irrelevant and a tortured analysis. A far more straightforward analysis is the obvious one. Trump wanted Ukraine to aid Barr in his official law enforcement duties. It's all perfectly legal and appropriate.

  443. Ron Graf:
    "It's been in the conservative news for six months. One of the benevolent aspects of this site is the news crossover."

    If you think that reports there was "Victor Shokin's fresh affidavit and five others alleging Biden's corruption," would you please quote the portion you think is relevant? I was aware of Shokin's affidavit, and in fact had read it, but that link doesn't say a word about five other affidavits. If you can't quote a passage about them, could you at least say who supposedly gave them?

    The only time the number five even comes up in that link is when Guiliani said, "He said about five other things that are totally false." That clearly doesn't support what you said. If there were five other affidavits, which I've never heard anyone else claim, it'd be helpful if you could provide a reference indicating such.

    "Equal application of the law is a funny argument for liberals to be making. If Trump's point man on Ukraine suddenly had his son get recruited to the board of one of the most powerful Ukrainian companies I think Trump would have that investigated too. Just a hunch."

    You are free to have whatever hunches you want, but given the rampant corruption in Trump's administration, I think many people will have different ones.

    "I was defining a quid pro quo for threshold for official disciplinary action to be taken, not the dictionary's 'this for that.'"

    Your claim is laughably false regardless. We've had the acutal legal requirement quoted on this very page. It doesn't match what you say at all. It explicitly refers to things other than money.

  444. David Young, for a person who complains I ignore things, you do a remarkably good job of never addressing anything I say. I think it'd be best for everyone if we just didn't respond to one another.

    It'd basically be what you're doing already, just without the attitude and derision.

  445. Brandon, Giuliani held up the other affidavits on Hannity last night. They may not be as clear with firsthand knowledge as Shokin's and thus have not been reported (denied) yet in the MSM. I did find a good article in the Intercept that goes into a lot of Giuliani's Ukraine Manafort and Biden evidence, if only to explain it all away. The strongest arguments made supporting Biden is that there were others who asked for the prosecutor to be fired due to his slow movement on cases leading people to believe he was being paid off. Giuliani claimed last night that the replacement prosecutor and even Poroshenko took payoffs. That I think was his guess. The bottom line to me is if everyone agrees that Ukraine has massive systemic corruption why would Biden's son accept a lucrative consulting deal from the same corruption hole just weeks after his father is made the gatekeeper of billions to? Why was Obama on board? Why was there no whistle-blower? Why did the MSM and Dems not even look at it?
    https://theintercept.com/2019/09/22/reporters-stop-helping-donald-trump-spread-lies-joe-biden-ukraine/
    .
    The article even makes the argument that Biden's getting Shokin fired must have been innocent or he wouldn't have bragged about it. I think others could draw the conclusion that Biden was used to full protection. He neither feared the media or his Dem candidate rivals would dare to cross him with the corruption call out. Biden last week claimed he had no knowledge of his son's business deals with Ukraine or China. That has already been debunked by quotes found from Biden's son. But who would have believed that claim? I guess Biden expected liberals would and that it would be supported by the MSM. I wonder if Hunter is going to claim he didn't know about his father being point man on Ukraine and China. I wonder if he did claim that whether it would be questioned by the Intercept writer. Lucia is right; its a question of relative corruption. That's why I'm interested to see where she has to place her vote in 2020. I see Trump's lies about his inauguration crowd size as not in the same league and Biden's and the supposedly impartial media's.
    .
    WRT to quid pro quo, "this for that" is pretty much the essence of politics. Everything worth trading has value. Brandon, could you clarify with some examples of past illegal quid pro quos? Also, please cite the "rampant corruption" in the Trump administration. I would like you to keep in mind that rampant corruption is the norm. Getting called out was the rarity. I think the Trump officials now are understanding they can't get away with one tenth of what was OK under the Obama norm. Biden is the perfect example.

  446. Ron
    **That's why I'm interested to see where she has to place her vote in 2020.**
    Probably a third party candidate like 2016!

    ** I see Trump's lies about his inauguration crowd size as not in the same league and Biden's and the supposedly impartial media's.**
    The lies about crowd sizes falls under "puffery" which is ubiquitous in sales of things. It is SO ubiquitous, that if a customer complains a restaurant claims the have the "BEST donuts in the WORLD", people (and for that matter courts) just roll their eyes and sigh. The exaggerated claim is, a "lie", but it's not considered "corrupt". Courts don't even necessarily see it as *deceptive*. They accept that customers know that salesmen "puff" when marketing and certain types of claims are mere "puffery".

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puffery

    I should add, of course, that Trump does *actually lie*. Not all his lies are mere puffery.

  447. God, why do I even read the news.
    Eric Holder: You have to not only be substantively neutral, you have to appear to be neutral when you are the AG of the United States.
    Also Eric Holder: I'm still the President's wing-man, so I'm there with my boy.

  448. Ron
    **I sort of agree with you that Trump has gained support by those who otherwise think he's a pig. Lucia might be one**
    No. Lucia is not one. I don't support Trump.

  449. OK_Max
    **DeWiit, I would be surprised if people didn't know what they eat and drink regularly and what they consume only rarely. **
    Well… you might be surprised, but lots of people don't know HOW MUCH they eat and how that relates to portion sizes appropriate to keeping weight down.

    Many don't know how OFTEN they eat certain things. I'm pretty darn sure there are tons of people who go to office parties and get "a little" bit of cake when it's in the lounge for their friends, and do so pretty darn often, but who would say they "rarely" eat cookies, cake dessert and so on.

    Many people probably think they "rarely" eat candy– but get a piece out of the secretaries bowl of vanishing candy. Many think they "occasionally" drink soda, but get some every day.

    **Obviously, they should know what they don't eat or drink. I doubt, however, most know how many calories they consume.**
    Only people who write down everything, weigh it, record calories and sum up the damages know how many calories they consume.
    I don't do this. I don't know. I do eat more than a radish a day.

    So far this morning: a bowl of cereal ('toasty ohs), 2% milk, dried sugared cranberries. To somewhat limit unintentionally large servings, I intentionally bought plates and bowls that are on the small size of what's available at stores. (You can currently buy bowls so large they would hold 4 official servings sizes of a breakfast cereal like 'cherrios'.)

  450. The basic problem is that doing observational studies (nutrition) with conclusions based on correlation (aka "A linked to B") that have a lot of degrees of freedom opens up the door so wide to intentional and unintentional bias that we might as well say we have proved these studies are hopelessly biased by observation.
    .
    Kale no doubt makes people live longer, so does shopping at Whole Foods. High end coffee and opera extends lives. Let's just short circuit it all and say wealth makes you live longer.
    https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2016/04/for-life-expectancy-money-matters/
    .
    Wealthy people eat better, exercise more, have less obesity, better health care, less stress, etc. Is it possible to normalize for these confounding factors? I suppose so if you actually knew what they are, but if you are an activist at a prestigious institution with a bad case of noble cause corruption then you need to make an impact by overstating your case. The media builds you up as a hero and it just gets worse.

  451. Tom Scharf,
    In addition, like it or not, like intelligence, good health facilitates activities that allow one to become wealthy. If you are ill, it's harder to:

    * pursue education, attend classes, study late into the night than otherwise.
    * do heavy manual labor.
    * harder to wait tables long hours to pay for your education.
    * attract a healthy spouse who can attend classes, do manual labor and endure grueling hours of work.
    * be able to become a super dooper athlete, and make jillions in the NFL (or similar.)

    And, of course, wrt to genetic– heritable– reasons for ill health, your parents having debilitating health condition A can cause them to not accumulate wealth as much as they otherwise might. You might have inherited both the ill health AND the debilitating condition!

    So with respect to correlation, being healthy can both be a *cause* and *an effect* of wealth. (For their to be correlation, causation need only be partial.) It can also be a positive feedback.

  452. lucia (Comment #176555)
    To somewhat limit unintentionally large servings, I intentionally bought plates and bowls that are on the small size of what's available at stores.
    _______

    That's a good idea. Do you also look at the calories on labels and weigh yourself frequently?

    I weigh myself about every other day. My weight doesn't vary much because my diet and exercise habits don't vary much.

  453. There is no question that there is an increasing positive feedback with cognitively gifted and wealthy people self selecting to mate with and live near each other over the past 75 years. There is value to asking the question why these people have better life outcomes and how much of that can be transferred to the less gifted/wealthy. I'm not so sure that is being done very effectively.
    .
    However it is tiring when the usual suspects attach inflated morality to their lifestyles that are enabled by their wealth. Taxpayers just need to spend more for school lunches to remove red meat to save the planet. I will never allow plastic bags and straws in my Cadillac Escalade! I only use bamboo utensils. My personal trainer says don't get fat. Yeah us! Science and signaling have become intertwined, let's do research into why my in-group is so wonderful and how the rubes need to change their ways. I'm disgusted by how much those impoverished kids love their ice cream, locally sourced organic turnips would be much better for them, science says so.
    .
    Maybe it's just that all the low hanging science fruit have been picked, and it is exponentially more difficult to get meaningful results, versus announcing meaningful results that don't pan out under scrutiny. I am hard pressed to think of anything nutrition science has handed us over the past 25 years that was meaningful. Science in general is getting into diminishing returns per dollar in my view.

  454. OK_Max
    **That's a good idea. Do you also look at the calories on labels and weigh yourself frequently?**
    I do look at calorie labels. I also look some foods up. (Wine doesn't have calorie labels. Neither does produce.)

    I weigh myself frequently when I am actively worried about weight. But when I've said to hell with it… not so much. Usually, I gain weight during those times.

    I don't measure food, record what I eat or tally calories. Ever. It's too tedious. But I do when something has a whopping number of calories and when it doesn't. Candy bars? Wine? Those can make your calorie count go way up.

  455. Ron Graf (Comment #176549)
    "Brandon, Giuliani held up the other affidavits on Hannity last night. They may not be as clear with firsthand knowledge as Shokin's and thus have not been reported (denied) yet in the MSM."

    Have they been reported anywhere? YOu said, ""It's been in the conservative news for six months." You now say the MSM may not have covered it, but prsuambly, you think somebody has. I can't imagine you're saying the only way anyone can verify this claim you're making is to dig up a past broadcast of some television show to find something you claim, without any details or specifics, is in it.

    As it stands, I see little reason to believe what you say on this matter. It sounds like you've just gotten things confused.

    "Why did the MSM and Dems not even look at it?"

    I think a more interesting question would be, why didn't the Republicans even look at it? Fox News spents thousands of hours covering other "controversies" in Obama's administration, and here, the key facts to the story were reported in the "mainstream media." If this story really were what people are making it out to be, Fox News and REpublicans must have been incredibly inept to not make a fuss about it years ago.

    "WRT to quid pro quo, "this for that" is pretty much the essence of politics. Everything worth trading has value. Brandon, could you clarify with some examples of past illegal quid pro quos?"

    No. You making up bizarre definitions and insisting they're what everyone uses is not enough to make me want to spend the time writing up an explanation with references. That'd be a good way to let you waste a ton of my time by constantly making things up and asking me to disprove them.

    "Also, please cite the "rampant corruption" in the Trump administration. I would like you to keep in mind that rampant corruption is the norm. Getting called out was the rarity."

    So you claim rampant corruption is the norm, but you want me to cite examples of it? That seems weird. But alright, one example, Trump is directing the government to spend millions of dollars on his own businesses, from which he derives a profit. Using your position as a government official to force public funds to be spent in your own business is textbook corruptio. It's even quite possibly illegal, hence why the courts are dealing with lawsuits over it right now.

    "I think the Trump officials now are understanding they can't get away with one tenth of what was OK under the Obama norm. Biden is the perfect example."

    LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

  456. Sorry about the caps lock portion of my last post, but come on. I can't be the only one who remembers the constant rhetoric on Fox News about all the things Obama supposedly did wrong. By any objective measure, what Republicans came up with during Obama's presidency cannot compare to what Trump does without people even batting an eye.

    Maybe this goes back to the classic "mainstream media" problem. Fox News is regularly touted as the most popular news station yet many people insist on saying it's not "mainstream news." Fox News is the most influential news organization in the nation right now, yet there's still this belief the "mainstream media" is somehow suppressing things and "keeping us down."

    I don't know. What I do know is I'm confident if Obama had let a reporter get brutally murdered by an ally without repercussion, much less while going to bat to defend the murderers, Republicans would have called for him to be impeached. With Trump, that's just another day in the office. It's easy to find dozens more examples.

    Reporters were soft on Obama, but Fox News and Republicans were still actively looking for things Obama (supposedly) did wrong. They didn't accuse Obama of a fraction of the things they now openly acknowledge Trump does.

  457. Tom Scharf (Comment #176557)

    "However it is tiring when the usual suspects attach inflated morality to their lifestyles that are enabled by their wealth. Taxpayers just need to spend more for school lunches to remove red meat to save the planet. I will never allow plastic bags and straws in my Cadillac Escalade! I only use bamboo utensils. My personal trainer says don't get fat. Yeah us! Science and signaling have become intertwined, let's do research into why my in-group is so wonderful and how the rubes need to change their ways."
    ______

    I have worked hard to rise from the lower-middle class to the elite, and here you are suggesting there's something wrong with me for being successful. Maybe there's something wrong with you.

    Although I could easily afford prime beef every day, I rarely eat any kind of red meat. I prefer other sources of protein, such as rice and beans, which cost less, and are likely better for my health. I do occasionally splurge on fish, recently on fresh sockeye salmon, but probably spend no more per year on food than I did back when I was lower-middle class red meat eater.

    BTW, the Cadillac Escalade is not the SUV of choice for we elite.

  458. Hillary is raising cash.
    .
    At the end of July she had $650k cash on hand in her presidential campaign fund. This amount will allow for a very fast out the gate entrance if (when) she decides to pull the trigger and enter the race.
    .
    Long time until February 2020 to make a call on entering the race. Later than this under current uncertain conditions is not out of the question.
    .
    http://endoftheamericandream.com//archives/according-to-the-fec-hillary-clintons-presidential-campaign-is-raising-money-is-one-last-run-for-the-white-house-coming

  459. Brandon –

    Bad enough, all his evidence of Biden's corruption, now it looks like Senators Rob Portman, Mark Kirk and Ron Johnson were in on the plot with Joe Biden to get Joe's son off the hook.

    https://www.portman.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/portman-durbin-shaheen-and-senate-ukraine-caucus-reaffirm-commitment-help

    Oh, and members of the Bush administration as well :
    ** At the same hearing, John E. Herbst, a former Ambassador to Ukraine in the Bush administration and now director of the Atlantic Council's Eurasia Center, testified that there was widespread support for the removal of Sholkin and praised specifically praised Biden.
    "While reform progress was substantial in 2015, it was not enough for many in civil society and at least some reformers in the Rada and the government. Critics focused on the absence of any real changes in the Procurator General's Office and in the judiciary and claimed that the president and prime minister were not interested in going after these major sources of corruption," he said. "Both institutions were known to facilitate corruption. They pointed to the failure of the government—through the Procurator General— to indict any major figures from the Yanukovych administration for corruption. They complained, too, that Procurator General Viktor Shokin was a compromised figure who had served as Procurator General in the Yanukovych Administration.
    "By late fall of 2015, the EU and the United States joined the chorus of those seeking Mr. Shokin's removal as the start of an overall reform of the Procurator General's Office," he added. "US Vice President Joe Biden spoke publicly about this before and during his December visit to Kyiv; but Mr. Shokin remained in place."
    Added Herbst, "Vice President Biden has been a great advocate for reform in Ukraine."""'

    .
    And of course, let us not overlook other members of the "DEEP STATE!!"

    .
    **In a June 2016 hearing before the Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats of the Committee, Alina Romanowski, then the State Department's coordinator of US Assistance to Europe and Eurasia, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, testified that, "in Ukraine, President Poroshenko and the Rada replaced a Prosecutor-General widely seen as corrupt."
    Romanski, who now serves as the Principal Deputy Coordinator for Counterterrorism at the Department of State, was nominated by the White House in July to be the Trump administration's ambassador to Kuwait."**

    https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/10/03/politics/gop-senators-echoed-biden-on-ukraine-reforms-kfile/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F

    No wonder Trump is so concerned about this Biden corruption.

  460. lucia (Comment #176558)
    October 3rd, 2019 at 12:15 pm
    OK_Max
    **That's a good idea. Do you also look at the calories on labels and weigh yourself frequently?**
    I do look at calorie labels. I also look some foods up. (Wine doesn't have calorie labels. Neither does produce.)
    ______

    You can find the calorie content of wine by kind on the internet, usually expressed in 6 oz servings. I have measured out where 6 ounces comes to on my wine glasses.

    Some light white wines (e.g., Rieslings) have little more than 100 calories per 6 oz glass because their alcohol content is only 10 %. Reds and most whites usually have more alcohol, around 12% to 14%, but some reds such as Zinfandel and Pinot Noir have even more, and can come to about 200 calories per 6 oz glass.

    You might think drinking light white wines would be best if you are trying to limit calorie consumption. My personal experience, however, is I end up drinking a larger volume of lower alcohol wines to satisfy the desire for alcohol.

  461. OK_Max.
    Yes. I can look up the calorie count lots of places! 🙂

    Alcoholic beverages (as well as soda pop) are potential diet killers.

  462. Ed, that 650K probably wouldn't cover the cost of a Hillary entrance event. If she wanted to run, she would have to monetize the hundreds of millions the Clinton Foundation has as undistributed assets, and I doubt she's willing to do that.

  463. Joshua,
    You may be perfectly OK with the families of powerful politicians (or those politicians' lovers…. like Karmela Harris) monetizing their access to those politicians by accepting juicy jobs, "investments", etc, for which they are completely unqualified, from individuals and organizations who want to influence those powerful politicians.
    .
    But I am not OK with that. I suspect many other people are also not OK with that. It is something that is easy for voters to understand, and I suspect Biden will lose some support because of it.

  464. Ed Forbes,

    Hillary running again has about the same probability as 2 meters of sea level rise by 2100…. which is to say, just about zero chance. She is weighed down by a ton of scandalous baggage (due to a lifetime of influence peddling), and is generally a very disagreeable person to boot. Really, who but Hillary could run for president and have personal unfavorable ratings close to Trump's? I can't think of one.
    .
    Fortunately, we will not have to wait to 2100 to find out that Hillary will not run again…. just another 7 months or so. I suggest you not place any bets on Hillary's triumphant return; she is neither Napoleon nor MacArthur.

  465. Steve –
    .

    > You may be perfectly OK with the families of powerful politicians (or those politicians' lovers…. like Karmela Harris) monetizing their access to those politicians by accepting juicy jobs, "investments", etc, for which they are completely unqualified, from individuals and organizations who want to influence those powerful politicians.

    .

    Or I may not be "OK" with that. It appears to me that you may not have any idea which is the case.

  466. Joshua,

    "It appears to me that you may not have any idea which is the case."
    .
    Ah yes, the same old irritating shtick you always practice…. never give a straight opinion. Simple question: Are you or are you not OK with the families of politicians monetizing of political influence?

  467. Joshua
    **Or I may not be "OK" with that. It appears to me that you may not have any idea which is the case.**
    Are you ok with families of powerful politicians monitizing their access by accepting juicy jobs? Or not. Enquiring minds want to know.

    You actually saying what you think is more productive to dialog than what you wrote in "Joshua (Comment #176563) ". It has the aura of "sarcasm". But can't tell. And beyond that, it's rather mysterious what point you think you are trying to make. Perhaps no point. But if that is so, I think it is rather pointless for you to post that long comment that is (a) rather uninformative with regard to what Biden is accused of because it doesn't engage anything about the actual accusations against him and (b) seems to go off on some mystery tangent about lots of people not liking corruption in Ukraine. Well… no lots of people don't like corruption in the Ukraine. This has nothing to do with corruption in the US, or the current news story.

    So, perhaps you might tell us what you think of families of powerful politicians monitizing access by accepting juicy jobs for which they are unqualified? I happen to be against it.

    And I agree with SteveF that lots of people do. Biden's son seems to have done this and lots of people disapprove of that. Their opinion of Biden is slipping in consequence. (Not withstanding the — as far as I can tell irrelevant to this question — quote you posted in "Joshua (Comment #176563) ".

  468. I've criticized Joshua's approach to discussions many times, but in this case, it's hard for me to fault him too much. The point he is responding to is built upon the unstated assumption Hunter Biden was "completely unqualified" for the position he held, an assumption given as fact even though nothing has been done to establish it. It makes the situation reminiscent to me to the person who has to answer, "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"

    For the record, Hunter Biden is a lawyer with experience in dealing with things like international regulations, investment strategies and lobbying. To arbitrarily decree he is "completely unqualified" for the job he he was hired for in this case, without even saying what that job was, seems inappropriate to me.

    If a person is going to engage in behavior like that to make their points, i can't take much issue with a person responding in an obtuse fashion.

    lucia:
    "seems to go off on some mystery tangent about lots of people not liking corruption in Ukraine."

    People here have repeatedly characterized what happened as Hunter Biden's father getting a prosecutor fired to protect his son. The fact many people from many organizations and governments were calling for that same prosecutor to be fired seems rather relevant to me.

  469. Mike,
    the $650k is for the end of July. The next reporting cycle might tell the tale as to what is being donated now.
    .
    If Joe is forced out, leaving the field to Warren, there will large amounts of money coming in from Wall Street to counter Warren and that may call on Hillary to save them.
    .
    Steve, I had no idea that you considered 2m sea level rise by 2100 that likely. Hillary wants to run and it would not take much for her to come in as the white knight to save the day. If Joe is only wounded, I give it about 40%. If Joe is out early, my thought is that it approaches unity.
    .
    I personally detest the lady, but I try not to blind myself from looking at facts as they stand with the least amount of filtering through my biasses as possible. Facts are that Hillary is all about “ME” and truly hates being outside positions of power. No way in hell has she given up and is willing to slide into oblivion voluntarily.

  470. Brandon,
    Oh? I think you didn't read "Joshua (Comment #176563) " as it would not respond to that unstated point. IF, as you claim he was responding to the point about *the job*.. well… sorry, fail.

  471. Brandon,
    "For the record, Hunter Biden is a lawyer with experience in dealing with things like international regulations, investment strategies and lobbying. To arbitrarily decree he is "completely unqualified" for the job he he was hired for in this case, without even saying what that job was, seems inappropriate to me."
    .
    For the record, Hunter Biden has faithfully followed his father's political influence to cash in: A billion dollar investment infusion in his company from the Chinese government when VP Biden held China as his personal bailiwick, then in the Ukraine when his father became Obama's "point man" for Ukraine.
    .
    If you imagine this is all normal, then nobody is likely to disabuse you of this ridiculous notion. Hunter Biden is not BlackRock. Nobody gets a billion dollar investment from the Chinese government on the thin experience of Hunter Biden. The Chinese do, however, get invaluable good will from his father.

  472. Ed Forbes,

    "Hillary wants to run and it would not take much for her to come in as the white knight to save the day. If Joe is only wounded, I give it about 40%. If Joe is out early, my thought is that it approaches unity."
    .
    OMG, approaches unity? Perhaps a small wager say $50, with proceeds to your charity of choice is in order.

  473. lucia, I assure you, I did read that comment. Unfortunately, I can't make much sense of the rest of what you said due to lack of antecedent. I'm not sure what unstated point you think I claimed Joshua was responding to. I said he was responding to a *point* built upon an *unstated assumption* then cited a classic example of how that sort of thing is used to create rhetorical traps.

    My intent was to say when people engage in inappropriate rhetorical tactics, I'm less critical of those who respond with similarly unhelpful rhetorical tactics. That's true whether or not the response is unhelpful (as Joshua's was) because of the inappropriate rhetorical tactic I highlighted as an example. What I pointed out may have had nothing to do with why Joshua responded the way he did. It does, however, impact how I feel about that response.

  474. SteveF:
    "If you imagine this is all normal, then nobody is likely to disabuse you of this ridiculous notion."

    I prefer not to state, and typically not even form, views based upon descriptions of things that fail to disclose relevant information. If you wish to provide a one-sided case while not informing readers of relevant information that might call what you say into question, you can. That I might criticize such and/or offer some of that information that wasn't disclosed does not indicate anything about my views on the issue. All it indicates is I believe discussions work best when information is communicated accurately and completely. I could feel Hunter Biden's actions were completely inappropriate, but I'd still say it is completely inappropriate for someone to say he got:

    "A billion dollar investment infusion in his company from the Chinese government when VP Biden held China as his personal bailiwick,"

    Given such an infusion never happened. That I'd point out your claim Hunter Biden secured a $1.5 billion transfer of money is a fabrication (though presumably not intentional on your part) does not mean I am a liberal, a Biden supporter or anything like that. It just means I think discussions work best when they're not based upon made up claims.

  475. Bradon
    "unstated assumption Hunter Biden was "completely unqualified" for the position he held, an assumption given as fact even though nothing has been done to establish it."
    .
    "when people engage in inappropriate rhetorical tactics, I'm less critical of those "
    Me too. This is why I'm not especially critical of SteveF's response to Joshua.

  476. Brandon,
    A billion plus was the investment goal… but since it was a “private” investment company, no details ever were disclosed about the actual investment. What is known is that immediately after Joe Biden left office, Hunter Biden received an “interest” in the Chinese investment company valued at $420K…. apparently without ever actually making any investment. The status of Hunter Biden’s interest is, once again, not publicly known, but it seems unlikely to me that he didn't just walk away with the money. Perhaps you can find public disclosures I have not which clarify this situation.
    .
    Hunter biden and his business partner were place on the board of a Ukrainian gas company, neither with any known experience in natural resources, at a reported salary of $50K per month each. Shockingly enough, this happened when Biden Sr. was Obama’s point man on relations with the Ukraine. Of course, that friendly arrangement appears to have ended with the Obama administration…. a bit like Bill Clinton’s juicy speaking fees disappearing when Hillary wasn’t elected President.

  477. Lucia –

    I'm going to address your comment in somewhat of a non-sequential order:

    > You actually saying what you think is more productive to dialog than what you wrote in "Joshua (Comment #176563) ".

    I respond to people in line with my impression about the potential for productive dialog. Earlier in this thread with you, when I felt there wasn't much point in responding productively, I didn't respond productively. When the tone switched I focused more on a productive discussion. I'm not blaming anyone else for my decisions. No on else is responsible for my type of response. But I'm explaining my approach.

    I have had long interactions with hundreds of comments with Mark over at his blog. I respond in a way that I feel promotes productive discussion – because I feel that he treats me in good faith, and with respect. That might be even when we disagree very strongly on issues. It might even be when he thinks that my views are extremely poorly reasoned (or perhaps even "loony"). And I respond that way (at least usually) even though, sometimes, he calls me a "poopyhead" or for a brief period of time assumes rather uncharitable (and sometimes untrue) intentions on my part, or is "grumpy," etc. The thing is, at least sometimes, I think that Mark is actually interested in a discussion.

    > It has the aura of "sarcasm".

    Of course my comment was not serious (I didn't really intend sarcasm, but I did intent to communicate that I didn't think that I was responding to a worthwhile comment).

    Sometimes there are situations with someone like Brandon, who as we all know can be difficult to engage with in productive discussions with because of (IMO) pedanticism or overly semantic focus relatively irrelevant points, etc. But Brandon tends to do careful research, so there's often something for me to learn through discussions with him even though I don't feel he typically engages in good faith as does someone like Mark. But some people seem to offer neither good faith exchange or interesting information. In such a case, I tend to not respond with an intent of productive discussion. You might then ask, then why respond at all. It would be a good question, IMO – and I don't really have a satisfactory answer. It's something I ask myself quite frequently.

    Anyway, some people have, IMO, established a record of bad faith engagement. They don't seem to me to be actually interested in my view and sharing perspectives, but more inclined to assert some sense of superiority, engage in one form of insult or another, assign to me guilt by association, construct arguments on non-sequiturs or straw men, play rhetorical tricks, make fallacious arguments just to win a point, etc. In such cases, I have no investment in productive discussion, because I don't think that with them, investment in productive discussion is likely to bring a productive return. But I do try to remain open to signals (that I interpret to be) sent, and to be aware that it is very easy misread those signals and so to be open to changing my approach when appropriate.

    > And beyond that, it's rather mysterious what point you think you are trying to make.

    I didn't think it was particularly mysterious. I was indicating (perhaps it wasn't as clear as I think) that Steve's comment was, as Brandon suggest above, was embedded in some faulty and problematic (although I acknowledge somewhat speculative) reasoning. If Steve wanted to get the point of my response, I think he could have, and he could have simply responded in such a way in which he could get the information he needed to formulate a more sound conclusion. Eventually, he kind of did do that, which was actually part of my intention, but unfortunately not before he slipped in an insult that only further demonstrated why I didn't respond "productively" in the first place.

    > Perhaps no point. But if that is so, I think it is rather pointless for you to post that long comment that is (a) rather uninformative with regard to what Biden is accused of because it doesn't engage anything about the actual accusations against him and (b) seems to go off on some mystery tangent about lots of people not liking corruption in Ukraine. Well… no lots of people don't like corruption in the Ukraine. This has nothing to do with corruption in the US, or the current news story.

    Well, apparently you didn't get the reason why I posted those links – but that's cool. I'm not here to try to convince people that they should consider aspects interesting that they don't find interesting.

    > So, perhaps you might tell us what you think of families of powerful politicians monitizing access by accepting juicy jobs for which they are unqualified? I happen to be against it.

    I am very strongly against it. Very strongly against it. That opposition is one of the fundamental components of my political outlook, It's one of the reasons why I dislike mainstream Demz almost as much as I dislike mainstream Pubz (who, pretty much across the board, engage in those same behaviors).

    That sort of behavior and leveraging influence is one of the reasons why I dislike Trump and the many crony capitalists that he has involved in his government as much as I do. But I like that kind of behavior no less in Demz than I do in Pubz. It's part of reason why I didn't vote for Gore or Kerry, and only voted for Obama reluctantly (because after refusing to vote the lesser of two evils in previous years, I had a change of heart after 4 years of Bush's disastrous administration).

    I find that to be a very significant form of "corruption" – to tie back into the discussion we had earlier about how to evaluate the depth or extent of corruption. I think that sort of behavior is highly corrupt. It's a corruption of our economic system and it's a corruption of out political system. It's a violation of public trust.
    It undermines our system of government. And engaging in that sort of behavior is part of the reason why I find Trump to be highly corrupt – because he engages in a form of it constantly since ha's been on office and has for decades, and I don't just dismiss his behavior as politics as usual – because even if it is politics as usual, I still think it's a vile form of corruption.

    > And I agree with SteveF that lots of people do. Biden's son seems to have done this and lots of people disapprove of that.

    I disapprove of it also.

    > Their opinion of Biden is slipping in consequence.

    Mine isn't, because I've long had a low opinion of Biden. If it has been lowered lately, it isn't because of the Ukraine situation, but because I think his candidacy is incredibly self-centered and counter-productive. I think that he's a terrible candidate. I think that if he really "cared about the country" to borrow a meaningless phrase, he would drop out and lend his support to another candidate. The only reason why I qualify that view somewhat is his high level of support in the African American community – a constituency that (particularly AA women) which is a very important cohort within the Democratic Party, and aside from the aspect of political expediency, I think that it is important for the Dem Party to respond to that constituency and to respect their voice. However, I'm not sure that his strength in that community is founded on a solid enough basis that as we get closer to the election, and voters become more focused on actual policy distinctions rather than name recognition, his relatively strong support in that community will stand up. We'll see – but I also think that there aren't many candidates who are likely to have a strong appeal in the AA community….so it all remains to be seen.

    > Enquiring minds want to know.

    If there's more that the enquiring minds want to know, the enquiring minds should feel free to ask – keeping in mind that suggesting false assumptions based on a lack of evidence, or playing rhetorical tricks, or engaging in bad faith (including by implying or outright stating that I'm engaging in bad faith), etc., is not a particularly good way to inquire if you want a productive response from me.

  478. SteveF, I'm not sure what to make of the radically different depiction you give of Hunter Biden's dealings in China now, after I pointed out your previous one was completely inaccurate. If you knew what you said before was inaccurate, then why did you say it? If you didn't know what you said before was inaccurate, why not acknowledge having made an enormous mistake? Similarly, even after this change, why don't you note the company was an investment firm meaning the money you refer to would be invested on the behalf of whoever provided it, and they'd still be entitled to it (subject to fees, changes in value of investments and other factors that come with making investments)?

    I don't understand it. I'm also not sure I care. You now say:

    "Hunter Biden received an “interest” in the Chinese investment company valued at $420K…. apparently without ever actually making any investment."

    Without explaining why this is "apparently" true. I've seen nothing to indicate what you claim, you've provided nothing to indicate it, and what reporting I have seen says he bought that stake in the company. Similarly, you say:

    "Hunter biden and his business partner were place on the board of a Ukrainian gas company, neither with any known experience in natural resources,"

    While failing to do anything to address the point I already made about this talking point, that Hunter Biden was a lawyer with experience in a number of things a company like that might find useful. Maybe there's a case to be made his hiring by the company was corrupt as you claim, but intentionally ignoring inconvenient facts and promoting baseless, if not completely false, claims is not okay.

    I don't see how productive discussions can arise from this. Maybe that's just me. Maybe other people could have better luck. I think I'll bow out of the discussion and let them try.

  479. Brandon –

    >For the record, Hunter Biden is a lawyer with experience in dealing with things like international regulations, investment strategies and lobbying. To arbitrarily decree he is "completely unqualified" for the job he he was hired for in this case, without even saying what that job was, seems inappropriate to me.

    That's a fair point. In a sense, there is a lot of ridiculous hand-wringing and pearl-clutching about Hunter Biden's putative "corruption" that is laughable, because it is being done by people who demonstrate **concern** about such behaviors only in a highly selective manner.

    I think that it is important, if one is concerned about the practice of political influence peddling, to be extremely careful of laying out the criteria being use to differentiate what is acceptable practice and something more along the lines of overtly "corrupt" influence-peddling.

    However, on the other side of the coin, I also think that it is very important for politicians to be explicit and proactive and transparent in how they deal with any suggestion of impropriety. In that sense, while I have yet to see our lovable pearl-clutchers and hand-wringers lay out a careful case to characterize the "corruption" of Hunter Biden beyond a lack of due dilligence to make sure to prevent a suggestion of impropriety, I do think that the Biden's deserve very strong criticism for their lack of due dilligence and care.

    Even the suggestion of impropriety has a very corrosive influence on our political system, our governmental system, and (to a lesser extent) our economy, IMO. So while I find vapors enduced by the current Biden situation to be transparently naked political exploitation and expediency, I do also think that there is a legitimate problem that deserves to be addressed by the Bidens and even more importantly, the Dem Party.

    There is recent Fox News headline about a somewhat similar circumstance with Schiff and a Ukranian businessman involved in the defense industry. I don't know if that issue has any legs, but I certainly wouldn't be surprised if it did (I also wouldn't be surprised if it turns out to be another Fox News Seth Rich type of situation) and even if Pubz are far more entrenched in a circle jerk with the defense industry (I don't particularly care it the industry ties extent across borders) Demz need to be better at differentiating themselves from Pubz in that regard, IMO (although it would be great if they'd both cut it out).

  480. By the way, since SteveF tried to paint my attempting to correct the record on some basic factual matters as showing I don't care if liberals are corrupt, or whatever point he was trying to make, I'd like to take a moment to say what my view on the matter is.

    I think it was an unquestionably bad idea for Hunter Biden to engage in these deals. It may have even been corrupt, in a moral sense. It's even possible someone might find evidence there was something illegal involved, though thus far nobody has even suggested what that might be. At the same time, I don't think anyone cares about what Hunter Biden did due to some great concern about corruption. Trump and his family have received numerous business deals because of his presidency, with Trump's campaign/administration actively creating many of them (by directing business to Trump's companies).

    I think corruption is bad. I think what Hunter Biden did was stupid, and depending on details I don't have access to, potentially bad. But the President of the United States just publicly asked foreign countries to investigate a specific individual for political purposes for all the world to see. That is… much worse.

  482. Call somebody a poopyhead just once… sigh.
    Bravo on that answer above [to Lucia] Joshua. Seemed pretty thoughtful and honest to me.

  483. Brandon,
    “But the President of the United States just publicly asked foreign countries to investigate a specific individual for political purposes for all the world to see. That is… much worse.”
    .
    No, the Obama administration opening FBI and CIA investigations of the opposing party’s presidential candidate was much worse. I read the NSA summary of Trump’s phone call; there was nothing like that said. There is a potential crime to be investigated (team Obama trying to subvert Trump’s campaign via BS investigations of nonexistent collusion). Trump has every right to investigate that wildly inappropriate 2016 investigation of his campaign, as well as all the crap that followed through the transition and early 2017.
    .
    But you are right about one thing: further discussion is unlikely to be productive.

  485. Joshua,
    I am glad you oppose political influence peddling. But then you write this:
    “I think that it is important, if one is concerned about the practice of political influence peddling, to be extremely careful of laying out the criteria being use to differentiate what is acceptable practice and something more along the lines of overtly "corrupt" influence-peddling.”
    .
    For me, there is no ‘acceptable practice’. Hillary and Bill getting six figure payments for brief ‘presentations’ while they held political power is simple corruption, just as is Hunter Biden trading on his farther’s political position. It is all corrupt, and never ‘acceptable practice’. I don’t doubt you can point to egregious examples by Republicans as well… sure, lots of politicians are corrupt. But they shouldn’t get away with it. I suspect you think Trump has profited greatly from being elected. If so, I have seen nothing which shows that. But here is the key: Trump, though a jerk, a sequential liar, and a life-long skirt-chaser, was a very rich man before he entered politics, and I suspect he has little need to enrich himself with the selling of influence…. unlike many politicians.

  486. Joshua,
    I agree with Mark that was a nice response. I'll (try) to discuss it a bit more later. ( Shocking preview: I think we actually agree on a bunch in that one and later. )

    I've been tutoring a lot this week. (Guess when high school kids start failing physics tests? Guess when midterms are!?) Anyway, I just finished up for the night and I'm going to get a drink.

  487. Steve –

    > For me, there is no ‘acceptable practice

    Brandon laid out the issue pretty well. Imo.

    There are inevitably going to be areas where these calls are subjective. At some point Biden's son has a right to gainful employment like anyone else. At some point it becomes influence peddling. My point is that [edited] REPUBLICANS who are concerned about influence peddling should be careful with distinguishing where that line should be drawn, and if they want to make the case that Biden has crossed that line, they need to make that case clearly. I haven't seen that take place.

    A facile argument that the appearance of influence peddling IS influence peddling is, ultimately counterproductive because it isn't serious and just looks like political exploitation of a serious issue. Political exploitation of the issue is part of the problem because it undermines our ability to deal with legitimate claims. It is incumbent on accusers to take it seroously just as it is important for people with influence to peddle to make it explicit why legitimate exercise of a right to employment isn't influence peddling.

    These are at least somewhat complicated issues, imo. Simplistic and un-nuanced and undifferentiated approaches, and sloganeering like "there is no acceptable practice" – especially when done to support partisan leveraging of the issues, is ultimately counterproductive, imo.

  488. This issue of trading political influence for monetary advantage is interesting because it was so common in the guided age. Its just another of the analogies between the 21st century and the late 19th century. The blatant and naked partisanship of the press is another. The very high level of industrial consolidation and monopolies is another. The decline in real wages in another. The weakness of organized labor is another. Likewise the Democrats moving to more radical left wing positions mimics the progressives in the 19th Century. In general the gilded age is not where we should want to go. It was a very corrupt and venal era.

    I do think there has been a troubling deterioration on this front starting with the Clintons. Would anyone think Dwight Eisenhower, Jimmy Carter, or Ronald Reagan would do this kind of thing. GW Bush likewise would not do this stuff. Obama probably didn't have that much interest in enriching himself this way because he could make all the money he wanted by more legitimate activities like writing books. The Clinton's in fact are an outstanding example of the new corruption in politics and how the media is actively complicit.

  489. Joshua,
    I am reminded a little of Potter Stewart’s observation that he knew pornography when he saw it. That seems appropriate for evaluating corruption in the form of political influence peddling. Sure, everyone is entitled to earn a living, even Hunter Biden. If he worked for some small law firm in Delaware, specializing in wills and trusts (or even specializing in ambulance chasing), then nobody would even know who he is, even though he is Biden’s son. But that is most definitely not what Hunter Biden has been doing. He has been involved in businesses in exactly the places where his father had political influence. If you just ask people if that is OK, I think you will find that it is almost universally opposed… like Potter Stuart, people know political corruption when they see it. The astounding thing for me is that VP Biden would ever have allowed it. What the heck was Hunter biden doing on AF two when VP biden was traveling on official business? I can’t imagine he thought this wouldn’t cause problems.

  490. David Young,
    Interesting parallels between the early 20th and early 21st centuries.
    .
    “ I do think there has been a troubling deterioration on this front starting with the Clintons.“
    .
    I agree, the Clintons were both money grubbing and deeply corrupt. They still are, of course, but nobody wants to pay them for influence they no longer have.

  491. Trump is getting Democrats to go on the record how bad it is, impeachable even, for a President to get foreign countries involved in US elections by seeking out dirt on political opponents.

  492. Brandon: "I can't imagine you're saying the only way anyone can verify this claim you're making is to dig up a past broadcast of some television show…"
    .
    I never claimed it was the only way, just the it was MY source. I did your homework assignment to find out more about Giuliani's documents and found he indeed has only released the Shokin affidavit. The other five he held up on the air and described what was in them but not released them. The Shokin claim Giuliani has been making for six months but Shokin's actual affidavit is dated Sept. 4, 2019.
    .
    I found that last fact on a Politifact article that of course ignores the substance and meat of the issue, (just like Brandon and MSM). Instead it focuses on slight inaccuracies or insignificant exaggerations and then writes five indignant paragraphs about it. Of course, it's ranked #1 by Google for a search of "Giuliani's Ukraine affidavits": https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/oct/02/fact-checking-rudy-giulianis-claims-about-joe-bide/
    .
    It's an excellent article for one informed on the subject to be able to dissect the gross bias in determining validity of the claim. One particular example was of the debunking that Ukraine supplied false Trump dirt to Hillary and DNC. They are right — it was true information. But that ignores the fact that whole Wikileaks issue [supposedly the Russians] also was true information. The later case got three years of accusations of treason, (false ones). The Ukraine officials openly admitted the DNC came to them for help in 2016. A Ukrainian court has also made a determination that this occurred, which apparently violated their laws. Think about it. Was it that urgent for Ukraine to out Paul Manaforts past Ukraine dealings 45 days before the US election? I am not defending Paul Manafort, although I did get a little disturbed by the pre-dawn commando raid on his house which included an armed patrol boat, drawn automatic weapons and a gleefully CNN filming crew. I wasn't bothered by the solitary confinement though. He needed to lose some weight.
    .
    This reminds me of Brandon's recent equal application of the law argument. I see an increasing frequency of conservative Fox guests making their point clearer to their liberal friends by asking they envision a reverse of the roles, putting Hillary in for Trump and recently Biden and Hunter in exchanged for Trump and Jr. I am not going to ask their rhetorical question but I think you can see the point. There is a difference between objectivity and religiosity.
    .
    If I appear to be insane for continuing to engage with nonobjective people it's only because I also see that if people don't they get elected to in charge of our lives. This I think explains the quiet Trump vote, not the lefty meme: racism.
    .
    Objective point: There is no evidence now and never was that Trump had a deal with Russia to help him win in 2016.
    .
    Religious counterpoint: It had to be investigated to know for sure because 17 intelligence agencies told us that the Russians meddled and were behind the Wikileaks.
    .
    Truth: No objective third party analyzed the Hillary for America server or DNC server and it is unclear whether even that would have been definitive. If the DNC [Hillary] knew from Steele by early June 2016 that Trump was a Russian asset, and she was just told by Crowdstrike that the Russians hacked her and the DNC, why wouldn't she suspect Trump collusion at that time? If she did suspect that why wouldn't she allow the FBI or DHS take the abandoned DNC server? Remember, the FBI entire seventh floor had already written her exoneration memo in May before interviewing anyone for the subpoenaed email destruction. All of her staff, including the ones who personally destroyed the evidence got immunity in exchange for silence. Bill Clinton had clandestine dealings in person with AT Lynch. Even with this incredible corruption she did not trust them with the server.
    .
    But regardless of all that even Rod Rosenstein and Bob Mueller publicly concluded in January 2018, their only mid-investigation release, that Russia did not help Trump. Yes, these two did not even support the Clapper and Brennan and Comey's public assessments. And, just revealed by Judicial Watch tonight that they were actively colluding on their intentions of bringing down Trump in March of 2017.
    .
    This year the NYT admitted that any information in the Steele dossier was likely Russian disinformation. They did not take it the step further to analyze out loud that would also mean that the Russians were *against* Trump.
    .
    Yet even with all of the false reporting about Trump collusion for three years the same media are just way too eager to believe Schiff again.
    .
    Facts we have so far:
    1) The CIA WB (leaker) illegally approached Schiff's staff with his allegations in early August, as just reported yesterday by the NYT from Schiff's staff, apparently to preemptively control the story.
    .
    2) Schiff's staff claim Schiff did not meet in person with the CIA leaker but directed him to a Dem legal operation set up in 2017 for the purpose of supporting resister to us the WB statutes.
    .
    3) The WB forms were changed in August to allow secondhand information.
    .
    4) The complaint was deemed not urgent by the IC IG and thus not reported to congress. But it nonetheless got announced by a supposed leak, which we now know had to come from Schiff.
    .
    5) Schiff did not share with any GOP members of this committee about the existence of the WB complaint although he did share it apparently with Nancy Pelozi, which explains why she announced impeachment before congress had been officially given any complaint document.
    TBC…

  494. Ron Graf:
    "I never claimed it was the only way, just the it was MY source. I did your homework assignment to find out more about Giuliani's documents and found he indeed has only released the Shokin affidavit. The other five he held up on the air and described what was in them but not released them. The Shokin claim Giuliani has been making for six months but Shokin's actual affidavit is dated Sept. 4, 2019."

    I would say that does a great deal to support my skepticism of your claim there were five other affidavits given after being questioned on that claim you said, "It's been in the conservative news for six months." It's unclear to me how these other affidavits could have been reported in conservative media for six months if they haven't been released. Similarly, it's not clear how the affidavit for SHokin you refer to could have been reported on in conservative media for six months if it was only made last month.

    If you keep making factual claims while failing to be able to provide any evidenciary support for them when questioned, people have no reason to believe your claims are accurate. Especially if you're going to say things like this:

    "Truth: No objective third party analyzed the Hillary for America server or DNC server and it is unclear whether even that would have been definitive…. If she did suspect that why wouldn't she allow the FBI or DHS take the abandoned DNC server?"

    The FBI was given a copy of the DNC server so they could examine it. A bit for bit copy of a hard drive provides, in almost all ways, the same opportunity for examination as the original copy. Unless you wish to allege there was some super secret information that could have been obtained by magnetic microsopy or some such, there is no difference. And even if you wanted to allege such, the FBI wouldn't have pursued such an avenue as there was no reason.

    In reality, what you're doing is using the fact the FBI was given a copy of a server instead of the original server to pretend the FBI didn't examine the server at all. So while you can say things like:

    "Facts we have so far:
    1) The CIA WB (leaker) illegally approached Schiff's staff with his allegations in early August, as just reported yesterday by the NYT from Schiff's staff, apparently to preemptively control the story….
    3) The WB forms were changed in August to allow secondhand information."

    The truth is what you say are "facts" are often untrue, misleading or even just figments of your imagination. For instance, your point 3 here has already been discussed, in detail, on this very page in an exchange which shows what you say is not true. You don't even address what's been said.

    I'd say there is little reason for anyone to believe what you say without verifying it themselves. I'd also say you almost never provide people the means to verify what you say, though you do sometime pretend to.

  495. By the way, I think it's rather strange people are so focused on the context of the whistleblower's complaint. Trump has admitted practically every substantive allegation made by the whistleblower, and he's openly double-downed on some. Trump openly called for foreign governments to investigate his political rival for the whole world to see.

    What's the argument here? It sounds a lot to me like people are saying, "Don't pay attention to what Donald Trump says on national television because the whistleblower is politically biased!"

  496. Brandon,

    Let me first say I appreciate your comments, some of them (such as the possibility that Hunter might have had actual utility to the companies in question beyond political influence) I honestly hadn't given much thought to.
    .
    The thing is, right or wrong, it's hard to feel outrage that Trump is calling for international cooperation in the investigation of his political rivals. I think his supporters feel that the entire Russian collusion investigation was in at least a few important ways essentially the same thing – the party in power using foreign dirt to attack a political rival. I don't actually approve of this. Yet the world works in many ways I don't approve of. *shrug* It has been said (paraphrasing badly) that Trump appeals to the baser nature of his constituents. In this case, I think that's a true statement. Probably it's counterproductive to encourage or .. what, normalize maybe, the investigation political enemies in the U.S. I think many Trump supporters should care and don't.

  497. mark bofill, I get many people feel Trump was mistreated with the Russian issue and thus are less likely to care about the insanity he's engaging in now, but those same people are almost certain ignoring the many wrongdoings by Trump which caused that investigation to play out the way it did. Multiple members of Trump's campaign committed crimes related to what was investigated. Trump, his campaign and his administration lied about many things related to that investigation, many times. His people actively attempted to do what people accused them of doing, with Trump only being saved by them being too incompetent to pull it off. The idea it was all just a scam by Democrats is insane, and I'd wager practically nobody you refer to would have felt the same way if it was a Democrat who had gone through this.

    It's worth noting you don't draw any direct parallels between the two situations. Nobody does. They don't because the two are only comparable if one relies solely on vague generalities. For instance, you say people used dirt on Trump from foreign countries, but look at what actually happened. A Trump campaign member bragged about talking to Russians to a United States ally, who found that disturbing and reported it. That caused a formal investigation to begin, going through legal channels with oversight without any direction by OBama. That investigation led to multiple crimes being discovered, Trump's group attempting multiple cover ups, and numerous lies from the president himself being proven. All without Obama attempting to use his position to influence the proceedings.

    People complain about the Steele dossier, portraying it as "foreign dirt," but it isn't what started the investigation, and its existence isn't the reason for much of what was discovered. Moreover, it was provided to law enforcement authorities so they could investigate it. That is not remotely comparable to a president actively pressuring other countries to investigate his political rivals.

    People likely do feel the way you describe. However, they don't feel that way because of any factual basis. The moment things go beyond lazy, intellectually dishonest talking points, the comparison falls apart. But many people won't go beyond such talking points. They won't because they don't truly care. To them, this is "us" versus "them" and that's all that matters.

    Many people on this site have talked about why global warming advocates tolerate shoddy science and shady behavior from people in the movement. This is why. People are defending Donald Trump for the same reasons other people defend Michael Mann.

  498. Brandon,

    I agree with you to an extent. It's not clear to me that the cases are categorically different. I fully agree with your 'us vs them' sentiment. We've been tribal animals since long before we were even humans. No doubt this fact impacts my perspective.

  499. I would ask what makes you so sure Obama had nothing to do with it. I think that's possible, but not certain. The cynic in me suggests that this idea may be naive.

  500. MikeN, you are right, it was Stone who got the patrol boat and CNN crew. Manafort only got the early dawn SWAT.
    .
    Brandon: " I'd also say you almost never provide people the means to verify what you say…"
    .
    As I said, it was the first story that came up with a Google search that provided the facts. I apologize for putting everybody through Brandon's rebuttals which only have the point of being able to find a flaw regardless if immaterial to the claim. If the Shokin affidavit had been gotten by Giuliani six months ago it still would not have been reported by CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, PBS WaPo. The NYT I leave out since they did break the Clinton corrupt involvement in the Uranium One deal found by Peter Peter Schweizer, although they never followed up when none of the other MSM would carry the story. And the NYT did report the Hunter Biden story in Dec 2015. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/09/world/europe/corruption-ukraine-joe-biden-son-hunter-biden-ties.html
    .
    My point was that there is a firsthand sworn affidavit that supported the claim that Shokin was fired due to pressure from Biden. Brandon failed to address this.
    .
    WRT to the changing of the WB complaint form, the IC IG was unclear in its rebuttal. Then a day later or so we learned that the Dem lawyers were involved from the start and likely wrote the complaint. It seems very plausible that it was the lawyers that saw the contradiction in the law and the old form and lobbied to have it changed, even if the complaint was first filed on the old form. The point here is that there is a difference between the typical individual whistleblower (the law was set up for), and a partisan provocateur. The Ukraine call complaint is from a CIA person that was working with Schiff and specialized resistance lawyers arriving at a time when the Dems are desperate for to counter the damaging DoJ IG Horowitz reports which was announced complete a couple of weeks ago.
    .
    Brandon: "Trump has admitted practically every substantive allegation made by the whistleblower…"
    .
    It has been debated extensively here that there is not much wrong with asking for foreign assistance in uncovering domestic corruption. I think everyone would admit that Trump and GOP would have a legitimate interest in credible allegations against Biden, ones supported by Biden's own personal bragging. The weirder question is why Dems, (even Biden supporters), would not. Trump, I suppose is making that same argument by publicly asking China to also cooperate to investigate Hunter Biden's dealings.

  501. OK_Max (#176540),

    The 2016 ruling in Fisher v University of Texas that upheld racial discrimination in undergraduate admissions (not that they called it that) was a 4-3 decision (Scalia died and Sotomayor recused). A possibly significant factor, though, was that the plaintiffs were white, not minorities themselves.

    The logic of the Asian-American student admissions case would seem to approve the restrictions, quotas in effect if not name, imposed on Jewish student admissions at Ivy League schools back in the day. I have yet to see solid evidence that affirmative action has any real benefits for the general population or the affected minorities.

    One would hope that if the Asian-American students lose on appeal that the concept that disparate impact proves discrimination would get spiked. But I'm not holding my breath. Progressive doublethink (it's the 70th anniversary of the publication of Orwell's 1984) can accommodate many mutually exclusive concepts.

  502. Mark –

    In the grand scheme of politics, I don't really care that much about whether Trump asks a foreign country to investigate a political rival. Yes, it is an abuse of power, but it still just doesn't rank that high on my list. And I'm not sure that I see the difference between asking a foreign country to investigate a political rival and asking out own intelligence agencies to investigate a political rival as being that significant a difference. If Obama did that, they're both abuse of power. (I will also note that in the one case, I think it's quite plausible that under Obama's administration what happened is that the intelligence agencies were not investigating a political opponent, but investigating foreign interference in our election with a legitimate goal of national interest, and in the other case it is highly *implausible* that Trump *hasn't* directly and under a cloak of using "code" asking foreign countries to investigate a political opponent for personal political benefit – the notion that he's been acting out of objective concern about corruption is absurd, IMO).

    That said, and I really dislike the "they did it too" or "they did it first" game – but…

    For me the issue here is more about corruption, and the political gamesmenship of what's going on. We have a president who has made a career of leveraging influence-peddling for his benefit. But further, IMO, he has integrated into his administration the practice of influence-peddling to a level significantly beyond what we've seen before.

    Yes, to a degree it is business as usual. Our political system is largely a mechanism of influence peddling. That's what the vast institution of lobbying is all about. What gets me most about this particular situation is that we see Republicans levering "concern" about corruption in defense of an absolutely corrupt administration which is being propped up by politicians who have had a long history of defending influence peddling (by fighting against campaign finance reform).

    In the abstract, in a general sense, I don't see these hypocritical behaviors as being unique to Republicans, or disproportionately prevalent among Republicans. The "us" vs. "them" paradigm of defending the same behaviors in one's own group that animate antipathy towards members of an out-group is, no doubt, bi-partisan.

    In this particular context, the level of hypocrisy regarding Trump is pretty spectacular. On both sides, as usual, but the specifics do matter and the lack of integrity of those defending Trump is of real-world significance and, IMO, particularly disturbing. I'd guess you'd feel the same about those on the other side. I'm not sure how we'd get some objective measure of the relative degree of hypocrisy.

  503. Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #176602): "Multiple members of Trump's campaign committed crimes related to what was investigated."

    That is simply not true. Three people (I think) got charged with contrived process crimes resulting from the investigation. Two (I think) got charged with things that had nothing to do with the investigation. And Cohen pled guilty to a bunch of extremely questionable charges for who knows what reason.

  504. Joshua,
    I think a certain degree of corruption is almost inevitable. I care more at the end of the day about policy differences and how the country is doing as a result. Hillary didn't horrify me because I thought she was corrupt. Donald doesn't much either. Within reason.

  506. Brandon,
    " Multiple members of Trump's campaign committed crimes related to what was investigated."
    .
    Rubbish. There were multiple 'process crimes' where the FBI trapped people with 'gotcha' questions, Flynn being the most obvious. Heck, FBI personnel misrepresented their questioning of Flynn as informal (that was Peter-I-could-smell-them-Strzok, if you recall), even though they were actually trying to set him up on charges of lying to the FBI. They had a complete transcript of the phone call between Flynn and the Russian ambassador *before* questioning Flynn about it. The only possible reason to question Flynn about the phone call with the Russian ambassador was to trap him in a process crime… they sure were not looking for information about what was said in the phone call, since they already had that. Oddly enough, the Obama administration had forced Flynn into early retirement a couple of years earlier over policy differences: Flynn thought toppling Assad would hand control of Syria to radical Islamist, but the Obama administration was working to topple Assad.
    .
    Then there were Manafort's convictions on crimes completely unrelated to Trump or his campaign. The outrageous decision to break down Manafort's door in the pre-dawn hours, after he was already providing requested documents to Congress, is just another indication of the overall malice with which everyone associated with Trump has been treated. Even more oddly, Obama himself urged Trump to not hire Flynn after Trump won the election.
    .
    I am sure that you truly believe there was nothing wrong with what the DOJ, FBI, CIA, etc did during the 2016 campaign nor with all the 'investigations' of Trump since then. Just as I truly believe that you are utterly mistaken. We will see what the ongoing investigations of 'the investigators' show.

  507. DeWitt –

    > I have yet to see solid evidence that affirmative action has any real benefits for the general population or the affected minorities.

    Do you think there is no substantive educational benefit for students to attend classes with a diverse class of students? Measuring "real benefits" can be a difficult task, and some of those benefits might take a long time to manifest anyway.

  508. mark bofill:
    "Brandon,

    I agree with you to an extent. It's not clear to me that the cases are categorically different."

    If you can offer relevant similarities that contradict my depiction, I'd be happy to hear them.

    "I would ask what makes you so sure Obama had nothing to do with it. I think that's possible, but not certain. The cynic in me suggests that this idea may be naive."

    We have a great deal of testimony, evidence and documentation of how the investigation into the Russia stuff came about. We've had criminal cases fought in court over this. If Obama directed any of this be done, it's difficult for me to imagine how we'd have no evidence of such. Unless someone can provide such evidence, or offer an plausible explanation why such evidence wouldn't be available, I see no reason to believe Obama directed any of it.

    Ron Graf:
    "My point was that there is a firsthand sworn affidavit that supported the claim that Shokin was fired due to pressure from Biden. Brandon failed to address this

    There is a statement from a man fired after people and organizations across the world accused him of failing to investigate corruption in which he says he was not fired for failing to prosecute corruption, he was fired for prosecuting corruption of the wrong person. There has been no evidence offered supporting his claim. That a person denies what they've been accused of is not convincing evidence the accusation is untrue.

    "It has been debated extensively here that there is not much wrong with asking for foreign assistance in uncovering domestic corruption."

    If you want to make that argument, you can. But if you acknowledge the whistleblower's allegations are substantially true, which seems unavoidable given Trump's public statements and actions, the details of who the whistleblower is, what they knew and why they filed their complaint seems relatively unimportant.

  509. Mark –

    > I think a certain degree of corruption is almost inevitable. I care more at the end of the day about policy differences and how the country is doing as a result. Hillary didn't horrify me because I thought she was corrupt. Donald doesn't much either. Within reason.

    I'm not sure if Trump's corruption, as an individual, that most bothers me. What bothers me most is (1) the degree to which the entire system is corrupt, (2) the degree to which Trump's administration has increased the level of corruption and, (3) the degree to which people embrace hypocrisy w/r/t the systems's corruption. It isn't so much Trump's corruption that gets me (as I do think we have a basic system in place as a check against that corruption, as flawed as it is) but the level to which people look the other way about his administration's corruption that is particularly disturbing

  510. Brandon, ok.
    Joshua,
    With respect to looking the other way, I don't think I exactly do that. I view myself more as being resigned to it. Its not clear to me what alternative I have. Vote Dem? Doesn't alter matters in that regard.

  511. Lemme go a step further. Say I *just knew* with utter certainty there'd be no corruption whatsoever under Bernie Sanders. Still wouldn't vote him. There are things that are more important to me.

  512. Mike M.
    "That is simply not true. Three people (I think) got charged with contrived process crimes resulting from the investigation. Two (I think) got charged with things that had nothing to do with the investigation. And Cohen pled guilty to a bunch of extremely questionable charges for who knows what reason.

    SteveF
    "Rubbish. There were multiple 'process crimes' where the FBI trapped people with 'gotcha' questions, Flynn being the most obvious."

    Michael Flynn, Rick Gates and George Papadopoulos were all convicted/plead guilty of lying to prosecutors. Since Flynn was singled out, let's remember what Flynn was accused off. He was accused of secretly talking to Russia to negotiate policy actions while Donald Trump was not in office.

    This accusation came about during an investigation which was considering, amongst other things, the possibility the Trump campaign had inappropriate contact with Russia leading up to the 2016 elections. Secret negotiations between Trump's campaign and Russia were certainly relevant. Flynn lying about those negotiations was a crime. I get SteveF may make claims like:

    "They had a complete transcript of the phone call between Flynn and the Russian ambassador *before* questioning Flynn about it. The only possible reason to question Flynn about the phone call with the Russian ambassador was to trap him in a process crime…"

    But the reality is law enforcement often ask people questions even after they've igured out the answers. Giving people the opportunity to provide their side of the story, to clarify what they meant or did is common practice. Police never go, "Well we know what you did so we won't ask you questions about it."

    And the idea Michael Cohen plead guilty to "extremely questionable charges" is just bizarre. This is a guy who lied in Congressional testimony. He admits he lied, saying he lied about conversations between Trump's people and Russia so as to hide information that'd be inconvenient for Trump's politics.

    I don't understand the defense here. For Cohen, Is it, "Lying to congress is okay"? For Flynn, is it, "Law enforcement asked him questions they already knew the answers to"? Is there some other excuse? That's not rhetorical. I don't understand how people excuse lying about interactions between Trump's people and Russia when Russia was accused of unlawfully influencing an election.

    I've always thought lying in order to cover things up is bad. I hope I'm not the only one.

  513. Why does Fox News exist and why is it so successful? For the record I almost never watch cable news anymore.
    .
    If you can move beyond petty "brainwashing" answers then it is simple enough. They recognized a market void and filled it. They recognized that the views on the existing networks were no longer representative of a large portion of their audience. I have seen this happen over the last 40 years.
    .
    Just one example among many is how they treat religion. The MSM rarely shows religion at all even though it is still a major theme in many people's life. Even more rarely will it ever show Christianity as a force of good. The NYT runs almost exclusively child predator stories when it covers Catholicism, all the while covering for or ignoring the blatant excesses of small parts of Islam. They will run endless puff pieces about progressive NGO's doing good but seem unaware how much energy religious organizations put into helping others.
    .
    I don't practice but was brought up Catholic, and when I use the term "representative" above I mean that how this is covered by the media is like describing an alien world to me, it does not fit my experience and it's clear the people authoring these articles don't have a clue what they are talking about, and are willfully blind to the good parts.
    .
    Fox News knows it's audience better and that is blatantly obvious. It preaches to their biases just as the other organizations do. They are overly defensive of their team and overly aggressive on their cultural opponents. You cannot get a representative view of America without looking at Fox News and the NYT/WP/CNN et al. You have to then decide what is accurate for yourself.

  514. Brandon,

    Everybody from the President (all recent from either party) on down lies to Congress all the time. What's bizarre would be to prosecute someone for it. They could start with James Comey, though.

  515. Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #176617): " let's remember what Flynn was accused off. He was accused of secretly talking to Russia to negotiate policy actions while Donald Trump was not in office."

    He was accused of that in the press. But the charge was entirely without foundation, as any honest, informed person would know.
    .
    Brandon Shollenberger: "I don't understand the defense here. For Cohen, Is it, "Lying to congress is okay"? For Flynn, is it, "Law enforcement asked him questions they already knew the answers to"? Is there some other excuse?"

    There is no credible reason to believe that Flynn lied to the FBI. A mistaken recollection is not a lie.

    Cohen was not part of the Trump campaign. His perjured testimony was not about the campaign. The charges against him that were related to the campaign were ridiculous. I think there were other charges that were not related to he campaign, but I don't really care.

  516. DeWitt Payne (Comment #176606)
    October 4th, 2019 at 7:57 am
    OK_Max (#176540),

    I have yet to see solid evidence that affirmative action has any real benefits for the general population or the affected minorities.
    ______

    In the future most Harvard students could be Asians if admissions were based entirely on academics. If that happened, and a more diverse student population was desired, some form of affirmative action could be used to increase representations of the both the white majority and non-Asian minorities.

  517. DeWitt Payne (Comment #176619): "Everybody from the President (all recent from either party) on down lies to Congress all the time. What's bizarre would be to prosecute someone for it."

    Everyone lies is no excuse for lying under oath. The latter most certainly should be prosecuted.
    .
    DeWitt Payne : "They could start with James Comey, though."

    Indeed.

  518. > Still wouldn't vote him. There are things that are more important to me.

    Sure. I get that. I perhaps wouldn't vote for a Republican even if I felt they were less likely to engage in influence-peddling than their Dem opponent. It could be a consideration, however. My choice between Weld vs. Biden straight up would be a tough one. I'd estimate that Weld would be less likely to engage in crony capitalism than Biden – so I might vote for him even if at some level I'd prefer Biden's policy choices.

    Given the current situation where a vote for Weld would be roughly the same as a vote for Trump, then I wouldn't give it serious consideration.

  519. OK_Max,
    You can include yourself in the "usual suspects" if you want, but I am referring to those who attach morality to wealth enabled viewpoints. There is nothing wrong with eating or not eating red meat unless you start thinking either way makes you a better person than your peers. The response to the red meat article has a lot of "maybe it doesn't hurt you physically but it is immoral for other reasons".
    .
    Most people can't afford to shop at or have access to a Whole Paycheck Foods. If people want to eat organic that is fine by me, but lecturing others about how morally bankrupt McDonald's is or how feeding your kids the evils of cheap and easy processed food is bad when you are a single mother barely scraping by is crossing a line when the science is suspect.

  520. On the subject of impeachment, I agree with Senator Biden:

    “Given the essentially anti-democratic nature of impeachment and the great dangers inherent in the too-ready exercise of that power, impeachment has no place in our system of constitutional democracy except as an extreme measure – reserved for breaches of the public trust by a president who so violates his official duties, misuses his official powers or places our system of government at such risk that our constitutional government is put in immediate danger by his continuing to serve out the term to which the people of the United States elected him"

    "It is clear from the debates and from the commentaries on the Constitutional Convention that the Framers were concerned that anything less than bipartisanship could, and would, do great damage to our form of government. They knew that to contemplate an action as profound as undoing a popular election requires at a minimum that members of both parties find that the alleged wrong is grave enough to overturn the will of the majority of the American people."

    “The Constitution provides that ‘the Senate shall have sole power to try all impeachments.’ Some consider this provision to impose a duty upon the Senate to try or adjudicate all impeachments. Even if the Constitution imposes such a duty, the Senate has not understood this duty to adjudicate as necessarily requiring a formal trial. There is precedent for the Senate considering dispositive motions that would allow the Senate to render a judgment without holding a trial.”

    https://issuesinsights.com/2019/10/04/impeachment-comments-democrats-would-rather-you-forget/
    —–
    p.s – I also agreed with him 20 years ago.

  521. Max,
    >>In the future most Harvard students could be Asians if admissions were based entirely on academics. If that happened, and a more diverse student population was desired, some form of affirmative action could be used to increase representations of the both the white majority and non-Asian minorities.
    —-
    I love highly conditional statements. Many things could be. But your post was *so* conditional that I don't actually follow your point. Now to be fair, I often post things with no point, so if you had no point I'm OK with that. But if you were saying something, I think it got lost in the irrefutable structure you used there.

  522. Tom: “..Most people can't afford to shop at or have access to a Whole Paycheck Foods. If people want to eat organic that is fine by me, but lecturing others about how morally bankrupt McDonald's is or how feeding your kids the evils of cheap and easy processed food is bad when you are a single mother barely scraping by is crossing a line when the science is suspect…”
    .
    Well said !!!
    .
    I was rasied by single mom where chicken necks and giblets were the best she could afford. Spam and hamburger were a luxury. Being lectured to by idiots who vertrue signal is, shall we say, non productive.
    .
    I have now reached a point in my life where my budget food choices come down to if I really want to save a little bit by buying Select instead of Choice Rib Eyes, and the answer is no, I do not. Prime is still generally out of reach though ☹️

  523. You can be against influence peddling if you want, but try writing an effective law to enforce that. There will be loopholes so big you could drive a building through them. The lobbying industry in the US is gigantic and this appears to be their sole function.
    .
    I'm sure Biden wants to help his son become as successful as possible within the boundaries of the law and his viewpoint of proper ethics. Hunter Biden may have had no experience in gas production, but he does now, ha ha. Perhaps he was even good at that job and did useful things. We all gained experience from somewhere, and parents pulling strings or simply knowing about opportunities is not something that is going to stop. This doesn't bother me much, it's just distasteful, and it should be acknowledged for what it is.
    .
    Trump asking for an investigation is not going to find anything. Suspect hire for political influence. Yawn. Investigation requested. Yawn. No smoking guns found. Yawn. The criminality of asking for it to be investigated is right up there with getting the job in the first place. Anybody with half a brain can get stuff like this done with a wink and a nod. Punishing those with less than half a brain isn't really fixing anything. The people who are really good at this type of corruption are the ones we should be worried about.

  524. Lucia –

    Here we go:

    > "Everything, to me, is about corruption," Trump said. "I don’t care about Biden’s campaign, but I do care about corruption."

    I should avoid imprecise language – but I'd say that the number of people who actually believe that is rather small, although the number of people who are willing to look the other way and support Trump propagating such nonsense is not small at all.

  525. >You can be against influence peddling if you want, but try writing an effective law to enforce that.

    Nothing is perfect and I have no such expectation.

    The first place to start is campaign finance regulation. Passing such laws could likely lead to improvement. Such laws are problematic w/r/t some philosophical issues, but at some point you have to make some hard choices. If you want to continue to have such a corrupt system were there is systematic influence-peddling built in, then continue to resist campaign finance laws.

  526. OK_Max wrote: "In the future most Harvard students could be Asians if admissions were based entirely on academics."
    .
    Why would this be a problem?

  527. Tom Scharf (Comment #176628): "Trump asking for an investigation is not going to find anything. Suspect hire for political influence. Yawn."

    There is no really meaningful way to investigate the hire. If the only non-Ukrainian board members were people with political connections, that would be suspicious but that is as far as it would go.

    The Ukrainian Prosecutor General has started an investigation into how certain cases, including Burisma, were handled. He is in a position to interview the people involved and to inspect all pertinent documents. So that should reveal whether there was an active investigation on Shokin's watch and why it was closed by his successor. Even the worst possible result for Biden would still allow him to play innocent, so maybe it would not matter on this side of the Atlantic.

  528. I take generally a dim view of campaign finance reform since each round of that in the past seems to have made things worse. But I quite like this idea from Montana Governor Steve Bullock:

    "At the end of a campaign, every federal elected official and challenger would be required to close their campaign account and stop campaign activity. They couldn't restart their campaign until half-way through the term of the office they hold: that's three years for US senators, two years for presidents and one year for members of the House.
    "During that time, they couldn't file for re-election, solicit donations, clog up your inbox with fundraising emails or raise money for affiliated leadership PACs.
    "Any money a campaign has remaining after paying expenses from the last election will be donated to charity, the presidential matching funds program, or to the government for deficit reduction."
    https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/03/opinions/steve-bullock-end-permanent-campaign-opinion/index.html

  529. Brandon, before seeing DeWitt's response, I was planning to respond, that they weren't talking about Cohen lying to Congress, but pleading guilty of a campaign finance violation. There was previously a hung jury for John Edwards on similar charges, and DOJ declined to retry.

    Papa didn't brag about talking to Russians. He bragged about Russia having Hillary's e-mails.

  530. Mike M –

    > I take generally a dim view of campaign finance reform *since each round of that in the past seems to have made things worse.*

    By what metric have you determined that influence-peddling got worse? How much worse did it get, over what period of time? How did you control for any variety of potential confounds so as to establish the cause-and-effect relationship?

  531. Joshua,
    Yes. I've avoided addressing the idea you raised earlier that corruption is worse under Trump for similar reasons. The truth is it's hard work to puzzle such things out.

  532. Mark –

    > I've avoided addressing the idea you raised earlier that corruption is worse under Trump for similar reasons. The truth is it's hard work to puzzle such things out.

    Yes. This goes back to an issue Lucia raised earlier. How do we measure "corruption" – ideally in a way such that the conclusions about that measurement aren't more or less a direct function of the ideology of the person measuring. Is that possible? Which goes back to how we define "corruption."

    I can think of a few relevant metrics. One might be the % of cabinet and other administration officials who have direct ties to industries. Another might be the amount of money being spent by corporate or other interests on lobbying and on campaigns. But these are complicated topics. For example, if we're measuring "influence-peddling," should we be measuring small-dollar donations as well as large corporations: if a candidate crafts policies to appeal to small-dollar donors, is that a form of "influence-peddling?"

    Another relevant metric might be the openness with which a politician peddles their influence. Trump regularly advocates for or against private sector entities. He shills for Fox News' business more or less constantly. Seems to me he spends a lot of time openly engaged in "crony capitalism." Perhaps we might agree that Trump is more open about it. But if so, is that a good thing or a bad thing? Does more openness about it mean more or less corruption – or is the degree of openness irrelevant?

    Which goes back to ideas such as that "there is no acceptable practice." What does that mean, exactly?

    Hmmm.

  533. Tom Scharf (Comment #176624)
    October 4th, 2019 at 10:27 am
    OK_Max,
    You can include yourself in the "usual suspects" if you want, but I am referring to those who attach morality to wealth enabled viewpoints. There is nothing wrong with eating or not eating red meat unless you start thinking either way makes you a better person than your peers. The response to the red meat article has a lot of "maybe it doesn't hurt you physically but it is immoral for other reasons".
    _______

    Tom, if there is a "wealth enabled viewpoint" on diet I believe it has more to do with health than morality. I associate morality with a religion enabled viewpoint, and religions do have rules on food and drink. Many Southern Baptists believe they are morally better than me because I drink alcoholic beverages and they don't. If any vegetarians believe they are morally superior to meat-eating Baptist,
    I would be glad, and I wouldn't even care if they felt a little superior to me for eating meat once a week.

    BTW, in an previous comment you criticized the NYTimes for being unfair in its coverage of the Catholic Church. "The NYT runs almost exclusively child predator stories when it covers Catholicism …,"
    From the link below I found most of the NYTimes articles on the Catholic Church were not about child predators, but don't know about emphasis.

    https://www.nytimes.com/topic/organization/roman-catholic-church

  534. Joshua
    **I can think of a few relevant metrics. One might be the % of cabinet and other administration officials who have direct ties to industries. Another might be the amount of money being spent by corporate or other interests on lobbying and on campaigns. But these are complicated topics. **
    One thing that is not complicated is this: a cabinet member of industry official having a direct tie to an industry is not corruption. Neither would having direct ties to academia, or a relgious organization, or a not-for-profit or any organization.

    Corporations spending money on campaigns also not corruption.

    The only way this can start being corruption is if the person starts to use government influence to individual wealth or power, or get jobs for himself or his close relatives and friends. This is generally done secretly.

    **if we're measuring "influence-peddling," should we be measuring small-dollar donations as well as large corporations**
    Of course small-dollar donations can be corruption just as much as large dollar donations. Donations are generally not corrupt. But if they were, often "small-dollar" ones that are organized by a particular person (as has happened in illinois) bring influence to the person who organized the event or campaign to bring in the small dollars. So they can be just as bad (or good) as large ones. (They can be worse!)

    **Another relevant metric might be the openness with which a politician peddles their influence.**

    Openness about influence peddling would be less corrupt. We see it. Voters can decide what to do.

  535. DaveJR (Comment #176631)
    October 4th, 2019 at 11:20 am
    OK_Max wrote: "In the future most Harvard students could be Asians if admissions were based entirely on academics."
    .
    Why would this be a problem?
    _______

    If the majority of applicants were white, the school probably would pressured to admit more whites.

  536. Mike M. (Comment #176620)
    October 4th, 2019 at 10:18 am
    "He was accused of that in the press. But the charge was entirely without foundation, as any honest, informed person would know."

    Given Flynn admitted to doing what I described when he pled guilty to lying when he said he didn't do it, I'm not sure how "any honest, informed person would know" he the accusation "was entirely without foundation." I would think Flynn saying he did it when he pled guilty to a crime is at least some sort of foundation for saying he did it.

    "There is no credible reason to believe that Flynn lied to the FBI. A mistaken recollection is not a lie."

    FLynn admitted he lied when he pled guilty. And given the nature of what he said he lied about, it's practically impossible to believe it was a mistake. it wasn't a question of minor details. He was asked if he talked to certain Russians about certain policy decisions on behalf of Trump. He said he hadn't. He later admitted he had. I don't see how one concludes he simply made am istake.

    "Cohen was not part of the Trump campaign. His perjured testimony was not about the campaign. The charges against him that were related to the campaign were ridiculous. I think there were other charges that were not related to he campaign, but I don't really care."

    Cohen was working as a lawyer for Trump during his campaign, during which he did work for Trump's campaign, including arranging for hush money to be paid to suppress stories that would be bad for Trump's political campaign. Additionally, Cohen was convicted for lying to Congress because he lied about Trump's attempted business deals in Russia which were worked on during Trump's campaign.

    I don't know how you conclude Cohen wasn't part of Trump's campaign or that his attempted business dealings during his campaign, about which Cohen perjured himself, wasn't about the campaign. Paying people off to help Trump get elected then lying about controversies that were a problem for Trump's campaign both seem to be strongly connected to Trump's campaign.

    DeWitt Payne (Comment #176619)
    October 4th, 2019 at 10:06 am
    "Brandon,

    Everybody from the President (all recent from either party) on down lies to Congress all the time. What's bizarre would be to prosecute someone for it."

    That's a bold statement given without any explanation or evidenciary basis. I hope you'll understand when I don't just take your word at it. You might believe this, but I've been given no reason I should.

  537. mark bofill (Comment #176626)
    October 4th, 2019 at 10:35 am
    Max,
    >>In the future most Harvard students could be Asians if admissions were based entirely on academics. If that happened, and a more diverse student population was desired, some form of affirmative action could be used to increase representations of the both the white majority and non-Asian minorities.
    —-
    I love highly conditional statements. Many things could be. But your post was *so* conditional that I don't actually follow your point. Now to be fair, I often post things with no point…
    _____

    You should tell me ahead of time if your post has no point. I might read it anyway.

    Regarding Harvard admission policy, the school will continue to use a policy based on a combination of academics and other stated qualifications rather than basing admission strictly on academics as some here think the school should. If not the student population would become more and more Asian and less White, likely resulting in a backlash from white applicants and their parents, particularly alumni and those contributing money to Harvard.

    Harvard's admission policy was in the interest of promoting and protecting diversity in the student population, usually associated with a reasonably proportion representation of minorities. It may seem odd this policy could end up protecting the White majority, but that's what could happen if one minority becomes way over represented.

  538. OK_Max wrote "If the majority of applicants were white, the school probably would pressured to admit more whites."
    .
    Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't, but it's irrelevant to the question I'm asking. You said:
    .
    "In the future most Harvard students could be Asians if admissions were based entirely on academics."
    .
    You seem to be pushing the idea, like Harvard, that this represents a problem requiring a solution. Personally, I find the idea of rejecting someone for an academic position based on how they look, rather than their academics, repugnant and terribly old-fashioned, so I would like to understand why you would consider such a policy?

  539. Aside from all the noise here about foreign interference of various sorts reprising the massive propaganda efforts surrounding it for 3 years (virtually all of it from the media and their political arm, the Democrat party), 2 obvious facts stand out that neither Brandon nor anyone else has addressed.

    1. This kind of foreign "interference" has always been a factor in elections. It's impossible in an open society to prevent it especially in the case of hostile governments. Obama tried to interfere in an Isreali election and no one cared. It only became a "big deal" when Hillary's people created the narrative that "the Russians caused Hillary's defeat" and the media and the Democrats (but I repeat myself) picked it up to try to drive Trump from office.

    2. The US government asks foreign governments to help in criminal or civil investigations all the time. It's not unusual, illegal, or unethical. Its required by international treaties in many cases. Trump's phone call is totally innocuous. It can only seem outrageous to those who are repulsed by Trump for other reasons.

  540. DaveJR (Comment #176643
    Personally, I find the idea of rejecting someone for an academic position based on how they look, rather than their academics, repugnant and terribly old-fashioned, so I would like to understand why you would consider such a policy?
    ______

    I don't think it's academics plus looks, I think it's academics plus other things. You seem to be saying the only other thing is looks.

  541. Lucia –

    > One thing that is not complicated is this: a cabinet member of industry official having a direct tie to an industry is not corruption. Neither would having direct ties to academia, or a relgious organization, or a not-for-profit or any organization.

    I happen to disagree, and I think it is complicated. Cabinet members having direct ties to industry may not *necessarily* be corruption, but just as Hunter Biden being paid a lot to be on a board of a Ukranian company is not *necessarily* corruption, in both cases I think there is some relevance to the metric.

    I tend to think that, for example, the circle jerk where defense contractors or other industry representatives go back and forth between regulatory agencies and high-ranking government positions, and then high-level positions in private sector entities, and then possibly back into government again, is a form of corruption. I had a problem with it under the Clinton administration, and I have a problem with it under the Trump administration. I kind of thought that's the kind of thing that Trump was referencing when he talked of the "swamp" and made promises he didn't keep about the influence of lobbyists on his administration. I didn't believe that he would follow-through so I'm not even remotely surprised that he didn't. Now just because a particular individual goes back and forth between the government and the industries being regulated by that government doesn't *necessarily* mean that there is a form of corruption taking place. But IMO, it does suggest a greater potential for various forms of corruption, such as influence-peddling, whereby the people serving in the government are not really representing the public interest so much as representing their own. Not a perfect metric, but IMO one that is of some use.

    IMO, there is no such metric as "corruption." Assessing corruption is a matter of assessing a series of components, none of which are sufficient in and of themselves, all of which are problematic and complicated, but which may nonetheless be of some relevance.

    So, IMO, you collect some metrics and you do the best you can to make an evaluation. The metric of direct ties to industries, IMO, has some relevance w/r/t to corruption. If it doesn't to you, that's fine. But from where I sit, direct ties to industries tends towards concentrating power in a way that runs, to some degree, counter to democratic principles where people have at least something approaching equal representation. Corporations tend to concentrate power disproportionately in the hands of relatively few, who then tend towards unequal "influence," which can lead to greater propensity towards "influence-peddling." I don't think it's a perfect metric, but then again unlike you, I think that the issue is rather complicated.

    > The only way this can start being corruption is if the person starts to use government influence to individual wealth or power, or get jobs for himself or his close relatives and friends. This is generally done secretly.

    I guess you and I have somewhat different definitions of corruption. I see the potential for corruption in factors that "corrupt" the democratic process, the process of government, and our economic system. I also see the potential for corruption, of the criminal sort, as increasing with the concentration of power where people have an accompanying influence. Since it's hard to measure corruption directly, because *sometimes* it is hidden, I think it's understandable to assess metrics which can serve as a kind of proxy. Not a perfect system, for sure. But I don't expect a perfect system.

    As such, I can certainly understand why people look at Hunter Biden and see him getting a large sum of money because of his connection to influential people, and think there's an increased potential for influence-peddling. Seems like a fairly natural kind of heuristic to me. As such, I think measuring such conditions is a useful, if not sufficient, metric. The problem comes into play, IMO, when people treat such a metric as dispositive, or leverage such a metric in a fallacious way for political expediency.

    Yes, overt corruption, in the form of influence peddling, is generally done secretly. What's interesting about the situation with Trump is that as he has said, he seems to think that he can get away with anything. As such, his influence peddling is right out there in the open. It's an interesting strategy. It seems that for some people, the fact that he does it right out in the open inoculates him from criticism, or grants him some kind of license to continue his influence-peddling. Apparently some people think that if he does it out in the open that means that he isn't doing it.
    A very interesting phenomenon indeed. My concern is that by doing it out in the open he can get away with the kind of influence-peddling that ordinarily would be disqualifying for a politician.

    > Of course small-dollar donations can be corruption just as much as large dollar donations.

    I suppose they *can* be, but for me there is a kind of logic that when you concentrate power through unequal distribution of donations, you increase the potential for certain people to have outsized influence, and this an increased gravitational pull towards influence peddling. There isn't some kind of law donation physics, IMO, that says that with greater concentration of donations you necessarily get a greater degree of influence peddling, but there is a certain underlying logic there that I consider troublesome.

    > Donations are generally not corrupt.

    Again, we go back to the definition of corruption. I think that influence-peddling has a corrupting impact in a number of ways.
    For me, the problem is how to draw some kind of line between problematic influencing of politicians and a relatively non-problematic form of influencing.

    > But if they were, often "small-dollar" ones that are organized by a particular person (as has happened in illinois) bring influence to the person who organized the event or campaign to bring in the small dollars. So they can be just as bad (or good) as large ones. (They can be worse!)

    I guess I see an individual amassing a large quantity of individual donations so as to amass a significantly unequal amount of influence and gravitational pull for influence-peddling as essentially like the kind of problem represented by corporations concentrating influence unequally in a relatively small number of individuals. I such a situation as distinctly different than a bunch of small donations that aren't aggregated so as to concentrate influence unequally. As such, I don't really see that situation as really aproblem of "small donations."

  542. Brandon,
    “He was accused of secretly talking to Russia to negotiate policy actions while Donald Trump was not in office.”
    .
    Secretly? What a bizarre take. Clearly, with his background in intelligence analysis, Flynn knew the the Russian ambassador’s phone calls were routinely recorded by the ‘intelligence community’. It was during the transition, a few weeks before Obama would be out of office. Obviously the Russians would ignor Obama. Do you seriously expect the Russians (or anyone else) to ignore that Trump would be taking over in a few weeks? This is so bizarre that I can only conclude you are either delusional or foolish… I am uncertain which it is, but it doesn’t matter. Your take on all of it is 100% partisan and ignores reality to boot.

  543. Brandon: "If Obama directed any of this be done, it's difficult for me to imagine how we'd have no evidence of such."
    .
    Have your heard about the Strzok-Page texts? "potus wants to know everything we are doing."
    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/feb/7/new-texts-between-fbis-peter-strzok-lisa-page-show/?utm_source=GOOGLE&utm_medium=cpc&utm_id=chacka&utm_campaign=TWT+-+DSA&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIx-GypeKD5QIVGY7ICh3JXwwhEAMYASAAEgIf9_D_BwE
    .
    "That a person denies what they've been accused of is not convincing evidence the accusation is untrue."
    .
    That is true, but Shokin already has been fired. If he is lying (or even if he is being truthful for that matter) he is opening himself up for perjury charges. And if you don't think they prosecute lying then ask Popadoploulos, Flynn, Stone and Cohen.
    .
    Brandon : "…if you acknowledge the whistleblower's allegations are substantially true, which seems unavoidable given Trump's public statements and actions, the details of who the whistleblower is, what they knew and why they filed their complaint seems relatively unimportant."
    .
    I find your logic unpersuasive that the whistelblower's claim could not be weak and also be corrupt or politically motivated.

  544. Ed Forbes (Comment #176627)
    October 4th, 2019 at 10:54 am
    Tom: “..Most people can't afford to shop at or have access to a Whole Paycheck Foods. If people want to eat organic that is fine by me, but lecturing others about how morally bankrupt McDonald's is or how feeding your kids the evils of cheap and easy processed food is bad when you are a single mother barely scraping by is crossing a line when the science is suspect…”
    .
    Well said !!!
    _____

    I don't think so. If I say McDonald's is morally bankrupt, I'm not lecturing others, I'm criticizing McDonald's. Others may agree or disagree with my opinion. Similarly, if I say some processed food is bad for health, others can agree or disagree, or even agree, not care and eat it anyway.

    Actually, I don't have a problem with McDonalds and am eating processed food ( a cookie) as I write. But I rarely go to McDonalds and do limit my consumption of processed snacks.

    I disagree with the view working mothers are too busy to take the time to prepare well-rounded nutritious meals for their children, and have no choice but to feed them cheap and easy processed food. That view is an insult to working mothers.

  545. Tom, WRT to Fox News, only their evening opinion crew is really reflecting the conservative voice. The news division has Shepard Smith and Chris Wallace, both very liberal. Judge Napolitano is very neverTrump libertarian. Brandon claims that the news media does not need to be objective since we have the editorial division of Fox News. If that changed and was wiped out we would have taken an irreversible leap toward "1984." It would be very hard to be free without free speech broadcasting.
    .
    Joshua points out that all politics is corrupt. Limited government with strong checks and balances is the heart of Tea Party libertarianism and modern conservatism. Bernie Sanders is the antithesis of this.
    "If men were angels.." -Federalists 51.
    https://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm
    .
    Mike M: "I also agreed with him [Biden on impeachment] 20 years ago." I many of us did which is why it was a loser for the GOP. However I am skeptical that liberals have the same reverence for the Constitution.

  546. Joshua
    **Cabinet members having direct ties to industry may not *necessarily* be corruption, but just as Hunter Biden being paid a lot to be on a board of a Ukranian company is not *necessarily* corruption, in both cases I think there is some relevance to the metric.**
    No one said Hunter Biden being paid a lot to be on said board was corruption. The accusation is that he *landed* the job as a result of his father's machinations which involved using political power. That– if true– WOULD be corruption.

    So no: this is NOT complicated. Having a "connection" to industry is not corruption. Having a well paid job on a board is not corruption.

    A politician using his position to benefit himself his kin or his friends (especially financially) IS corruption. (Reading later: I think it appears we agree on this. But I do think it's important to recognize WHAT the corruption actually is. Otherwise, "rules" for identifying it will be ineffective.)

    The open question with the Bidens is how Hunter got the job especially whether his father used government pressure. I've been busy in the past two weeks, so I don't actually know. (Yes: those of you who think you've told me– you may have. But.. I haven't processed through it all.)

    **I tend to think that, for example, the circle jerk where defense contractors or other industry representatives go back and forth between regulatory agencies and high-ranking government positions, and then high-level positions in private sector entities, and then possibly back into government again, is a form of corruption.**
    .
    Yes. I agree. This is corruption.
    .
    But once again: it's simple– it's the use of government position for financial benefit that is the corruption. But a person in government merely having a "connection" with an industry or business is not corruption. And it shouldn't be seen as such because if it is EVERYTHING including connection to corporations, academia, national labs, unions, non-governmental organizations, being a partner in a law firm and even being a person in business is– itself– corruption. I don't think all those things are corruption, so I don't think one particular one of them is corruption.

    By the way: these circle jerks of which you speak also can and do happen at *national labs* , *academia* with law firms and with various group like.. oh Planned Parenthood (who I have nothing against btw.).

    So this is NOT an issue of "corporations". It is an issue of the "circle jerk", which sometimes involves corporations, other times involves "foundations", academia or even things like national laboratories (because of the way those are actually funded.)

    * I see the potential for corruption in factors that "corrupt" the democratic process, the process of government, and our economic system.*
    Put this way: I don't think we see it differently.
    .
    It seems to me our main difference so far is that– for some reason– you seem to identify this with connection to "corporations" and not other entities. But it happens just as readily with other entities, and even with things that look almost like "feed at the trough part of government" to "fill the trough part government" . (That would be national lab to agencies like DOE, DOE, NSF, …. and so on.)

    **that says that with greater concentration of donations you necessarily get a greater degree of influence peddling, but there is a certain underlying logic there that I consider troublesome.**

    Sure. More money, more influence. Which is why in **ILLINOIS** we've had situations where some people who were "rain makers" by hosting events to bring in small donations often did it to gain a degree of influence and did influence peddle. (I'd have to look up the cases– but this happens.)
    .
    It also means Unions — like the teachers union, teamsters and so on who do control a lot of money and donate "for" all their "individual" members get a lot of influence. These are probably not groups you (or really anyone) lumps under "corporations".
    .
    Or maybe they are. But at least in terms of words and generally who some people propose to regulate or call "corrupt", these groups don't fall under "corporations". So care needs to be taken to not just say "corporate donations" if what you really mean is "big bundled donations controlled by some single entitie like a corporation, unions, PAC, church…. and so on"
    .
    Because even if you don't mean just "corporate", people will tend to mean you mean "corporations" when you say 'corporations.

  547. Ron,

    Given the contact the whistleblower had with Adam Schiff's (chairman of the House Intelligence Committee) staff long before the papers were filed, a political motive is highly likely. Schiff's behavior is also over the top. Even the WP gave him four Pinocchios for, among other things, claiming that he had no prior knowledge of the complaint.

    https://www.foxnews.com/media/washington-post-awards-adam-schiff-four-pinocchios-for-false-comments-about-whistleblower

  548. OK_Max,

    Caltech uses race-blind admissions because, AFAIK (and I went there as an undergraduate), they want as many of the entering freshman class to graduate as possible. When I was there, they lost about 30%. If they used Harvard's system, it's very likely that many more would drop or flunk out. They currently admit about 40% Asian-Americans. Because of statistics, there will still be a lot of whites that have the same qualifications as Asian-Americans, at least until Asian-Americans become the majority, which isn't likely to happen.

    Brandon,

    Do you understand the concept of hyperbole? Real question. Your response to my 'everyone lies to Congress' indicates that you don't.

  549. Lucia,
    “Because even if you don't mean just "corporate", people will tend to mean (think?) you mean "corporations" when you say 'corporations.”
    .
    There are, of course, ‘good corporations’ like Facebook and Google, where the founders cash out and pocket enormous wealth, to the tune of tens of billions of dollars, but magically manage to retain control through share structures that keep ‘the rabble’, who actually put up those tens of billions, from gaining control of the company. These ‘good’ corporations support leftist policies and leftist politicians, even if this is not in the interests of their shareholders.
    .
    Then there are ‘bad corporations’ where the shareholders’ interests are actually what guides the corporation (you know, evil organizations like Exxon, GE, Ford, and the like).
    .
    You need to keep in mind that people who appear personally ‘corrupt’, like those company founders who cash out, yet retain control, are *not* in fact corrupt because they support progressive policies, While anyone associated with a ‘bad’ corporation, where the shareholders’ interest is paramount, are profoundly corrupt, even if they appear to otherwise to be saints…. and especially corrupt if they in any way oppose progressive policies.
    .
    Which is to say: Most all discussion of ‘corporate corruption’ has almost nothing to do with actual corruption, and isa almost 100% about poliicy differences.

  550. Sorry Joshua, been driving all this time. At a quick glance Lucia's responses cover the points I'd have tried to make.

  551. SteveF
    **here are, of course, ‘good corporations’ like Facebook and Google, **
    Sure. and if "the law" was somehow connection to "corporations" PER SE was forbiden of government officials then either

    (a) Jeff Bezos cannot end up in charge of any cabinet position or

    (b) he can only become one if he divests himself of Amazon. (Let's not even talk about what's required if he is elected to Congress as a member of the house or senates.)

    I'm not saying I'm for Bezos. I suspect I have differences of opinion on political view iwth him..

    But even if I diasagree with his politics I don't think people who are elected to congress, president, or appointed to government positions should be REQUIRED to give up their peanut farms, businesses ( Amazon-large or small) and so on.

    Admittedly, if someone becomes president, they'll probably survive giving up the peanut farm because their memoirs are worth something and they can sell publication rights and make speaking fees that exceed peanut farm revenues.

    But suppose AOC owned a bar and has organized ownership in an LLC (aka "corporation"). She's gets elected as a freshman congress man– or takes a job in government. Does she HAVE to put the bar in a blind trust? Because we "fear" corruption? I think that's just nutso.

    We can't just use "corporation" as proxy for "temptation to use government power to gain personal financial " because (a) there are sooooo many other ways to use government power to gain personal financial benefit and (b) owing corporations is merely a business practice used by lots of people for lots of reasons and NO MORE likely to pervert the democratic process than unions, partnerships, academia, national lab… and so on.

  552. Lucia –

    > No one said Hunter Biden being paid a lot to be on said board was corruption.

    .
    Hmmm. I've seen many people state that it was corruption without actually having knowledge about the circumstances of his job – merely because he was on the board and getting paid a lot of money, and they decided that he must not have returned value for his payments. So yes, actually they were saying that him being on the board was corruption. Steve said "there is no acceptable practice" in reference to Hunter "trading on his father’s political position." In actuality, he doesn't know that Hunter traded on his father's political position. He has made that assumption. There is a certain logic to that assumption – but he doesn't actually know it to be true. What he knows to be true is that they paid Hunter to be on the board. That's basically all he really knows. So actually he, like many, many other people, rather precisely said that it was corruption because Hunter was paid a lot to be on the board.
    .

    > The accusation is that he *landed* t99he job as a result of his father's machinations which involved using political power. That– if true– WOULD be corruption.

    .
    Not as I see it. A company could decide to hire him because he was the vice-president's son without there being any actual corruption. A company can hire whomever they want for whatever reason they want. They might have a wrong expectation that by hiring him they will curry some kind of favor. A company might someone because they simply want someone famous on the board because it will attract attention or in their mind, establish some kind of legitimacy. Hunter achieved a certain status in his life. We might say that he achieved that status because of who his father is, but that could be complicated to prove. So the company could have hired him because of what he did to achieve a certain status. Companies hire people because of their family connections all the time and the company can say whatever they want about their reasons for the hire. They can simply say that they are making the hire because they were uniquely impressed by the character of the individual. Or they were impressed by the interview. Or they found the candidate to be charming. Proving something about it one way or the other is complicated.
    .

    > So no: this is NOT complicated. Having a "connection" to industry is not corruption. Having a well paid job on a board is not corruption.

    .
    Ok. So you state as a matter of fact that it isn't complicated. I state as a matter of opinion that I think it is complicated. Not much further to go with that. I think it is a matter of opinion and you think that it is a matter of fact. I see that kind of situation a lot in the blogosphere. It's an interesting situation, IMO. I'm obviously not going to convince you that something that you think is a matter of fact is actually a matter of opinion, and you aren't going to convince me that something I see as a matter of opinion is actually a matter of fact.
    .

    > A politician using his position to benefit himself his kin or his friends (especially financially) IS corruption. (Reading later: I think it appears we agree on this.
    .

    .
    Not totally. I think it's rather complicated, often, to determine whether a politician has used his position to benefit himself or his kin. There are a lot of grey lines, IMO. And then I guess you'd agree that everything that all the corporate executives in the Trump administration have been corrupt, because pretty much everything that they have done since he's been in office can be interpreted as benefiting their friends (if not themselves or their families) in their industries. I see these issues as complicated because the interpretation of what you're describing is far from simple.
    .

    > The open question with the Bidens is how Hunter got the job especially whether his father used government pressure.
    .

    .
    I think it's complicated. Would the pressure be something like, "I'd like you to do us a favor?" If so, then we'd have every Republican in the universe lining up to say that Trump is corrupt – yet we don't have that. So I'd say that interpreting what pressure is there, is complicated.

    > **I tend to think that, for example, the circle jerk where defense contractors or other industry representatives go back and forth between regulatory agencies and high-ranking government positions, and then high-level positions in private sector entities, and then possibly back into government again, is a form of corruption.**
    .
    Yes. I agree. This is corruption.

    **************'

    .
    Good, I'm glad we agree on that. However, now that I look back on it, I also recognize that determining that corruption can be difficult, and my statement didn't fully recognize how complicated it can be. Simply the fact of someone moving from and industry to the government sector regulating or monitoring that industry, and them moving back to the industry itself, isn't in itself corruption, IMO. People in the government and in industries often say that you need someone who has in-depth knowledge of the industry to be involved so as to enable informed decisions. There is some legitimacy to such an argument, IMO. So, again, I say it's complicated. And my opinion is that it's important to very carefully lay out the various complications so that people can make valid arguments. The biggest problem that I have with all of this is when people make simplistic arguments that can easily be leveraged for political expediency.
    .
    > But once again: it's simple– it's the use of government position for financial benefit that is the corruption.
    .

    .
    Again, I don't agree. So again you state a fact and I state an opinion. Not much further to go with that, that I can tell.

    > But a person in government merely having a "connection" with an industry or business is not corruption.

    .
    I'm not sure how you outline the difference between a connection and corruption. How does someone moving back and forth between an industry and the government cross that line?

    > And it shouldn't be seen as such because if it is EVERYTHING including connection to corporations, academia, national labs, unions, non-governmental organizations, being a partner in a law firm and even being a person in business is– itself– corruption. I don't think all those things are corruption, so I don't think one particular one of them is corruption.

    .
    I agree. So to me that suggests that it's complicated.

    > By the way: these circle jerks of which you seek also can and do happen at *national labs* , *academia* with law firms and with various group like.. oh Planned Parenthood (who I have nothing against btw.).

    .
    Sure. But I am also adding the element of the concentration of power and influence. The difference between membership organizations where representatives are, at least putatively, selected through a representative process, and where those representatives are, at least putatively, representing everyone in the organization, and corporations where that isn't the case, and where the individuals represent only a select sub-group of the entity – those who have concentrated power, is a significant difference, IMO, w/r/t the "influence-peddling" aspect.

    > So this is NOT an issue of "corporations". It is an issue of the "circle jerk", which sometimes involves corporations, other times involves "foundations", academia or even things like national laboratories (because of the way those are actually funded.)

    .
    I agree to some extent, but I caveat my agreement as per above.

    > * I see the potential for corruption in factors that "corrupt" the democratic process, the process of government, and our economic system.*
    Put this way: I don't think we see it differently.

    .
    Ok.
    .

    > It seems to me our main difference so far is that– for some reason– you seem to identify this with connection to "corporations"

    .
    See above. I think that the connection to the concentration of power, and the processes of how that unequal access to power, and how that power provides unequal access to how that "influence" is concentrated, is relevant.
    .

    > and not other entities.

    .
    I wouldn't eliminate other entities entirely. Not at all. But I do think that there are structural differences between various types of entities that are relevant – *in a complicated fashion.*
    .

    > But it happens just as readily with other entities, and even with things that look almost like "feed at the trough part of government" to "fill the trough part government" . (That would be national lab to agencies like DOE, DOE, NSF, …. and so on.)
    .

    Sure. Where there are regulatory bodies, and where there are governmental entities which dispense power and attract influence-peddling, there is the potential for corruption as I define it. It is inevitable. But while I recoginze that potential across the board, that doesn't mean that I consider all such intersections between government bodies and other organizational entities as equally likely, in theory or in reality, to be "corrupt" or to exercise corrupt influence.
    .

    > Sure. More money, more influence. Which is why in **ILLINOIS** we've had situations where some people who were "rain makers" by hosting events to bring in small donations often did it to gain a degree of influence and did influence peddle. (I'd have to look up the cases– but this happens.)
    .

    .
    > It also means Unions — like the teachers union, teamsters and so on who do control a lot of money and donate "for" all their "individual" members get a lot of influence. These are probably not groups you (or really anyone) lumps under "corporations".
    .

    I think that theoretically there is a basic structural difference between unions and corporate structures as I alluded to above. Of course, unions can very well be corrupt, where the leadership fails to actually represent the constituency. And there are corporations where the leadership actually makes a very serious approach to make sure that their leadership accurately reflects the interests and wishes of the individuals who comprise the corporation. But I do think that some general differences apply, even if how they apply in all situations can be very complicated.
    .
    .

    > Or maybe they are. But at least in terms of words and generally who some people propose to regulate or call "corrupt", these groups don't fall under "corporations". So care needs to be taken to not just say "corporate donations" if what you really mean is "big bundled donations controlled by some single entitie like a corporation, unions, PAC, church…. and so on"
    .

    Sure. I should be more careful to include the variety of bundled or concentrated donations so as to fully describe the corrupting influence of large, concentrated channels of money. I wouldn't want to eliminate those other entities from corrupting power – even if I don't view all concentrated donations as equally corrupt (on face value).
    .
    .

    > Because even if you don't mean just "corporate", people will tend to mean you mean "corporations" when you say 'corporations.

    .
    More specificity is always good.

    OK. I may have beaten this sufficiently to death to call in the coroner.

  553. Mark –

    Thanks for the heads up. If there's anything that Lucia missed, feel free to point out where I said something loony.

  554. DeWitt Payne (Comment #176653)
    October 4th, 2019 at 6:43 pm
    OK_Max,

    "Caltech uses race-blind admissions because, AFAIK (and I went there as an undergraduate), they want as many of the entering freshman class to graduate as possible. When I was there, they lost about 30%. If they used Harvard's system, it's very likely that many more would drop or flunk out."
    _________

    DeWitt, I don't know if dropout rates alone tell much, but here are the 4-year graduation rates (freshman class of 2012) for some of the better known schools:

    Notre Dame 91%
    U of Chicago 89%
    Georgetown 89%
    Yale 88%
    Harvard 87%
    MIT 85%
    Cal Tech 81%
    USC 78%
    UCLA 77%
    Stanford 75%

    https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/rankings/highest-grad-rate

  555. Joshua
    **Hmmm. I've seen many people state that it was corruption without actually having knowledge about the circumstances of his job – merely because he was on the board and getting paid a lot of money, and they decided that he must not have returned value for his payments. **
    Perhaps. And perhaps they merely didn't explicitly state WHAT the problem was. Or they don't get it. But the only *corruption issue* would be if he got the job because of his fathers use of political power.

    **Not as I see it. A company could decide to hire him because he was the vice-president's son without there being any actual corruption. A company can hire whomever they want for whatever reason they want. They might have a wrong expectation that by hiring him they will curry some kind of favor. A company might someone because they simply want someone famous on the board because it will attract attention or in their mind, establish some kind of legitimacy. Hunter achieved a certain status in his life. We might say that he achieved that status because of who his father is, but that could be complicated to prove. So the company could have hired him because of what he did to achieve a certain status. Companies hire people because of their family connections all the time and the company can say whatever they want about their reasons for the hire. They can simply say that they are making the hire because they were uniquely impressed by the character of the individual. Or they were impressed by the interview. Or they found the candidate to be charming. Proving something about it one way or the other is complicated.**

    .
    Having said that his *obtaining* a job that appears to be outside the range of his qualifications yada, yada does make people think it might have been owing to his father influence.

    **Steve said "there is no acceptable practice" in reference to Hunter "trading on his farther’s political position." In actuality, he doesn't know that Hunter traded on his father's political position.**
    So while I may be wrong, it appears that
    (a) three of us agree that Hunter's *trading on his father's influence* would be wrong, we don't yet
    (b) two of us think we know for sure he did.

    But (b) doesn't make Steve's observation of (a) wrong. And it doesn't mean we disagree on that. It only means we need to look at the eviddence vis-a-vis hunter.

    I think it smells bad enough it should be looked into. I don't know what the final conclusion would be.

    First
    .
    (a) part of what you say seems to focuses on the COMPANIES motives and outcomes rather than on the "machincations" (promises or pressure) from Biden. That would be relevant if we are concerned about whether we are going to send the COMPANY to jail or fine it etc. It's irrelevant to whether we think BIDEN acted improperly and whether we think the faith of the US public has been violated by the action of a government official.
    .
    (b) IF we look at things only from view point (a) and say that's OK then, then we MUST conclude Trump suggesting investigating to Ukraine is ok, because…. after all.. Ukraine can't know what's going to happen. And anyway, they might also want to investigate Biden. And countries do lots of things for lots of reasons yada yada…. (Perhaps you think the criticisms of Trump are all pearl clutching and for show *even if he did what he is accused of doing** – and if what you are saying vis-a-vis Hunter is what you think it seems to me you should think so. Or perhaps you think for some reason there is some difference here. )

    Or
    (c) you speculate they would have hired Hunter anyway. Which maybe they would have. But in which case, Biden's machinations were a waste of time. But that doesn;t make it ok or "not corrupt" for Biden to machinate (assuming he did). It only means that he didn't *need* to. (For all we know, some of the children of the parents in the "Varsity Blues" scandal would have gotten in anyway. That doesn't mean the parents weren't acting corruptly when they hired people to take SAT's or to misrepresent the kids as being on the water polo team.)

    **I'm not sure how you outline the difference between a connection and corruption. How does someone moving back and forth between an industry and the government cross that line?**
    There is no "how" about it. Just moving does not cross the line into corruption. You need something more than moving between industry and government.

    And, once again, there is nothing "unique" about industry. You can move into academia. Or giving talks. Or journalism. Or all sort of things. Every single one of these things can "benefit" financially from having been in government–and can end up with people using connections to sway government to benefit them.

    There can't be some "rule" that says you move into government and stay there forever. Or if you do something before government, somehow you can't move into government. Such rule would be nuts.

    —
    **Not at all. But I do think that there are structural differences between various types of entities that are relevant – *in a complicated fashion.**

    I also think there are structural differences between various types of entities. But I don't think it's all that complicated:

    Public employees unions are OBVIOUSLY MUCH WORSE than corporations in terms of perverting the democratic fashion. This is NOT "complicated".
    —
    **
    > It seems to me our main difference so far is that– for some reason– you seem to identify this with connection to "corporations"

    .
    See above. I think that the connection to the concentration of power, and the processes of how that unequal access to power, and how that power provides unequal access to how that "influence" is concentrated, is relevant.

    **
    And so you must agree that PUBLIC EMPLOYEE UNIONS are much worse than corporations. Right? (I'm guessing you don't. But I would point out they have greater connection to concentration of power, greater acces to power and so have greater accees to how influence is concentrated. So I would *think* based on that you would conclude contributions from PLUBLIC EMPLOYEE UNIONS is a bigger danger than 'corporations'. (Especially as some corporations are small- and infact only single family!)

    **I think that theoretically there is a basic structural difference between unions and corporate structures as I alluded to above. Of course, unions can very well be corrupt, where the leadership fails to actually represent the constituency. And there are corporations where the leadership actually makes a very serious approach to make sure that their leadership accurately reflects the interests and wishes of the individuals who comprise the corporation.**

    Sure. Unions are more powerful and have access to money that is not their own. So they are potentially a bigger problem especially that when they step outside representing members on salary, benefits and etc. they can present view that a large plurality (or even majority) of their members disagree with.

    ** I wouldn't want to eliminate those other entities from corrupting power – even if I don't view all concentrated donations as equally corrupt (on face value).**
    Sure. I don't see all concentrated donations as equally corrupt either. So we are agreed on that.

    Butl… sorry, but I don't see any *principled* reason why you wouldn't want to eliminate the donations from entities whose potential for corrupting the democratic process is CLEARLY GREATER than that of corporations while eliminating donations from corporations.

    Public employee unions clearly have a MUCH GREATER potential for corrupting the democratic process than corporations in very many ways. (And public employees unions that get involved in politics or making political donations do corrupt the process. Or at a minimum they sway the democractic process in their own interest– which seems to be something you characterize as a problem when corporations do it.)

  556. OK-Max,
    .
    Graduation rates ALONE don't tell us if admission is fair. Graduation rate & maintaining standards do. And beyond that: not being able to change to easy majors does.
    .
    Kids at Caltech generally can't switch into an "easier" major. Kids at some other schools can. Caltech and MIT maintain very high standard; some other schools….. well… you'll graduate.

  557. I concur with Lucia's remarks about corruption and would go further to include corruption of the truth as an even greater threat to societies than misuse of authority for personal enrichment. Of course, both seem to correlate. People old enough remember the official Soviet Union news reports and shaking ones head in pity for those poor indoctrinated souls. Now we are more alike than is comfortable for me. I honestly give it a better than even chance that Russia was not directing the release of emails to Wikileaks. Putin very credibly denies it even as recently as Wednesday. He claims exoneration from the Mueller probe as much as Trump does.
    https://tass.com/politics/1081056
    .
    This is not to say the Russia was not meddling in our social media for the last 10 years, especially during the 2014 Ukraine coup and annexation of Crimea. And it's undisputed that the Russia SVR (their CIA) got caught red-handed by Dutch intelligence in the summer of 2015 landing Cozy Bear malware into the DNC. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dutch-intelligence-us-fbi-russian-hacking-cozy-bear-democratic-national-committee/
    .
    The question not asked by the incurious US press is why the maleware stayed on the DNC server from summer 2015 to June 2016, when Crowdstrike finally shut the server down (after "shoulder surfing the Russians" for about 40 days). In October of 2017, after several months of forensic analysis by Steve McIntyre, he posted evidence to support his hypothesis that Ukraine fingerprints were on the Fancy Bear malware.https://climateaudit.org/2017/10/10/part-2-the-tv5-monde-hack-and-apt28/
    .
    Crowdstrike, the cybersecuity firm brought in by Clinton through her cutout Perkins Coie to the DNC (about 40 days before she clinched the DNC nomination) held a the press conference explaining the 10-month presence Cozy Bear and the recent infection of Fancy Bear, malware designs associated with the Russian SVR and GRU, respectively. Dimitri Alperovitch, a former Russian and the CTO of Crowdstrike, explained Fancy Bear only got away with the Trump opposition research report. The following day an online persona announced himself Guccifer 2.0 and claimed to be the hacker and produced the Trump opposition research document as proof. That document had been altered to place Russian electronic fingerprints on it, which immediately was reported by Crowdstrike as confirming evidence of Russian perpetration.
    .
    Brandon: "The FBI was given a copy of the DNC server so they could examine it. A bit for bit copy of a hard drive provides, in almost all ways, the same opportunity for examination as the original copy. Unless you wish to allege there was some super secret information that could have been obtained by magnetic microsopy or some such, there is no difference."
    .
    Roger Stone trial discovery document reveals:
    "At a time of high tension in the 2016 presidential campaign, when the late Sen. John McCain and others were calling Russian “hacking” an “act of war,” the FBI settled for three redacted “draft reports” from CrowdStrike rather than investigate the alleged hacking itself, the court document shows.

    Then FBI Director James Comey admitted in congressional testimony that he chose not to take control of the DNC’s “hacked” computers, and did not dispatch FBI computer experts to inspect them, but has had trouble explaining why.

    In his testimony, he conceded that “best practices” would have dictated that forensic experts gain physical access to the computers. Nevertheless, the FBI decided to rely on forensics performed by a firm being paid for by the DNC."
    https://consortiumnews.com/2019/06/17/fbi-never-saw-crowdstrike-unredacted-or-final-report-on-alleged-russian-hacking-because-none-was-produced/

  558. lucia, I don't know how Harvard's admission policies compare with Cal Tech's and MIT"s, but doubt the latter two base admission entirely on academics, although they might give it more weight.

  559. OK_Max,
    Under California law, Caltech is not supposed to consider race at all in admissions decisions.
    Here is the racial breakdown of the 2018-2019 freshman class:
    White 27%
    Asian 40%
    Black+hispanic+native American+Pacific Islander 18%
    International Students 9%
    Mixed race 5%
    .
    ‘Mixed race’ does not include anyone where the mixture includes black, hispanic, native American, or Pacific islander, so I guess it means mostly white with Asian. Almost certainly the 18% minority figure includes lots of mixed race kids. (If someone is 1/8 black, does Cal Tech count them as black? It’s not clear.) International students are likely dominated by Asians, Indians, and Europeans.
    .
    There have been many complaints that Cal Tech actually does favor ‘underrepresented minorities’ (which is their description of blacks, latinos, etc) in admissions, despite that being officially unlawful, but no matter what, the breakdown of Cal Tech’s freshman class gives some indication of what race blind admissions at very competitive schools would look like. And that is why schools like Harvard practice racial discrimination…. They do not want their student body to look like Cal Tech’s.

  560. Dsvid Young makes a strange comment above:
    "2 obvious facts stand out that neither Brandon nor anyone else has addressed.

    1. This kind of foreign "interference" has always been a factor in elections. It's impossible in an open society to prevent it especially in the case of hostile governments. Obama tried to interfere in an Isreali election and no one cared. It only became a "big deal" when Hillary's people created the narrative that "the Russians caused Hillary's defeat" and the media and the Democrats (but I repeat myself) picked it up to try to drive Trump from office."

    It seems strange to me to say "obvious facts" have not been addressed then provide an example that hasn't been brought up. Of course things nobody brings up don't get addressed. I get Young may think these are "obvious facts" everyone should be aware of, but look at this one. Obama's administration gave $350,000 to an organization named OneVoice, which had been working to help negotiate peace talks between Israel and Palestine. No requirements were put on how the money could be spent, and the Obama administration had no control over what happened with the money.

    OneVoice used the money for political purposes, campaigning against against a candidate. There were warning signs this would happen, with the person responsible for seeing them saying he didn't read the e-mails they were in. There is nothing suggesting Obama had any knowledge of it, and there's no certainly no evidence he sought it out. If this is the best example Young can come up with to say interference in elections always happens, I'd say that's weak sauce.

    "2. The US government asks foreign governments to help in criminal or civil investigations all the time. It's not unusual, illegal, or unethical. Its required by international treaties in many cases. Trump's phone call is totally innocuous. It can only seem outrageous to those who are repulsed by Trump for other reasons."

    This is incredibly disingenuous. Asking a country to help with a criminal investigation is fine. Asking a state government to help with an investigation is fine. Nobody says otherwise. But if Trump went on TV and said, "If I were the governor of New York, I'd investigate Joe Biden for tax fraud," that is not okay. Government officials do not get to request criminal investigations into political rivals.

    Suppose I make a scene at a protest any my mayor gets mad. He thinks he smelled pot on me so he calls the police chief and says, "I'll see to it you guys get more funding if you investigate Brandon Shollenberger for smoking pot." That's what Trump did. Pretending it is okay because asking for help in criminal investigation (when there wasn't even a criminal investigation underway) is nonsense.

    For the record, I have never smoked pot in my life.

  561. SteveF:
    "Secretly? What a bizarre take."

    The media accused him of doing it secretly. If you wish to claim that's a bizarre take, you can. I don't care. What matters to me is when confronted with the accusation by the FBI, Flynn lied about what he did to try to hide a controversy he thought might hurt Trump's campaign. If you're saying Flynn did that even though he knew he'd be caught in his lie, I won't argue against it. You're free to say things like:

    "This is so bizarre that I can only conclude you are either delusional or foolish… I am uncertain which it is, but it doesn’t matter. Your take on all of it is 100% partisan and ignores reality to boot."

    But if all you have to contribute to a discussion is insults, I'd say you're wasting everyone's time.

    Ron Graf:
    "Have your heard about the Strzok-Page texts?"

    Yes. They don't do anything to contradict what I said. Offering a single quotation without context or explanation of how it supposedly contradicts what I said won't show otherwise.

    "I find your logic unpersuasive that the whistelblower's claim could not be weak and also be corrupt or politically motivated."

    I haven't said anything about whether or not the whistleblower's complaint is corrupt or politically motivated. I don't know why you'd think I have. It can't be anything I've said so you must be imagining things. That's weird. To be clear, I care if whistleblower complaints are misused for political purposes as a procedural thing. But I care much, much more about corruption that is revealed by whistleblowers. Attempting to distract people from the latter by focusing on the former is wrong.

    "Roger Stone trial discovery document reveals:
    'At a time of high tension in the 2016 presidential campaign, when the late Sen. John McCain and others were calling Russian “hacking” an “act of war,” the FBI settled for three redacted “draft reports” from CrowdStrike rather than investigate the alleged hacking itself, the court document shows.'"

    Except that isn't real. Look, I understand you can find random postings on the internet alleging facts and mindlessly repeat them, but it'd be nice if you didn't. The discovery dispute that article discusses was for unredacted versions of Crowdstrike reports, nothing more. The FBI had slightly redacted reports labeled as "drafts" that wound up being the final versions. Roger Stone's lawyers requested unredacted versions. The FBI said they didn't have such, and even if they did, the material was irrelevant to the charges made against Stone. You can verify this for yourself:

    https://www.scribd.com/document/413428947/Stone-De-123-DOJ-Response-to-MTC-Crowdstrike-Reports

    James Comey in his testimony to Congress said the FBI was given forensic copies of the server. Adrienne Watson, deputy communications director of the DNC said the FBI was given forensic copies of the server. That you can find random posting on the internet saying this didn't happen, even though they provide no evidence supporting that, is not surprising.

    What is surprising is you'd waste people's time with such. It's not much to ask that people put some amount of effort into verifying the factual allegations they make.

  562. Just as a head's up, this weekend is going to be super busy for me so I won't be commenting here for a couple days. Given that large a delay, I don't know if there'll be any reason to join in again when I have free time. Please don't take silence from me as indicating anything other than, real life takes priority. As a final note, Ron Graf wrote this in a comment above:

    "In October of 2017, after several months of forensic analysis by Steve McIntyre, he posted evidence to support his hypothesis that Ukraine fingerprints were on the Fancy Bear malware.https://climateaudit.org/2017/10/10/part-2-the-tv5-monde-hack-and-apt28/"

    If you look at at that post, you'll find it provides no evidence like he claims. The post discusses supposed connections to Arabic "jihadi sources." I don't understand that, but it's not the reason I bring this up. The reason I bring this up is I was the first person to comment on that post by McIntyre, and in that comment, I pointed out McIntyre misquoted his source by deleting text without indicating such.

    Some time after I pointed this out, McIntyre secretly edited his post to try to fix problems. Only, he edited his post without indicating such, meaning anyone who saw my comment pointing out the errors would be confused as the errors no longer existed. I commented on him secretly editing his post and wrote a post explaining what happened. He then edited my comments on his site to add inline responses acknowledging the changes. Since edits to user comments like that don't have timestamps, that made it impossible for users to see he had secretly edited his post.

    McIntyre could have initially responded with something like, "Oh yeah, my bad. I'll get that fixed." After I pointed out the secret edits, he could have gone, "My bad, I forgot to mention I fixed a couple errors." The original errors weren't that big a deal, but McIntyre's refusal to be open or honest about things was shocking. It was the first time I ever saw him use dishonest editing tactics like that. It wasn't the last. References for documentation

    http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2017/10/misquotations-are-bad/
    http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2017/10/so-silly/

  563. Lucia, I think most people are saying it is corrupt for the Ukrainian company to hire Hunter Biden. They were buying influence.

    JP Morgan paid hundreds of millions in fines for hiring children of Chinese leaders, under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

  564. Brandon Shollenberger (Comment #176613)
    October 4th, 2019 at 9:23 am "…given Trump's public statements and actions, the details of who the whistleblower is, what they knew and why they filed their complaint seems relatively unimportant."
    .
    Here I took your point to mean the only important factor is what you see as damning evidence of Trump's abuse of power, and that how the issue was brought forward is moot. I simply pointed out there is no logical connection to the two. But I hope all agree that both are equally important. Allegations can be as corrupt as the actions they are alleging. Trump supporters see nothing wrong with his curiosity about what they all believe was Dem Ukrainian (and other foreign ICs) collusion with the Clinton campaign and the US IC to thwart and then topple Trump. His opponents see the investigations and prosecutions as legitimate and normal law enforcement coming from normal counter-intelligence. So they see no wrongdoing and thus any investigation by Trump as illegitimate attempts at smearing government institutions.
    .
    Like the climate debate the assumptions are very different among the sides. Nobody can trust the news. Brandon dismisses the article I linked as slanted news. He takes Comey's congressional testimony as the final word. On that point I would ask why we have never seen the FBI's forensic analysis of their "DNC server copy." This is precisely what Roger Stone's legal team was requesting and got redacted Crowdstike analysis instead.
    .
    Brandon is correct that there is no proof that Ukraine was behind the HRC and DNC hacks. There's also no proof pointing at the Russian that has been published, only US IC conclusions, apparently based on Crowdstrike analysis.
    .
    Steve McIntrye pointed out evidence pointing in many directions including Ukrainian hackers (not necessarily government).
    Steve Mc: "Alperovitch is a twitter follower of several Ukrainian hacking groups, but not (say) Wikileaks. His family came from “Russia”, but his name appears to be (from my inexperienced and quick look) from Ukraine/Belarus part of eastern Europe (based on Ellis Island landings in early 20th century.)"
    https://climateaudit.org/2017/10/10/part-2-the-tv5-monde-hack-and-apt28/#comment-776084
    .
    Steve Mc: "George Eliason was probably the first person to suggest that Ukrainians might be involved in the DNC incident. See here.
    https://washingtonsblog.com/2017/01/crowdstrikes-russian-hacking-story-fell-apart-say-hello-fancy-bear-2.html
    continued…
    "Of the various details in the article, I was most struck by the fact that Alperovitch is a Twitter-follower of several very obscure Ukrainian hacker groups (I’ve confirmed this) with very strong anti-Russian animus and clearly having very superior hacking skills: they hacked Surkov, an important Russian. I didn’t get the impression that Alperovitch twitter-followed hackers in general; his interest in Ukraine appears specific."
    https://climateaudit.org/2017/10/10/part-2-the-tv5-monde-hack-and-apt28/#comment-776385
    .
    It's very possible the Roger Stone's legal defense is picking up the blogosphere scuttlebutt that Steve Mc was a part of in order to through smoke into the air. But the US IC is doing nothing to clear that smoke. And I don't understand they wouldn't if they could. If the only reason is that they never had evidence then claiming they did is information corruption. We can't succeed as a free country if we allow the IC to operate on the country with selective leaks (true of false) and false official reports.

  565. SteveF (Comment #176667)
    October 5th, 2019 at 6:00 am
    OK_Max,
    Under California law, Caltech is not supposed to consider race at all in admissions decisions.
    _____

    Thanks, SteveF, I didn't know that, and also didn't know Asians outnumber whites at Cal Tech. Do you know whether the school bases admissions entirely on applicant academics (SAT scores, HS grades)?

    Harvard considers qualifications other than academics in accepting applicants. Perhaps some Asian applicants who were well qualified on academics weren't accepted at Harvard because they didn't rate high on some of the other qualifications the school considers important. I don't think that's necessarily discrimination, but maybe you could argue it's de facto discrimination.

  566. My beef isn't so much with Hunter Biden being hired as a board director, although that may be worth looking into further. My beef is with quid pro Joe demanding the firing of Shokin, an action which economically benefited his son Hunter.

    That definitely is something worth looking into, and if I had the Ukraine president on the phone I would say so.

  567. MikeN (Comment #176671): "JP Morgan paid hundreds of millions in fines for hiring children of Chinese leaders, under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act."

    I think those were direct exchanges: "Use your authority to benefit our company and we will give you kid a cushy job".

    It seems to me that Burisma hiring Hunter was not a corrupt act in itself, but was probably done with the intent of furthering a corrupt purpose. As a result, Joe's subsequent actions have the appearance of being corrupt.

  568. OK_Max wrote: "I don't think it's academics plus looks, I think it's academics plus other things. You seem to be saying the only other thing is looks."
    .
    What else are you referring to about Asian's other than looks? "Asian" is not an academically relevant criteria for (de)selection so why should anyone care if a majority of students look Asian?
    .
    If you think the term "Asian" refers to something other than "looks", what are these other things that Asian's have that a majority Asian campus would constitute a problem requiring a fix?

  569. DaveJR (Comment #176676)
    October 5th, 2019 at 10:37 am
    OK_Max wrote: "I don't think it's academics plus looks, I think it's academics plus other things. You seem to be saying the only other thing is looks."

    What else are you referring to about Asian's other than looks?
    ______

    Looks aren't a qualification. At Harvard some things besides academics are. Some Asian applicants may not rate so high on those things. See my Comment #176667.

  570. OK_Max,

    SteveF is correct, there are no easy majors at Caltech. They did add an economics major a while back. But you can't do what Obama is reputed to have done at Columbia, get your graduation credits from a 9 hour seminar course that you may, or may not, have actually attended. You have maybe one optional course each semester during your first two years before you choose a major. Everybody takes the same physics, chemistry and math courses. They did try pass/fail grading for a while, but I'm pretty sure they gave it up.

    A lot of dropouts were not because of academic failure. A significant number of students, at least while I was there, decided that they didn't want to be scientists or engineers. That was the reason for adding the econ major to try to increase retention some.

    There was one black student there when I was there. He was definitely admitted on merit. They also hadn't started admitting women. My daughter was accepted for admission, but it was simply too expensive compared to a full tuition scholarship at a good school, Furman, that has a good chemistry program and was a lot closer to home. If you're going into science as a career, your undergraduate degree, provided it's accredited for your major, is much less important than where you went to grad school and who you studied under.

  571. Does anyone really know why Roger Stone is being prosecuted? (real question.) Normal conservatives have no affinity for Stone, an admitted admirer of Richard Nixon and a self-proclaimed "dirty trickster." But does this mean that they and the Dems, who naturally hate Stone, should not be concerned with government targeting? I say he IS being targeted. And I predicted he would be two years before his arrest and over a month before he was first called before congress. I suspected this based only analyzing the actions of Guccifer 2.0, whom I suspected of being part of an information op due to his not acting in any way but to benefit the Clinton campaign, deflecting the contents of the leak by shifting the focus to the break in. This is exactly how U of East Anglia dealt with Climategate.
    .
    Roger Stone, (a braggart), in March of 2017 told a reporter at TheSmokingGun.com when asked if he had any private communication with Guccifer 2.0 admitted that he had accidentally clicked a private Twitter exchange and revealed a screen shot showing Guccifer 2.0 message: "i’m pleased to say that u r great man,” please tell me if i can help u anyhow. it would be a great pleasure to me.” -Guccifer 2.0 August 17, 2016.
    .
    Roger Stone, we know now, was putting out feelers in August of 2016 trying to get in contact with Julian Assange.
    .
    What I knew by September 2017 from was that G2 looked like a intelligence false flag. Rather than looking at the face value of what G2 was saying I looked back at cui bono, who benefited. In my blog comment then I went through all the indications that pointed at this including: "Roger Stone, a high profile conservative and favorite butt of Democrat’s scorn, is chosen by G2 to be elevated to the headlines by being contacted by G2."
    https://climateaudit.org/2017/09/02/email-dates-in-the-wikileaks-dnc-archive/#comment-774679
    .
    What I didn't know at that time was the allegations that spies had set up the counter-intelligence pretext against Trump campaign members, starting with Joseph Mifsud claiming to be a Russian agent when he made his offer of Hillary dirt to Papadopoulus. We know now supposedly from Mifud's lawyer that he was following orders from western handlers. Similarly, I think it is plausible that G2 had a mission using a false Russian agent persona. After all, why would Russians care about Roger Stone. They wouldn't know who he was and his history. But to Hillary surrogates, like Syd Blumenthal, Stone would be a direct lifelong adversary.

  572. Does anyone really know why Roger Stone is being prosecuted? (real question.) Normal conservatives have no affinity for Stone, an admitted admirer of Richard Nixon and a self-proclaimed "dirty trickster." But does this mean that they and the Dems, who naturally hate Stone, should not be concerned with government targeting? I say he IS being targeted. And I predicted he would be two years before his arrest and over a month before he was first called before congress. I suspected this based only analyzing the actions of Guccifer 2.0, whom I suspected of being part of an information op due to his not acting in any way but to benefit the Clinton campaign, deflecting the contents of the leak by shifting the focus to the break in. This is exactly how U of East Anglia dealt with Climategate.
    .
    Roger Stone, (a braggart), in March of 2017 told a reporter at TheSmokingGun.com when asked if he had any private communication with Guccifer 2.0 admitted that he had accidentally clicked a private Twitter exchange and revealed a screen shot showing Guccifer 2.0 message: "i’m pleased to say that u r great man,” please tell me if i can help u anyhow. it would be a great pleasure to me.” -Guccifer 2.0 August 17, 2016.
    .
    Roger Stone, we know now, was putting out feelers in August of 2016 trying to get in contact with Julian Assange.
    .
    What I knew by September 2017 from was that G2 looked like a intelligence false flag. Rather than looking at the face value of what G2 was saying I looked back at cui bono, who benefited. In my blog comment then I went through all the indications that pointed at this including: "Roger Stone, a high profile conservative and favorite butt of Democrat’s scorn, is chosen by G2 to be elevated to the headlines by being contacted by G2."
    https://climateaudit.org/2017/09/02/email-dates-in-the-wikileaks-dnc-archive/#comment-774679
    .
    What I didn't know at that time was the allegations that spies had set up the counter-intelligence pretext against Trump campaign members, starting with Joseph Mifsud claiming to be a Russian agent when he made his offer of Hillary dirt to Papadopoulus. We know now supposedly from Mifud's lawyer that he was following orders from western handlers. Similarly, I think it is plausible that G2 had a mission using a false Russian agent persona. After all, why would Russians care about Roger Stone? They wouldn't know who he was and his history. But to Hillary surrogates, like Syd Blumenthal, Stone would be a direct lifelong adversary.

  573. OK_Max,

    If you believe that disparate impact could mean invidious discrimination, than the 'other things' that weigh against Asian-Americans at Harvard should be public knowledge. But Harvard won't say what they are except in terms so general they have no meaning.

    I'm with Justice Thomas, who should know. Favoring and disfavoring applicants for admission to Harvard or anywhere else because of race violates the Civil Rights Act and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. I see nothing but hand waving about diversity to justify this procedure.

  574. Mike N
    **Lucia, I think most people are saying it is corrupt for the Ukrainian company to hire Hunter Biden. They were buying influence.**
    I"m not entirely sure what your point is supposed to be. But let me edit what you wrote to make it better align with what people are saing.

    ""I think most people are saying it is corrupt for the Ukrainian company to hire Hunter Biden *because the company hired Hunter to buy influence* with the US government and Hunters Dad."

    If they hired SOMEONE because he was the best person for the job *in ways that have nothing to do with possible influence*, no one would say it was corrupt. Those accusing the company of corruption believe they company hired him FOR his influence and not because of any other qualification. If that was why they hired him, they they were corrupt.

    If the hired him for OTHER reasons, they weren't.

  575. OK_MAx
    **erhaps some Asian applicants who were well qualified on academics weren't accepted at Harvard because they didn't rate high on some of the other qualifications the school considers important. **
    Because of the suit we know the Asians were rated as having deficient personalities. The evaluation was done by people who never met the kids.
    The grades, test scores and evaluation of personality by alumni who actually met the kids would have resulted in many of these Asian's being admitted.

    So, yeah. Harvard seems to not rate them highly based on some "other qualification". And it appears that it is a qualification that admissions directors who never met the kids can detect and which differs from the evaluates by people who have met the kids.

  576. “..The CIA “whistleblower” who issued a complaint against President Donald Trump based on his correspondence with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky may have committed a felony by not disclosing their meetings with Rep. Adam Schiff (R-CA) on the report…”
    https://bigleaguepolitics.com/anti-trump-whistleblower-may-have-committed-felony-by-refusing-to-report-contact-with-schiff-in-complaint/
    .
    Life looks to become interesting for the “whistleblower”. As the IC in testimony to congress said he had no knowledge of the whistleblower contact with Schiff, this looks like a slam dunk prosecution against the whistleblower.
    .
    interesting things crawl out when rocks get turned over.

  577. Lucia, did Harvard say "deficient personalties" ? If so, that's a terrible thing to say about people . It's very insulting.

    I may think my own personality is deficient, but I wouldn't want others telling me it's deficient .

  578. Those words? No. The assigned numerical scores for personality and people who had not met the applicants gave Asian students consistently lower scores for personality. Meanwhile teachers, and alumin interviewers who met them gave them perfectly good scores.

    Those low scores entered by admissions people who had not met the students were then put into their "overall" score used for admission.

    I think giving students low "personality" scores is rating their personalities "deficient" vis-a-vis whatever criteria the admissions department has for "good personality". But no, Harvard didn't use that specific word. They just gave them low numbers that correspond to "do not admit" and it was based on "low numbers for personality".

  579. DeWitt Payne (Comment #176678)
    October 5th, 2019 at 11:11 am
    OK_Max,

    "SteveF is correct, there are no easy majors at Caltech. They did add an economics major a while back."

    If I read the linked info correctly, at Cal Tech you can also major in English, History, Philosophy, or Political Science.

    Whether these are easy majors depends on the individual's abilities. One student could could find English courses more difficult than math courses, for example, while another could find the math courses more difficult. But I think in general English courses would be easier for math majors than math courses would be for English majors.

    http://www.admissions.caltech.edu/explore/academics/options-majors

  580. lucia (Comment #176686)
    October 5th, 2019 at 1:14 pm
    Those words? No. The assigned numerical scores for personality and people who had not met the applicants gave Asian students consistently lower scores for personality.
    ______

    Were the personality scores, given by the people who hadn't met the applicants, based on a personality test? If not, what?

  581. These schools that claim to be placing diversity as a plus factor seem to have this uncanny ability of having different races show up in the same proportion range each year. I would think diversity would be diversity regardless of the race, but instead tribal Indians stop having diversity value much sooner than Hispanics or blacks.

    100 years ago, geographic diversity was used as an excuse to keep the number of Jews from getting too high.

  582. OK_Max,
    No. The personality scores were not based on a test. It's not clear what they were based on. The people who assigned them worked in admissions, had access to the name or applicant, contents application files, which included things like SAT scores, class rank, activites, teacher recommendations and recommendations by alumni who interviewed them, and letters of recommendation. They potentially could review all that and gave each applicant a personality score.

  583. Max
    https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/06/harvard-admissions-personality/563198/

    See
    "The analysis juxtaposes the Asian Americans’ personality scores from admissions officers with the relatively high personality ratings given by alumni interviewers, as well as with the relatively positive feedback provided to Harvard by applicants’ teachers and counselors, for those same students."

    Note: almuni interviewers, teachers and counselors had met the students and gave good evaluations of their personalities. The admissions officers had not met the kids and gave them lower ratings. You can read more at the link.

  584. Ed Forbes (Comment #176684)
    October 5th, 2019 at 12:13 pm
    “..The CIA “whistleblower” who issued a complaint against President Donald Trump based on his correspondence with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky may have committed a felony by not disclosing their meetings with Rep. Adam Schiff (R-CA) on the report…
    ______

    According to McIntyre the WB didn't check one of the boxes on the form which would have indicated he met with Rep. Schiff, and by not checking the box committed a felony under 18 U.S. Code § 1001. I'm not sure McIntyre is right. In this Code, presented below, see (b). Even if (b) doesn't apply, I doubt we will see the WB charged with a felony.

    18 U.S. Code § 1001

    (a)Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
    (1)falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
    (2)makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
    (3)makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
    shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.

    (b)Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
    (c)With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to—
    (1)administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or
    (2)any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.

  586. OK_Max,
    “According to CollegeBoard, CalTech ranked the application essay, character/personal qualities, and recommendation letters as three “Very Important” factors in their admissions decision.”
    .
    To get them to consider these factors, the average CalTech applicant has a near perfect GPA in high school, and averages 1555 SAT (verbal/math combined). So academically, on average better qualified than just about any other school; certainly academically stronger than Harvard. This is not surprising.

  587. SteveF, I don't see much difference in the academic strength of Cal Tech and Harvard. The freshman class at Cal Tech has slightly higher SAT scores, but is only about 1/3 the size of the 1,600 freshman class at Harvard. The 500 entering Harvard with the highest SAT scores may top the scores of the Cal Tech class. But so what ! Both are great schools, and I would be proud to hold a degree from either.

  588. Ok-Max, how do you read (b) as allowing the WB to skate on a felony charge for not disclosing contact with the committee prior to filing his WB form? There was NO judical proceeding that directly involved the WB, which
    (b) addresses.
    .
    I see a clear violation of the WB rules by not disclosing their contacts and the WB is clearly guilty of violating security law by disclosing classified materials outside of clearly defined rules. As a CIA analyst, the analyst can not reasonably argue ignorance of the law, not that ignorance of the law is a valid defence.

    b)Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.

  589. Brandon, Your response is very indirect and not persuasive. There is nothing wrong with asking other governments to help with criminal investigations by the DOJ. It's in fact required by treaties. Only if you are very prejudiced could you claim that Bidon's involvement with Berisma is not a fit subject for such an investigation. But perhaps that's the point, Brandon is responding based on his biases and not the facts.

  590. Ed Forbes (Comment #176696)

    Ok-Max, how do you read (b) as allowing the WB to skate on a felony charge for not disclosing contact with the committee prior to filing his WB form? There was NO judical proceeding that directly involved the WB ,,,,
    ________

    Ed, you may be right on that unless the impeachment process is considered judicial, but there's something else that I didn't catch on first reading the code, and that's the word "material" and "materially" under (a):

    (a)Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
    (1)falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
    (2)makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
    (3)makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

    The WB failing checking the box is not material because it is not essential to the issue of Trumps impeachable actions and should not affect the decision on impeachment. If not material, the law wasn't broken.

    The following is from a legal definition of material:

    "Material" means that the subject matter of the statement or concealment related to a fact or circumstance which would be significant to the decision to be made as distinguished from an insignificant, trivial or unimportant detail.

    https://definitions.uslegal.com/m/material-fact/

  591. OK_Max,
    You may not be aware of it, but many of the same people who are now pushing for impeachment (like Pelosi and Nadler) were in the House when Clinton was impeached by Republicans (who, like the Democrats today, had the majority). They eloquently and forcefully quoted, in the Congressional record, the Federalists papers on impeachment, and said over and over that impeachment demands a broad bipartisan consensus, and must never be undertaken on a straight-line partisan vote. Now the shoe is is on the other foot, and all those eloquent speeches seem to have been forgotten.
    .
    Pelosi will not even schedule a vote on impeachment, because she knows that vote would put at risk many of the moderate Democrats who were elected in 2018 in districts Trump carried in 2016. It is not clear that a vote to proceed with impeachment would even pass. The point is that this entire episode, and all the other endless cries for impeachment, is 100% political partisanship. It is inconceivable that Trump will be removed by the Senate, just as it was clear Clinton wouldn’t be removed by the Senate; the entire process, in both cases, was and is an effort by one party to ensure a president they very much disapprove of does not get re-elected.
    .
    My guess is that Pelosi will regret this in 2020. If the House Democrats choose to waste a huge amount of time and effort on impeachment, even while they know Trump will not be removed, they put their House majority at risk in 2020, and make Trump’s re-election not less likely, but more likely, much like the Republicans did with Clinton.

  592. OK
    **SteveF, I don't see much difference in the academic strength of Cal Tech and Harvard. The freshman class at Cal Tech has slightly higher SAT scores, but is only about 1/3 the size of the 1,600 freshman class at Harvard. **
    In other words: The class at Cal Tech is academically stronger.
    The fact that it is smaller and more competitive to get into is NOT a factor that indicates *academic* weakness. One of the reasons Cal Tech *can stay* academically stronger* is that they stay small and so exclude academically weaker students (who Harvard would let in– because Harvard is bigger, among other things.)
    .
    **The 500 entering Harvard with the highest SAT scores may top the scores of the Cal Tech class. **
    Sure. And the top 100 students at University of Illinois probably match the Cal Tech class. And the Top 100 Students at Michigan. Likely the top student at Rose Hulman could have gotten into Cal Tech.
    .
    But it's ridiculous to try to compare the "academic strength" of an entire school to the "top" students at another one and conclude the schools academic strength is identical. It's so silly it's hard to believe you actually are trying to do this to make a case.
    .
    **But so what ! Both are great schools, and I would be proud to hold a degree from either.**
    So what? We are trying to evaluate the claim of WHICH is academically stronger. It's a fact that the academic qualifications for the cut off at Cal Tech is higher than at Harvard. Also, the average academic qualifications of a Cal Tech student is higher.
    .
    This is so OBVIOUSLY true that to rebut it, you wanted to compare the AVERAGE at Cal Tech to the 1/3rd of so at Harvard to decide they might b somehow "the same"! When you did that, you pretty much proved you know DAMN WELL the academic qualifications to get into Cal TEch are higher.

  593. DeWitt,
    “I see nothing but hand waving about diversity to justify this procedure.”
    .
    Being a progressive means you insist on your desired policy (in this case, discrimination that favors black and hispanic students over other races), even when that policy is contrary to both law and the Constitution. Clarence Thomas has railed about his progressive colleagues simply ignoring the Constitution since he first joined the SC. I am sure he will continue to do so until he either retires or dies. If Trump gets re-elected, I expect Thomas will retire so Trump can appoint his replacement. If Trump loses, I expect Thomas to stay on the Court, a la Ginsberg.

  594. Lucia,
    I do not doubt that Harvard could, if it wanted to, admit a freshman class that was every bit as academically capable as at CalTech. They would need to eliminate most preferences for legacy candidates, athletes, children of staff, and of course, racial preferences. But they are not striving for the most capable student body, they are striving to maintain their reputation as a center (*the* center?) of education for children of the connected, the wealthy, and, of course, the most politically correct. I don’t much care about their blatant snobbery, even though it is off-putting, because ultimately what they are doing will diminish the school. I just wish they didn’t get any funding from taxpayers.

  595. OK_Max: "The WB failing checking the box is not material because it is not essential to the issue of Trumps impeachable actions and should not affect the decision on impeachment. If not material, the law wasn't broken."
    .
    Max, I would say evidence of the check box being material is Adam Schiff's feeling it was material enough to lie about, saying, "We have not talked to the WB." Motive of the WB filing IS material.
    .
    Edit: GOP is now calling for Schiff to be removed from the chairmanship of the committee due to his being a fact witness in the case. Yep, its material.

  596. OK_Max (Comment #176698): "Material means that the subject matter of the statement or concealment related to a fact or circumstance which would be significant to the decision to be made as distinguished from an insignificant, trivial or unimportant detail."

    I note that Mueller screwed over Flynn, Papadopoulos, and Stone on the basis of immaterial misstatements. That was wrong and it would be wrong to do the same to the "whistle blower".

    If the "whistle blower" had outside assistance in drafting his complaint, as seems likely, then that fact was certainly material, concealing it would be perjury, and that should be prosecuted.

  597. Max, if it wasn't material, they wouldn't have needed to include the box. It wasn't included in the initial background information section, but in the section 'other actions you are taking on your disclosure'.

  598. Ron Graf (Comment #176705)
    "Max, I would say evidence of the check box being material is Adam Schiff's feeling it was material enough to lie about, saying, "We have not talked to the WB." Motive of the WB filing IS material."

    Mike M. (Comment #176706)
    If the "whistle blower" had outside assistance in drafting his complaint, as seems likely, then that fact was certainly material, concealing it would be perjury, and that should be prosecuted.

    MikeN (Comment #176707)
    October 6th, 2019 at 9:16 am
    Max, if it wasn't material, they wouldn't have needed to include the box. It wasn't included in the initial background information section, but in the section 'other actions you are taking on your disclosure'.
    __________

    Ron, Schiff wasn't the one filling out the form, so you can't blame him for not checking the box. If the WB had checked the box, would the complaint have been handled in a way that would have prevented the Dems from doing an impeachment investigation?

    MikeM, the WB having outside assistance doesn't change what Trump did.

    MikeN, based on what you are saying there would be no need for the "material" and "materially" as stated in the code.

    I also want to call everyone's attention to the code saying "willfully."

    18 U.S. Code § 1001
    (a)Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—

    The following is a legal definition of willfully:
    adj. referring to acts which are intentional, conscious and directed toward achieving a purpose.
    https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=2250

    If failing to check the box is not material then whether the failure was willful is moot. I don't know the WB had a purpose for not checking the box, nor do I know have any ideas on what purpose he might have had. Others here may have ideas on this.

  599. Did the US president put pressure on a foreign leader to investigate a "conspiracy theory?" That WaPo thinks. If Trump knows nothing more about the DNC server and crowdstrike than what's online then I would agree with WaPo, it is just a theory. And it would involve uncovering a very big conspiracy. But I disagree that that is an impossibility on its face.
    .
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/09/25/trumps-mention-crowdstrike-call-with-ukraines-president-recalls-russian-hack-dnc/#comments-wrapper
    .
    The article repeats the claim that Crowdstrike turned over "forensic evidence" of the DNC server to the FBI, a claim I have been looking to verify since the Roger Stone trial article quotes Comey that declined to make that claim. According that article he said, "Our forensics folks would always prefer to get access to the original device or server that’s involved, so it’s the best evidence…"
    .
    The DHS also requested access and was refused according to their testimony.
    .
    I could not find the videotape of Comey as quoted above but I did find video of him making even more revealing testimony in his Jan 2017 intelligence committee testimony. Comey admits that he became aware of the Russian cyber offensive in late 2015 or early 2016. He does not reveal that he was aware of the DNC attack in the summer of 2015. Comey then says the FBI took steps to notify all the attacked parties but he fails to mention that the DNC remained infected with the same presumed Russian malware from summer of 2015 until June 2016. Comey does admit that the DNC and maybe the DCCC were the only two out of hundreds that did not give access to their server. And, most interestingly, Comey contradicts the reports that Crowdstrike handed over a "copy" of their server. Comey admits they were Not supplied and "content." This would explain why there are no FBI reports of their own analysis of the content to supply to Roger Stone's defense.
    Comey key testimony starts at 27:18
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ja-d0VG3qbU
    .
    Comey assumed that a Perkins Coie contractor was as good as the government in both the case of Crowdstrike and Fusion GPS. And, as we can see now, Comey abused the FISA process in order to allow spying on the Trump campaign and also did not share with the president who financed the dossier when he confronted him with the salacious allegations looking for a reaction to record and leak later.
    .
    Who here can blame Trump for wanting this looked into more? I can't.

  600. OkMax,
    The issue is if the WB committed a felony.
    .
    Disclosing classified information without authorization is a felony.
    .
    The WB disclosed classified information without authorization.
    .
    The WB did not fully and openly disclose his disclosure of classified information to the IG when he submitted his WB application.
    .
    Not fully disclosing his disclosure of classified information to the IG on his WB application is perjury, which is a felony.
    .
    Not fully disclosing his disclosure of classified information on his application to become a WB under the WB statute, allows the IG to withdraw the applicants status as a WB.
    .
    Disclosure of classified information outside of being admitted to WB status or authorization is a felony.
    .
    Sure looks to me as if the WB meets the test for felony disclosure on multiple points.

  601. Max: "Ron, Schiff wasn't the one filling out the form, so you can't blame him for not checking the box…"
    .
    I wasn't blaming Schiff. I was showing it was material enough for Schiff to lie about it. Schiff's staff helping prepare or influencing the filing of the complaint would be a separate violation. So, thanks for pointing that out.
    .
    "…If the WB had checked the box, would the complaint have been handled in a way that would have prevented the Dems from doing an impeachment investigation?"
    .
    The impeachment investigation was pre-orchestrated. And there likely would have been no impeachment had Schiff never been approached by the WB. I believe as it was the complaint was determined to Not meet the "urgent" standard, and thus was not reported to congress. Instead, it needed to be **leaked** to congress. We know now that there was no outside leak but Schiff himself had passed it around to all the key Dems, including Pelozi in August.

  602. Ed Forbes (Comment #176710)
    October 6th, 2019 at 12:47 pm
    OkMax,
    The issue is if the WB committed a felony.
    .
    Disclosing classified information without authorization is a felony.
    .
    The WB disclosed classified information without authorization.
    _________

    Ed, if you mean the WB gave classified information to people who shouldn't have it, how do you know he or she did?

  603. OK_Max (Comment #176708): "Ron, Schiff wasn't the one filling out the form, …
    MikeM, the WB having outside assistance doesn't change what Trump did."

    Good arguing. When you can't win, change the subject.

  604. Max, the code applies to more than the whistleblower form. Material fact is more significant there, for example in a wide-ranging FBI interview.

  605. Ron Graf (Comment #176711)
    "I was showing it was material enough for Schiff to lie about it. Schiff's staff helping prepare or influencing the filing of the complaint would be a separate violation."

    Ron, as for the WB's complaint form, the issue is whether the WB's decision to not check the box is material. Whether it was willful concealment or not, it obviously doesn't affect what Trump did to cause the complaint.To be material it would would have to mislead congress and have them suspecting or believing something about Trump that isn't true.
    ______

    "The impeachment investigation was pre-orchestrated. And there likely would have been no impeachment I believe as it was the complaint was determined to Not meet the "urgent" standard, and thus was not reported to congress. Instead, it needed to be **leaked** to congress. We know now that there was no outside leak but Schiff himself had passed it around to all the key Dems, including Pelozi in August."

    Ron, I don't see how you can know there would have been no impeachment if Schiff hadn't been approached. I hope you aren't suggesting how an impeachable offense is revealed should be the issue rather than the offense itself, or worse, suggesting it's ok for the President to commit an impeachable offense as long as Congress doesn't know about it,

  606. Mike M,
    I have from time to time tried to accurately describe what I think is wrong with the way ‘progressives’ think and act. To me it seems close to the ‘spoiled brat’ behavior that was a generation or two ago still viewed negatively. After some searching, I believe I have finally found the perfect ‘progressive anthem’: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2zcVnNwAHys

  607. Mike M. (Comment #176713)
    October 6th, 2019 at 5:07 pm
    OK_Max (Comment #176708): "Ron, Schiff wasn't the one filling out the form, …
    MikeM, the WB having outside assistance doesn't change what Trump did."

    Good arguing. When you can't win, change the subject.
    _______

    MikeM, the main subject is did Trump commit an impeachable offense, not how the offense was exposed. But Trump defenders would rather change the discussion to how it was exposed, or talk about Biden, Clinton, or anything they hope will take the heat off Trump. That's understandable, and I might do the same if I were trying to defend Trump.

  608. MikeN (Comment #176714)
    October 6th, 2019 at 5:27 pm
    Max, the code applies to more than the whistleblower form. Material fact is more significant there, for example in a wide-ranging FBI interview.
    ________

    Yes, I believe you are correct about the Code having broad application, but I don't know how broad.

  609. OK_Max,
    Trump did not commit a ‘high crime’ nor a ‘misdemeanor’, and he will not be removed from office by the Senate. It is not even clear that Pelosi will actually proceed with a formal impeachment. (My bet is that she finds a way to delay formal impeachment until after the 2020 election). The more Democrats waste time and effort on this, the more likely Trump will be re-elected. Really, this is the political equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot… just before a 20 mile forced march. The stupidity, it burns.

  610. OK_Max: " I hope you [Ron] aren't suggesting how an impeachable offense is revealed should be the issue rather than the offense itself, or worse, suggesting it's ok for the President to commit an impeachable offense as long as Congress doesn't know about it,"
    .
    Of course not. Here are your false assumptions:
    1) That Trump committed an impeachable offense.
    2) That we know for sure what were the motives and full understandings behind the Ukraine-US dealings.
    3) For the reason of #3 the WB statute does not elevate differences in policy as an urgent concern.
    4) The presidential communications with foreign leaders is not part of the expressed scope of the WB statue (which covers only the IC) and thus debatable whether the complaint is legitimate.
    5) That the WB allegations, even if true, would be any violation of anything, let alone a high crime or impeachable offense.
    .
    Personally, I think that it would have been fine if Trump put pressure for cooperation with unmasking Spygate and Huntergate.
    .
    Biden is not just a Dem candidate; he was the former VP and the two countries he was made point man on US policy are the exact two countries that his son immediately profited from (with no other visible justifiable connection and a very visible conflict). Biden claims he didn't know. His son is quoted in the past saying they discussed it. The WH logs show Hunter's Burisma board partner, Devon Archer met with Biden in the WH just days before Biden proposed billions in aid to the Ukrainian gas industry and just two days before his son joined Burisma. I'll get a timeline if you don't believe me. You are saying essentially there is nothing to see here and thus Trump was obviously asking the Ukrainian leader to make up dirt. Now, fabricating a fake dossier and laundering it into the US IC would be impeachable, no question.

  611. OkMax,
    NO, the subject I posted on was if the WB committed a felony for which you commented on. Now that even you have problems defending the WB, you attempt to change the subject. If you want to start new topic on Trump, feel free.

  612. B Sholl (Comment #176491)

    "There was nothing "clearly illegal" about Clinton having a private e-mail server. Heck, having a private e-mail server wasn't, in and of itself, illegal in the first place. It might have been used in some unlawful ways, but that wouldn't be clear to many people. Most people would not know how the server was being used to know there might be/was a problem. And even if they knew how the server was being used, they could well not know enough about the legal requirements to know it was unlawful.

    Clinton's use of a private e-mail server was dumb and wrong, but even now, with a wealth of information that wasn't public at the time, it is difficult to show anything about it was "clearly illegal."

    ……
    This is absolutely ridiculous. I normally see no need to reply to you because you consistently make assertions regarding the law not knowing what you are talking about and even worse you just make them out of thin air with no attribution as to where your assertions are coming from. In the past on the Blackboard, you have demonstrated that you were ignorant of the probative value of circumstantial evidence, and on your own blog in discussing your traffic violation case, you demonstrated that your ignorance is so deep that you don't even know what the job duties of a clerk of court are. (No it is not the clerk's duty to tell you what the basis of the opposing side's case is) I will one last time respond to you to demonstrate how little you know and how impossible it is to have a reasoned discussion with anyone who knows so little.

    ……
    Here is the statute that Hillary clearly feloniously violated [not prosecuted though] — 18 U.S. Code §793:

    "(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book,… note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

    Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both." https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793
    ……

    The statute couldn't have been more perfectly written to criminalize her behavior. You cannot grossly negligently move secret information [in the words of the statute info related to national defense] from its proper place of custody. This link describes the top secret information that was on her server — which is what you would expect from Sec. of State communications. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/j599xd/exclusive-hillary-clinton-exchanged-classified-emails-on-private-server-with-three-aides Because Clinton has never given an innocent explanation for the creation of the server, I believe her violation was intentional and even worse than a grossly negligently move. However, this is a moot point.

    ……
    Would add that if you understand the relationship between government employees to the government, her violation of the fundamental structure of those relationships was almost surely criminal. (Won't even bother to spell it out further with you. If others here are interested, I will explain it to them) Additionally, many, many people's emails were handled through Clinton's private server and substantial numbers of them had to be aware that it was wrong to inevitably put top secret information on a private server [that would jeopardize the lives of American operatives], particularly the substantial number of lawyers who would be aware of her activities. Yet no one filed a whistleblower complaint.

    …..
    Finally, because my life is too short to engage ignorant trolls, in the same sense that you ask others not to respond to you using your initials, I would ask that you not respond to my further posts other than one response to this post which I expect you will make and which I will almost surely ignore.

    JD

  613. SteveF (Comment #176719)
    October 6th, 2019 at 7:41 pm
    OK_Max,
    Trump did not commit a ‘high crime’ nor a ‘misdemeanor’, and he will not be removed from office by the Senate. It is not even clear that Pelosi will actually proceed with a formal impeachment. (My bet is that she finds a way to delay formal impeachment until after the 2020 election).
    ________

    SteveF, I think he did, and some polls show more Americans believe the Dems should move ahead with the impeachment investigation than those that don't, with a large number undecided. Before the WB exposed Trump opinion was the other way around.

    You may be right about Pelosi delaying formal impeachment, but I don't think it will be as late as after the election. If the coming investigations further damage Trump, it could hurt some Senate Republicans who continue to stand by him, and hurt them enough to give the Dems control of the Senate in 2021.

  614. Ron Graf (Comment #176720)
    October 6th, 2019 at 8:21 pm
    OK_Max: " I hope you [Ron] aren't suggesting how an impeachable offense is revealed should be the issue rather than the offense itself, or worse, suggesting it's ok for the President to commit an impeachable offense as long as Congress doesn't know about it,"
    .
    Of course not. Here are your false assumptions:
    __________

    Yes, I see there are five of them. By "false assumptions" I assume you mean I am assuming things that aren't true. But you haven't provided compelling evidence that these things are not true.

    You can assume my assumptions are false, and I can assume your assumptions are false. I can't think of anything wrong with that.

  615. Ed Forbes (Comment #176721)
    October 6th, 2019 at 8:39 pm
    OkMax,
    NO, the subject I posted on was if the WB committed a felony for which you commented on. Now that even you have problems defending the WB, you attempt to change the subject. If you want to start new topic on Trump, feel free.
    ______

    I didn't change the subject. I asked you an on-subject question, which I will repeat here.

    Ed, if you mean the WB gave classified information to people who shouldn't have it, how do you know he or she did?

    I asked that question in response to the following statements you made in your Comment

    "The issue is if the WB committed a felony"

    "Disclosing classified information without authorization is a felony."

    "The WB disclosed classified information without authorization."

    I would agree if the WB would have committed a felony if he gave classified information to individuals who are not supposed to get classified information. But when I asked you how you know he did, you didn't reply. So, until I hear from you otherwise, I am inclined to believe you don't know.

  616. lucia (Comment #176702)
    October 6th, 2019 at 6:50 am
    OK
    **SteveF …..
    .
    This is so OBVIOUSLY true that to rebut it, you wanted to compare the AVERAGE at Cal Tech to the 1/3rd of so at Harvard to decide they might b somehow "the same"! When you did that, you pretty much proved you know DAMN WELL the academic qualifications to get into Cal TEch are higher.
    _______

    lucia, you addressed your comment to StevF, but I believe you were responding to what I said.

    SAT scores average a little higher at Cal Tech (1560) than Harvard (1520), but that difference is piffulous, IMO. Both schools are very selective, Harvard accepting about 5 percent of applicants as I recall, and Cal Tech, slighty less selective, accepting about 6 percent, again hardly any difference.

    BTW, the usnews.com 2020 rankings of U.S. universities rank Harvard #2 overall and Cal Tech #12. “Schools are ranked according to their performance across a set of widely accepted indicators of excellence.”

    Cal Tech ranked #30 in best undergraduate teaching, somewhat better than Harvard at #34, but Harvard was #2 in best value schools while CalTech was #11. Despite the difference in ranking, I thought costs for the two schools were pretty close.

    Tuition and fees (2019-20) at Cal Tech were $54,600 or $2,675 more than Harvard’s $51,925 ). Room and board at Cal Tech however, was $16,664, about $1,000 lower than Harvard’s $17,682.

    My gosh, four years in one of these schools would cost almost $300,000. If I had just graduated from high school and was given $300,000 to spend as I wished, I sure wouldn’t spend it on four years at Harvard, Cal Tech, or any other university that would have me. I would put that money in a target-retirement mutual fund and try to forget about it. Then I would learn a trade I could use to start my own business.

    Actually, if I had just graduated from high school I probably would lack the maturity to be careful with my money and plan for the future, and would blow the $300,000 on fast cars, parties and trips with friends, gifts for girlfriends, and other foolishness. And I wouldn’t even try to get a job until the money was gone.

    https://blog.prepscholar.com/sat-scores-for-colleges

    https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/harvard-university-2155

    https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/california-institute-of-technology-1131

  617. OK_Max,
    That difference of 40 points represents a significant part of a standard deviation, which is far from ‘piffulous’, whether that agrees with your opinion or not.
    .
    I would caution that average SAT scores reported by schools may not be all that accurate. Unless there is some formal accounting, selective schools might be tempted to exclude athletes and ‘special interest’ candidates (very, very wealthy or children of senators, etc.) from the published averages.
    .
    BTW, almost nobody pays the published full tuition. My second daughter (a National Merit Scholar) went to the University of Miami, and because of her grades and scores was offered a scholarship for 100% of the tuition (at the time, about $45K per year); I had to only pay room and board. She could have gone to much more selective schools, but they would have asked me to pay most (or all!) their tuition.

  618. OK_Max: "[I] would blow the $300,000 on fast cars, parties and trips with friends, gifts for girlfriends, and other foolishness."

    George Best (allegedly) said, "I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered away."

    It's an interesting question what one would have done with such a sum at age 18. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have frittered it away, but I rather doubt that I would have invested it. Probably put most of it in a savings account, not nearly as smart as putting it into stocks. And ask a professional for advice? No way. Ah, the foolishness of youth…

    Of course, when I went to college, they weren't asking $300K for four years. I think my first year cost around $5K, including room & board.

  619. OK_Max: "I would agree if the WB would have committed a felony if he gave classified information to individuals who are not supposed to get classified information."
    .
    I don't think your assumption is correct that anyone with classified information can be free to talk about it with anyone who holds the requisite security clearance. I know it's not true for "eyes only" and "compartmentalized" information. I would imagine that sharing of information would need to be under approved policy and with approving authority.
    .
    Do we just assume that the private lawyers that prepared the WB's complaint form had security clearances? Maybe that is what the check box is for — to check for information dissemination violations.
    .
    Max, what specific crime are you alleging Trump committed?

  620. HaroldW,
    “ I think my first year cost around $5K, including room & board.”
    .
    Mine as well, but that was a long time ago. Inflation alone since my college days sums to almost 500%, so that $5K would be more like $25K today. There has been a *doubling* of inflation adjusted cost since the late 1960’s, and that is in large part due to the availability of Federally backed student loans. Which is why so many graduates with degrees which don’t lead to good jobs are in financial trouble. Unintended negative consequences of foolish laws are seldom recognized, and even when recognized (always by opponents, of course) are ignored by proponents of those laws.

  621. Max, the second whistleblower (one of the WBer's firsthand sources) is going to have to check the box of prior unauthorized dissemination of classified information. It will be interesting to see if claiming WB status after the fact gives one full immunity. Of course, Dems will claim this to protect their impeachment.

  622. My main objections with Harvard's discrimination are:
    .
    1. Harvard shouldn't be seen as self elected social justice heroes when then are explicitly discriminating by race. Harvard should be seen as having racist admission's polices.
    .
    2. The standards for what constitutes racism needs to be consistent, or color blind. Merely showing disparate impacts is assumed to be racism legally against "disadvantaged minorities" while racism against whites and Asians must be proven at a much higher standard. I find this objectionable. The definition of a racist policy is completely incoherent in the media and politics, there isn't even a definition as far as a I can tell.
    .
    Harvard is really a special case and is an outlier, they are a private institution and people who attend Harvard are assumed exceptional by the mere fact they attended Harvard, not necessarily for anything exceptional they learned there that isn't taught elsewhere. I'm not saying the students aren't exceptional to get admitted, but the magic fairy dust of Harvard is its reputation and not the mechanics of what they teach. It is a self reinforcing system. Good for Harvard, not so great for other higher level institutions. My view is that there is far too much cultural emphasis on a few institutions (HYPSM) and they are granted much more respect over other institutions than they deserve. I don't know how that could be corrected, and maybe it shouldn't be corrected. It is currently hard coded into the cultural DNA of the US.

  623. If the EPA is to regulate the fossil fuel industry in a reasonable way, they need to understand the fossil fuel industry. Having people who have worked in this industry and understand it eventually work at the EPA is completely reasonable and desirable.
    .
    This is the farthest thing from corruption, this is the government working properly. The EPA also works with environmental NGO's and that can look like "corruption" from the corporate side if they are the only organization that gets input and are ghost writing regulations for their activists. Keeping energy prices low is important to the voter as is clean air and water.
    .
    Either corporate or NGO input can turn into valid corruption but the gray areas are large and hard to navigate. The opposing sides have completely different viewpoints of what constitutes corruption. Regulatory agencies need to hear both sides and attempt reasonable compromises. Transparency of any external input is a good step to limiting corruption.

  624. Tom wrote: "The definition of a racist policy is completely incoherent in the media and politics, there isn't even a definition as far as a I can tell."
    .
    Don't worry. They're busy trying to codify racism as "it's okay when we do it", just as they're trying to redefine "white supremacy" as "doesn't show obeisance to us" ie look up the "pyramid of white supremacy" graphic. Most of this stuff comes out of academia.

  625. JD, Hillary's having top secret information on the server, does not make having the server criminal. It is a separate act, though a case can be made that it is a predictable outcome of having your own server. Leaving out top secret or classified information, what is criminal in setting up her own e-mail server?

  626. Max, it looks like the whistleblower received classified information. Whoever told him was perhaps committing a felony.
    The whistleblower not revealing who he told about the complaint may not be material to exposing Trump's wrongdoing, but it is material to the actions of the IG. If Congress was already notified, then there is not much need for the IG to disclose the urgent concern to Congress.

  627. Mike N. There is nothing wrong with Clinton having a private server unrelated to her govt duties, for instance to keep track of her grandchildren. Whole different issue when she puts all of her official records, government property not hers, on private server. Of course, I was not talking about private servers in isolation, but rather talking about the actual one she set up that contained top secret information that she was not authorized to place in a private location.

    JD

  628. JD, I am asking to separate the issue of top secret info from other government e-mails. Is it illegal to setup her own server for her nonclassified e-mails?

  629. Mike N: " I am asking to separate the issue of top secret info from other government e-mails. Is it illegal to setup her own server for her nonclassified e-mails?"

    …..
    This question is not of much importance to me, so I don't intend to research it closely. Based on general knowledge of law, it is almost certainly illegal (not under 18 U.S. Code §793 though) for her to do so. The unclassified emails are not her property. For instance, suppose the government's Sec. of State's office had a valuable, beautiful picture hung there. Hillary couldn't take it (intending to eventually return it) and hang up it up in her personal residence for 4 years. By placing unclassified emails on her personal server, she is exercising unauthorized control over the emails.

    ……
    The typical crime prohibiting unauthorized control is called criminal conversion. Here is one lawyer's description: "Criminal conversion is the unauthorized use or control of someone else's property." https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/what-is-criminal-conversion-409026.html Would think there is a federal law dealing with this, or a DC law or a Northern Virginia law, or a NY law or whatever. (concerning where the server is considered to be residing or had been located at one point in time.) Would add that Hillary, being a lawyer, would know this, which only makes it worse.

    JD

  630. MikeN (Comment #176735): "Leaving out top secret or classified information, what is criminal in setting up her own e-mail server?"

    It was apparently done to circumvent the Federal Records Act. A private server would not violate that law if all government business done on it were archived and turned over to the government. But Hillary did not do that.

  632. MikeN (Comment #176738)

    My curiosity got the best of me. Here is the federal criminal conversion statute 18 U.S. Code § 641:

    "Whoever embezzles, steals, purloins, or knowingly converts to his use or the use of another, or without authority, sells, conveys or disposes of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof, or any property made or being made under contract for the United States or any department or agency thereof; or

    Whoever receives, conceals, or retains the same with intent to convert it to his use or gain, knowing it to have been embezzled, stolen, purloined or converted—"
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/641

    Please note the very broad language such as "any record" or "thing of value". I am not a criminal lawyer and there could be all sorts of permutations and additional statutes and case law, but the basic idea is that one is not entitled to treat federal property as though it were personal property.

    Personally, I think it would be easy to prove intent here. It was not as if the system wasn't working and Clinton was trying to temporarily deal with a malfunction. Rather, she was obviously trying to hide official records so that she could delete the ones that would be harmful to her politically thus converting them to her own personal use. In any event, there is a big problem with Clinton treating public records as though they belonged to her which could lead to many bad consequences for her if people were disposed to treat her as though she was Michael Cohen.

    I would also add that there is a civil analog to criminal conversion by which people can be sued civilly for converting property.

    JD

  633. So I came back to check this thread after my busy weekend was over and I had some free time. I come back to see this:

    "This is absolutely ridiculous. I normally see no need to reply to you because you consistently make assertions regarding the law not knowing what you are talking about and even worse you just make them out of thin air with no attribution as to where your assertions are coming from. In the past on the Blackboard, you have demonstrated that you were ignorant of the probative value of circumstantial evidence, and on your own blog in discussing your traffic violation case, you demonstrated that your ignorance is so deep that you don't even know what the job duties of a clerk of court are. (No it is not the clerk's duty to tell you what the basis of the opposing side's case is) I will one last time respond to you to demonstrate how little you know and how impossible it is to have a reasoned discussion with anyone who knows so little."

    And it reminds me why I usually don't bother commenting here. There are dozens of personal attacks, not only direct at me, on this page given without substantiation and without serving any legitimate purpose. And just like how JD Ohio here makes up a bunch of stuff, stating it as fact while knowing nobody could possibly verify it, people keep stating things as fact even though they're not even close to true.

    I could live with one or the other. When I was just having to point out stuff like how people randomly make up definitions for terms like "assault rifle," I could stay interested. But now? It's boring.
    This is how echo chambers form. And if I'm being frank, I'd say it looks like one formed here years ago.

    Oh well. Hopefully some people will have found my factual contributions/corrections useful.

  634. I seem to recall that records were purposefully deleted from the server after a retention order had been given by an admin who sought advice from Reddit. I also seem to recall that his punishment for this act was keeping his mouth shut and immunity from prosecution. How fortunate.

  635. https://babylonbee.com/news/new-law-would-force-drivers-to-listen-to-greta-thunberg-lecture-before-filling-up-their-cars

    From the Babylon Bee:
    "A series of new bills working their way through state legislatures in New York, California, Oregon, Hawaii, and several other progressive states will require you to listen to a Greta Thunberg lecture before purchasing gasoline.

    Motorists will be required to watch a 20-minute lecture by the 16-year-old climate activist before they purchase gallons and gallons of harmful fossil fuels.
    […]
    Once the driver has listened to Thunberg's entire lecture, they will be prompted to complete a quick, fifteen-question quiz to show they understand how horrible they are for driving a car. Drivers who get at least 80% will then be allowed to refuel their vehicles. As they refuel, the screen will simply play a clip of Thunberg saying, "How dare you!" over and over again.

    The law will not apply to celebrities purchasing jet fuel."

  636. Ed Forbes (Comment #176741)
    October 7th, 2019 at 11:03 am

    The link in this post is in my view a very good take on the current WB event. The author is probably a liberal but is looking at the WB situation and Trump much like I would as a libertarian. It is a refreshing view that is not tainted with Democrat or Republican partisan cheer leading. It has a very healthy perspective of government power and its abuses in matters like these and how in other times and cases WBs were not treated so nicely or given much attention.

    I had earlier looked at what percentage of WB cases in the past for US government employees whistle blowing the government come to fruition. I thought that it was a small percentage, but when I googled I could not find a source for that data. I think that would be an important statistic to have for this discussion. Does any poster here have that statistic?

  637. HaroldW (Comment #176745)

    Those are some great practical ideas coming out of the Babylon Bee. They should seriously consider advising the Warren campaign.

  638. HaroldW (Comment #176728)

    George Best (allegedly) said, "I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered away."
    _____

    HaroldW, thanks for reminding me of George Best. Just as some of today’s professional athletes, he lived life in the fast lane.

    Another George Best gem, “In 1969 I gave up women and alcohol – it was the worst 20 minutes of my life.”

    He died in 2005 at age 59 as a result of complications from a liver transplant.

  639. Ron Graf (Comment #176729)

    OK_Max: "I would agree if the WB would have committed a felony if he gave classified information to individuals who are not supposed to get classified information."

    Ron Graf: I don't think your assumption is correct that anyone with classified information can be free to talk about it with anyone who holds the requisite security clearance …

    Right, Ron. My sentence should have read "who are supposed to get that information." CIA staff know what they are required to do in order to keep their jobs and stay out of jail.

    Ron Graf: Max, what specific crime are you alleging Trump committed?

    I think Trump violated campaign finance law. Trump's J Dept. said he didn't (no surprise there). As sitting President he can't be indicted anyway. But he can be impeached (not likely to happen) or voted out of office (a good possibility).

    You might find the linked article interesting.

    https://campaignlegal.org/update/yes-president-trump-violated-campaign-finance-law-asking-ukraine-favor

  640. Brandon, I think you are being very inconsistent in your attitudes here. You say there is nothing in evidence to show that Hunter Biden was unqualified to be on the Berisma board and that there is no evidence of corruption. Yet you characterize the Trump phone call as "asking for dirt on a political opponent." The second statement is not based on facts and is a provocative and unsupported characterization. I'm afraid I can't take this seriously.

    There is ample factual basis to undertake an investigation of Biden and absolutely nothing wrong with asking Ukraine to cooperate in this matter.

  641. MikeN (Comment #176736)
    Max, it looks like the whistleblower received classified information. Whoever told him was perhaps committing a felony.
    ______

    CIA staff should know very well what they can and can’t do with classified information, what would and would not expose them to felony charges in the use of such information. I think the WB knew his actions would be thorougly scrutinized and took the necessary precautions.

    White House staff may be another matter, but those with backgrounds in intelligence should know what they are doing.

  642. OK_Max: "I think Trump violated campaign finance law. Trump's J Dept. said he didn't (no surprise there)."
    .
    After 2-1/2 years of being undermined by his DoJ and FBI, (with groundless spying, leaks and investigations), due to 8 years of Obama politicization, your claim now is that the DoJ is Trumpland. That's a bold assumption.
    .
    OK_Max: "CIA staff should know very well what they can and can’t do with classified information…"
    .
    But the CIA guy went directly to Schiff. Right? Illegally! Right? Then he got directed and handled by Dem squad's legal goons. THEN he knew exactly what he could and couldn't do. Is that what you meant?

  643. For our liberal friends out there who think the GOP is just a tribal and unprincipled as the Dems are I would like to point out the Trump's closest senate ally, Lyndsey Graham vehemently attacked him today for forcing the pullout of US soldiers from Syria. Isis is defeated. There are about 5 major opposing factions the US soldiers are risking their lives in policing but they can't leave because Syria is not yet a functioning democratic republic (or because some other unspecified goal has not been reached). GOP senators are more loyal to their hawkish principles than they are to party loyalty or simple respect for their own president, the country's president.
    .
    In a way the GOP's non-partisanship is refreshing. Gabbard might actually gain support if Dems realize that she is the only candidate with guts and principles, not like Mitt Romney who is still hoping the media will love him for a minute.

  644. Ron Graf (Comment #176753)
    "But the CIA guy went directly to Schiff. Right? Illegally! Right?"
    ________

    No, Ron, I don't think that's right. It's not illegal for whistleblowers to contact congressional oversight committees for guidance. GAO even gives Congress advice on helping whistleblowers.

    The paragraph below is quoted from the linked GAO publication on serving whistleblowers:

    “Federal laws protect current and former federal employees and applicants for federal employment from adverse personnel actions related to whistleblowing. Federal employees may become whistleblowers by disclosing information to the Congress or multiple federal and nongovernmental entities including Inspectors General (IG), the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), and the press. Federal law also provides certain whistleblower protections to contractors and grantees.”

    https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/698940.pdf

    Ron, if I were a whistleblowing Federal employee who felt my complaint was being ignored or suppressed, I would contact my congressman, not only for the sake of the complaint, but for my protection.

  645. On further thought, if I feared being a whistleblower could bring reprisals, I would go to a lawyer and probably my congressman too before making the complaint.

  646. OK Max “On further thought, if I feared being a whistleblower could bring reprisals, I would go to a lawyer and probably my congressman too before making the complaint.”
    Max, you are not a CIA agent who worked at the White House and then betrayed his president?
    He wrote an extremely well researched and legalistic complaint.
    He deliberately did not tick the box about contacting agent Schiff and the Intelligence committee when making his complaint.
    Why?
    He was well versed in the the ins and outs of legal forms and the right way to process his complaint.
    He knew what he was doing.
    He lied on the form about first hand knowledge and the. IG not only changed the rules but backdated them to accomodate him.
    He broke the law that he was aware of of having to take his request first to the IG and only after lack of action there having the redress to seek other actions.
    Instead he threw his complaint everywhere to draw attention to it, CIA lawyers, IG DOJ then deliberately flouted ( broke) the rules to contact the people who would most benefit from his, or hers, partisan second hand or third hand views.
    This is treason, pure and simple.
    It is connivance with the Democrats who will be in deep trouble.
    How blind do you wish to pretend, that is the word, to be?

  647. Max, I think Angech covered all the points but in summary:
    1) There is a specific WB statute for the IC that supersedes the one you cite. You can't go blab classified information everywhere and claim protection.
    2) He went to Schiff's office first, not to the IC IG.
    3) It's clear that he got more than just advice to go elsewhere from Schiff's people, who from Schiff's tweets and statements apparently had been fully briefed on the contents well before it was public.
    4) Both Schiff and the WB lied about their prior contact.
    5) According to IC IG policy at the time the contents of the complaint did not rise to the "urgent" status required to be reported to congress. In fact, it can be persuasively argued that presidential communications with foreign leaders is outside the coverage of the WB statute.

  648. Max, from your link:

    Our findings do not apply to servicemembers or employees who are part of the intelligence community as their options for disclosing, available protections, and recourse options differ.2

  649. The WB going to Schiff, who would have certainly kept Pelosi in the loop, explains how Pelosi could call for impeachment before she was supposed to have seen the report.

  650. NOTE FROM AUTHORITY
    .
    Apparently people are upset that others are making assertions on a discussion forum without a full bibliography from validated sources. These awful people also don't always respond to one's own assertions (oops, I mean f.a.c.t.s) when demanded to do so. Sometimes these posts are merely opinions colored by preexisting biases. This is just terrible and cannot continue. I am hereby proclaiming to one and all that if this does not change I will no longer grace others with my witty banter and unimpeachable declarations of truth.
    .
    I could have just stopped commenting, but I thought it would be best to give you all a chance to be better people and appropriately agree with my views. You have been warned.

  653. MikeN (Comment #176758)
    October 8th, 2019 at 7:29 am
    Max, from your link:

    "Our findings do not apply to service members or employees who are part of the intelligence community as their options for disclosing, available protections, and recourse options differ.2
    _______

    Doesn't mean CIA employees can't contact congressional intelligence
    committees.

    See page 7 of my linked GAO Publication. I tried pasting it below but it didn't work well. So go to page 7 and read

    Intelligence
    Community
    (employees and
    contractors)
    Yes Complaints and information to congressional
    intelligence committees with respect to an
    “urgent concern,” such as a serious or
    flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law or
    executive order or deficiency relating to the
    funding, administration, or operations of an
    intelligence activity involving classified
    information, a false statement to or willful
    withholding from Congress.
    Protects against
    prohibited
    personnel
    practices
    including
    retaliation when
    employees
    report to
    congressional
    intelligence
    committees a
    complaint or
    information with
    respect to an
    “urgent concern”
    Lloyd-LaFollette Act of
    1912 5 U.S.C. § 7211
    (for federal employees),
    Intelligence Community
    Whistleblower
    Protection Act of 1998,
    Pub. L. 105-272
    Presidential Policy
    Directive PPD-19
    (October 10, 2012)
    50 U.S.C. § 3234
    5 U.S.C. §
    2302(a)(2)(A)

  654. Max, your quote gets to the primary problem with this whistleblower complaint. It has nothing to do with the funding, administration, or operations of an intelligence activity involving classified information.

  655. I find it pretty funny how the NBA is OK with its players making controversial political commentary on US politics without apology but finds it needs to kowtow to the Chinese authorities.
    https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/27797311/nba-commissioner-adam-silver-reacts-chinese-tv-cancels-game-broadcasts
    .
    "The rift between China and the NBA started late last week when Morey posted a tweet with an image that read: "Fight for Freedom. Stand with Hong Kong." He later deleted the post and tweeted an apology after Rockets owner Tilman Fertitta publicly clarified the team does not take political positions."
    .
    "Silver said it would be appropriate for people involved with the league "to be sensitive" to different cultures when tweeting or communicating."
    .
    "But if those are the consequences of us adhering to our values, I still feel it's very, very important to adhere to those values," Silver said."
    .
    Silver is sending all kinds of confusing mixed messages here. If the media wants to see what a real authoritarian government in action looks like, look no further.

  656. Looks like China is clamping down hard.
    .
    Blizzard bans pro Hearthstone gamer for statement supporting Hong Kong
    https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/10/blizzard-bans-pro-hearthstone-gamer-for-statement-supporting-hong-kong/
    .
    "Blizzard has stripped a Hong Kong professional Hearthstone player of his tournament prize money and banned him from tournament play for a year after he expressed support for Hong Kong during the livestream of a Hearthstone game."
    .
    "Blitzchung appeared to be egged on by the two announcers on the livestream, who laughed and ducked behind their desk as he made his statement. Blizzard says it has fired the two announcers."

  657. There seems to be a lot of interest here in whether the leaker (alleged WB) improperly disclosed secret information. A more urgent concern for the leaker appears to be his perjury on the WB form. I have read the form (don't have it in front of me now) and it is incredibly specific (undoubtedly vetted by many lawyers) about disclosing any contacts made concerning alleged whistleblower matters of concern prior to filing the form. There is virtually no wiggle room. If, as it appears to be the case, he had contact with Schiff or other Dems, the form, under the penalty of perjury required him to disclose those contacts.

    …..
    If what I am reading is true about his non-disclosure on the form, it appears to be a clear case of perjury on the part of the leaker.

    JD

  658. Something is an “urgent concern” only if the misconduct is “relating to the funding, administration, or operation of intelligence activity within the responsibility and authority of the Director of National Intelligence.”

    From the Federalist article on 9/30/19.
    https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/30/did-the-inspector-generals-office-help-the-whistleblower-try-to-frame-trump/
    The whistleblower’s complaint did not accuse the president of misconduct related “to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity.” Rather, he charged Trump with “using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election. [which is highly debatable.]
    .
    The article goes on to point out the WB's very legally polished complaint intentionally mis-cited the law, omitting the above critical definition of what constitutes an "urgent concern."
    .
    From the article:
    "The “whistleblower” omitted the key language because the quid pro quo scenario he was selling did not trigger the ICWPA: There was no “urgent concern” as defined by Congress. And with no “urgent concern,” there is no basis to file a complaint with the intelligence community inspector general (ICIG), and no triggering of the other provisions of the ICWPA."
    .
    What's more the selective omission by the WB complaint shows intention to fool the IC IG into processing what was known to be a flawed complaint.

  660. JD, I don't think the whistleblower made any improper disclosures of classified info, because the leaker is the person who told the whistleblower what happened.

  661. OK_Max (Comment #176438)
    "Questioning the form used by the whistleblower seems like a dead end for conspiracy theorist."
    .
    Sean Davis of the Federalist, who first carried Steve Mc's observation of the changed form, has an update.
    https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/07/intel-community-ig-stonewalling-congress-on-backdated-whistleblower-rule-changes/
    .
    From the article:
    "Michael Atkinson, the intelligence community inspector general, told HPSCI lawmakers during a committee oversight hearing on Friday that the whistleblower forms and rules changes were made in September, even though the new forms and guidance, which were not uploaded to the ICIG’s website until September 24, state that they were changed in August. Despite having a full week to come up with explanations for his office’s decisions to secretly change its forms to eliminate the requirement for first-hand evidence and to backdate those changes to August, Atkinson refused to provide any explanation to lawmakers baffled by his behavior."

  662. Some of the talking heads have recently been promoting the ew James Stewart book: Deep State: Trump, the FBI, and the Rule of Law. According to the book, the Deep State is a good thing that protects us and the FBI needs to be independent. When the FBI was effectively independent under Hoover, progressives weren’t happy.

  663. angech (Comment #176756)
    October 8th, 2019 at 3:22 am
    OK Max “On further thought, if I feared being a whistleblower could bring reprisals, I would go to a lawyer and probably my congressman too before making the complaint.”
    Max, you are not a CIA agent who worked at the White House and then betrayed his president?
    _____

    angech, CIA employees take an oath to defend the constitution, not an oath to stick by the president no matter what.

    U.S. Code § 3331.Oath of office
    An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: “I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” This section does not affect other oaths required by law.
    (Pub. L. 89–554, Sept. 6, 1966, 80 Stat. 424.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/3331

  664. MikeN: "JD, I don't think the whistleblower made any improper disclosures of classified info, because the leaker is the person who told the whistleblower what happened."

    Not saying they were improper in and of themselves. However, they had to be disclosed on the form, and my understanding is that Schiff contacts before form was filed were not disclosed. Very amateurish if that is the case. Not totally unexpected from someone like Schiff.

    JD

  665. Intelligence Committee rules state that any info given to Congress by someone has to be shared with the whole committee. Schiff did not do this.

  666. MikeN: "Intelligence Committee rules state that any info given to Congress by someone has to be shared with the whole committee. Schiff did not do this."

    He might not have done it, but should have been smart enough to anticipate the problems that perjury on the WB form would cause. Should have told the leaker to make sure that the contact was disclosed. The leaker and the Dems are obviously working together. Someone should have thought ahead a little.

    His committee report on the Page FISA application was a disgrace.

    JD

  668. MikeN (Comment #176764)
October 8th, 2019 at 10:33 am
    Max, your quote gets to the primary problem with this whistleblower complaint. It has nothing to do with the funding, administration, or operations of an intelligence activity involving classified information.
    _____

    MikeN, I believe the law may cover more than that.

    Read under Code 5 u.s.c. 2302(b)(8)-(9) pub.l. 101-12 as amended. I have tried to quote the relevant parts below. I call your attention to (8) (A) (i) and (8) (A) (i). The link is to the entire code.

    (a)
    (1)For the purpose of this title, “prohibited personnel practice” means any action described in subsection (b).

    (b)Any employee who has authority to take, direct others to take, recommend, or approve any personnel action, shall not, with respect to such authority—

    (8)take or fail to take, or threaten to take or fail to take, a
    personnel action with respect to any employee or applicant for employment because of—

    (A)any disclosure of information by an employee or applicant which the employee or applicant reasonably believes evidences—
    (i)any violation of any law, rule, or regulation, or
    (ii)gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety,
    if such disclosure is not specifically prohibited by law and if such information is not specifically required by Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national defense or the conduct of foreign affairs; or

    (B)any disclosure to the Special Counsel, or to the Inspector General of an agency or another employee designated by the head of the agency to receive such disclosures, of information which the employee or applicant reasonably believes evidences—
    (i)any violation (other than a violation of this section) of any law, rule, or regulation, or
    (ii)gross mismanagement, a gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety;
    (9)take or fail to take, or threaten to take or fail to take, any personnel action against any employee or applicant for employment because of—
    (A)the exercise of any appeal, complaint, or grievance right granted by any law, rule, or regulation—
    (i)with regard to remedying a violation of paragraph (8); or
    (ii)other than with regard to remedying a violation of paragraph (8);

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/2302

  669. JD Ohio (Comment #176767)

    There seems to be a lot of interest here in whether the leaker (alleged WB) improperly disclosed secret information. A more urgent concern for the leaker appears to be his perjury on the WB form. I have read the form (don't have it in front of me now) and it is incredibly specific (undoubtedly vetted by many lawyers) about disclosing any contacts made concerning alleged whistleblower matters of concern prior to filing the form…

    If what I am reading is true about his non-disclosure on the form, it appears to be a clear case of perjury on the part of the leaker.
    _______

    JD, I don't know why asking about such contacts with congress is important. Perhaps you have some thoughts on this.

    Assuming not checking that blank was willful, I don't know what purpose the WB was trying to achieve. Others here might have thoughts on what could be the purpose.

    I doubt the WB will be charge with perjury for not checking the blank.

  670. OK Max: "JD, I don't know why asking about such contacts with congress is important. Perhaps you have some thoughts on this."

    One reason is to determine the motivation of the applicant. Doesn't matter though. Applicants are told that they have to truthfully fill out the form. Applicants don't have the authority to withhold evidence or lie when it suits them.
    ……..
    I would compare this to the Michael Cohen lie on the bank loan. Lie had nothing to do with his or Trump's ability to repay loan and had no financial significance. Notwithstanding this he was prosecuted for lying on the bank form and his files were ransacked to attempt to find dirt on Trump — not for anything having any relevance to the technical wrong that he committed.

    ……
    It is Barr's decision to prosecute. If Barr thinks that the leaker should receive justice equal to that which Cohen received Barr will prosecute.

    JD

  671. Re JD Ohio (Comment #176780)

    JD, thank you for your reply. I don't foresee prosecuting the WB for perjury because (1) I don't believe the prosecution has a winning case, and (2) I suspect prosecuting the WB could hurt Trump more than help him.

    I disagree with those who say the whistleblower committed perjury in his complaint by not reporting previous contact with members of Congress. I will explain why I believe he didn’t perjure himself.

    Below is Part 4 from of the whistleblower form, the part all the fuss over prior contacts is about. Note the first paragraph begins with the sentence “Please indicate in this section if you have filed your complaint with any other entity…” I believe “have you filed your complaint” in this context refers to the detailed complaint being presented here in the form the WB intends to file, not previous discussions the WB had with congressional representative about the general nature of the complaint.
    In the “yes or no” question that follows I can see how the term “this matter” could be interpreted to mean previous discussions, but it also could be interpreted as the official detailed complaint, which I believe is most likely what the question intended to address. Therefore, I think the whistleblower was correct in answering "no,“ or at worst said "no" because he or she was confused by the question.

    The question is ambiguous enough to support a “yes’ or “no’ answer. If I were the whistleblower I would have asked my lawyer if a “yes” would have made my complaint more likely to receive prompt and fair attention. If my lawyer said it likely would, I’d have checked the "yes" box.

    DISCLOSURE OF URGENT CONCERN FORM

    PART 4 OTHER ACTIONS YOU ARE TAKING

    Please indicate in this section if you have filed your complaint with any other entity, including other Inspector General offices, and/or Members of Congress. If you have contacted other entities, clearly identify the agency, office, or command, and provide your understanding of the current status of your matter.

    1. I have reported this matter to another organization(s)/agency(ies)?* ☐ Yes ☐ No

    2. If yes, which organization(s)/agency(ies)? ______________________________________________________

    3.When did you report the matter?____________________________________________________________

    4.What is the status of that complaint? ☐ Open ☐ Under Investigation ☐ Closed ☐ Unknown I

    If you have received any responses from those entity(ies), please provide copies.

    https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Documents/Hotline/Urgent%20Concern%20Disclosure%20Form.pdf

  672. OK_Max: "angech, CIA employees take an oath to defend the constitution, not an oath to stick by the president no matter what."
    .
    Where is the constitutional principle he is defending? You claimed earlier the WB was about the election campaign finance law (which the DoJ says no).
    .
    Max, your argument that the WB's lawyers who filled out the form got confused and fudged the answer to: "If you have contacted other entities, clearly identify the agency, office, or command," when they were referred by his approaching that entity, Schiff, is a reaching foul.

  673. Max, there was no need to dig into the law as you did for a pretext for the WB filing. His lawyers did that already, and they found it necessary to alter the citing (likely fraudulently) in the application.
    .
    New Flash: US Attorney John Durham has expanded his probe to include Rosenstein's and Mueller's dealings in the 2017 lead up to Mueller's appointment. Extra investigators are being summoned.
    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/durham-investigation-trump-campaign-surveillance-expanded-scope

  674. Ron, if WB is accused of perjury in answering questions on particular section of a form, I think it relevant to closely read that section, and that’s why I posted it. I don’t know why you think there’s no need to examine it.

  675. To OK Max
    “I disagree with those who say the whistleblower committed perjury in his complaint by not reporting previous contact with members of Congress. I will explain why I believe he didn’t perjure himself.
    Below is Part 4 from of the whistleblower form, the part all the fuss over prior contacts is about. Note the first paragraph begins with the sentence “Please indicate in this section if you have filed your complaint with any other entity…” I believe “have you filed your complaint” in this context refers to the detailed complaint being presented here in the form the WB intends to file, not previous discussions the WB had with congressional representative about the general nature of the complaint.
    In the “yes or no section I think the whistleblower was correct in answering "no,“ or at worst said "no" because he or she was confused by the question.
    The question is ambiguous enough to support a “yes’ or “no’ answer. If I were the whistleblower I would have asked my lawyer if a “yes” would have made my complaint more likely to receive prompt and fair attention. If my lawyer said it likely would, I’d have checked the "yes" box.”
    –
    Max, if you or I did it not being a lawyer like JD, your attempt at evasion might get a pass.
    However he or she is a highly trained Multi year senior CIA agent, men in black type quality, who also previously worked for one of the Democratic Presidential candidates.
    These guys do not make mistakes.
    They follow orders.
    What shoots your attempt down worse is your triple fudge evasion comment
    “Therefore, I think the whistleblower was correct in answering "no,“ or at worst said "no" because he or she was confused by the question.”
    One He wrote a massive legal brief on his complaint, a very smart man not capable of confusion.
    Two, He did not tick the No box.
    He did not answer No.
    He left both boxes vacant.
    He could not answer ( with a tick) yes because his WB complaint would be invalidated.
    He could not answer No because he would be lying.
    He could leave it vacant because he was a smart man and choices yes or no are both very bad opposed to perjury by omission as per JD, still bad but no one as going to check it that closely. Heck the unbiased Super urgent IG just accidental like overlooked that, didn’t he.
    Three, your attempt at obfuscation, how can ticking a box no possibly confused with “saying no at worst”.
    Saying no is not on the form.
    It would be best to get your facts right rather than putting in two guesses on the form, like the whistleblower on the hearsay.
    Sorry to be so mean.

  676. Max, I actually appreciate your putting a microscope to the form to get to the truth. The USA is in a political civil war. News reports on politics are full of omissions and outright false facts. I wish news outlets had the type of discussion we have here before publishing.
    .
    In fact I believe it would be a great service if all political article the protocol of point-counterpoint, where the article is split between two opposing writers on the same story. I think there would be a ready audience for the news outlet that first adopted this.

  678. Ron wrote: "Max, I actually appreciate your putting a microscope to the form to get to the truth. The USA is in a political civil war. News reports on politics are full of omissions and outright false facts. I wish news outlets had the type of discussion we have here before publishing."
    .
    Hear, Hear! Facts are open to interpretation like "not ticking the box was a mistake" or "not ticking the box was deliberate", but we do need facts before we can even start to untangle the mess.
    .
    The people who get paid to do this job have given up so completely they'll just make **** up and hide "corrections" a few hours later. The media are not held to any kind of ethical standard, unlike most other professional bodies, and seem to have taken the stance that it is their first amendment rights to write creative fiction and pretend it's actual news. This desperately needs to change, but I don't see that happening any time soon.
    .
    Faith in the media is at an all time low on the right. Ironically, it is still pretty high on the left. I suspect this outlook would dramatically change if the left even considered that other stuff exists outside their bubble. Apparently, right wing media so dominate (as CNN tried to assert) that the left in general don't even notice it exists!
    .
    Maybe I should consider doing it myself because I love untangling problems but, frankly, digging through all the filth for my carefully researched facts to be dismissed and character smeared would not be good for my blood pressure or state of mind.

  680. When the public increasingly has few trusted sources to get the facts from it all starts to look like loud blathering noise. The media started to do "fact checking" articles to try to get around this but just like many at one time reputable institutions the aroma of partisan gain proved too intoxicating and the institutions became biased.
    .
    If anything has become clear over the past decade it is that the most financially rewarding media model is to tell people what they want to hear and broadcast to one team. It is as much marketing as news at this point. CNN's Zuckerburg: “The idea that politics is sport is undeniable, and we understood that and approached it that way”
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/04/magazine/cnn-had-a-problem-donald-trump-solved-it.html
    .
    Depressingly sometimes invented political drama dominates coverage because that's what people want to read. One wonders how the !!!Russia Collusion!!! narrative will be handled by the media decades hence. My guess is it will be minimized to "an investigation was performed and no collusion was found", leaving out the 3 years of hysteria of breathless coverage from a media that just wanted it to be true so badly even if tore the nation apart.
    .
    Given this, the most amusing part is how the media seems to routinely blame their audience for their lack of faith in the steadfastness and wonderfulness of the journalistic ethics they display to save society from itself daily. Case in point from "The voice of journalism":
    A call to journalists: Let’s save America
    https://www.cjr.org/politics/purple-project-for-democracy.php

  681. OMG, Ed Forbes might be eight about Hillary wanting to run again.

    "So maybe there does need to be a rematch," Clinton added. "Obviously, I can beat him again"
    https://www.foxnews.com/media/hillary-clinton-2020-trump-rematch

    She also said: "It truly is remarkable how obsessed he remains with me". Projection?

    ————
    In completely unrelated news that somehow does not seem unrelated:
    "Eleven people were arrested in southern Mexico on Tuesday after the mayor of their village was dragged out of his office, beaten, and then tied to a pickup truck and dragged through the streets of the town".
    https://www.foxnews.com/world/mexico-mayor-dragged-car-angry-locals

  682. FWIW, I didn't think Ed was wrong about Hillary wanting to run. She probably does want to. I dispute that she'd win the dem primary.

  683. The Urgent Disclosure form that I linked to above was the new form not the old one. (that OK Max posted) The old form had 8 categories, including Congress and the media contacts that WBs were supposed to disclose, but I don't know where I got it from and how to link it. (Amazing how people discuss these forms, but most don't have good links.)

    If someone can tell me how to embed a jpg file here or a pdf, I will screenshot it and post it here. Makes a much easier case for perjury, if this was the form actually used. Also, shows collusion between the anti-Trumpers and intelligence agencies because the form was obviously modified to make it easier for, and to protect, the leaker.

    JD

  684. Reposting my main point on HC running again to be clear.
    Ed Forbes (Comment #176574)
    October 3rd, 2019 at 4:45 pm
    .
    “..Hillary wants to run and it would not take much for her to come in as the white knight to save the day. If Joe is only wounded, I give it about 40%. If Joe is out early, my thought is that it approaches unity…”
    .
    By “early”, I mean prior to, or just after the start, of the Dem primaries.
    .
    The media would go ballistic in support of HC. As such, MUCH more negitive reporting would go active on Warren, increasing the chance of a brokered convention, which the media would also love for the ratings. For the media, this situation is a win-win.
    .
    As long as HC can keep Dem nomination contested, she has a real chance to win the nomination in a brokered nomination.

  688. Here is the questioning about where disclosures have been made that was on the old WB form. See my comment #176795 above.
    My pdf to word program is not sophisticated so the formatting is a little different.

    "1. I have previously disclosed (or am disclosing) the violations alleged here to (complete all that apply):

    •
    •

    •
    •
    •
    •

    Inspector General of department / agency involved Date:
    …
    Other office of department /agency involved
    (please specify): Date:

    ….

    Department of Justice Date:
    ….
    Government Accountability Office (GAO) Date:
    ….
    Office of Special Counsel (OSC) Date:
    ….

    Other Executive Branch / department/ agency Date:
    (please specify):
    ….

    •

    •

    Congress or congressional committee(s)
    (please specify member(s) orcommittee(s)):
    ….

    Media / Advocacy Group(s) / Other
    (please specify):
    ….

    Date:

    Date:

    2. If you disclosed the information reported here through any other channel described in question 1, above,
    what is the current status of the matter?"
    …..

    JD

  690. angech (Comment #176786)
    October 8th, 2019 at 11:58 pm
    To OK Max

    Sorry to be so mean.
    _____

    angech, I don't think what you said was mean.

    BTW, I have a lot of respect for lawyers. Also CPA's. I use both, and they are well worth their fees.

  691. Ed Forbes (Comment #176796): "As long as HC can keep Dem nomination contested, she has a real chance to win the nomination in a brokered nomination."

    My guess is that is what she is hoping for. But I don't think she will enter the primaries, at least not the early ones. I don't think she has the stamina, so that would expose her. But she might love to be the white knight who rides to the rescue of a hung convention.

  692. Ron Graf (Comment #176788)
    October 9th, 2019 at 7:09 am
    Max, I actually appreciate your putting a microscope to the form to get to the truth. The USA is in a political civil war. News reports on politics are full of omissions and outright false facts. I wish news outlets had the type of discussion we have here before publishing.
    .
    In fact I believe it would be a great service if all political article the protocol of point-counterpoint, where the article is split between two opposing writers on the same story. I think there would be a ready audience for the news outlet that first adopted this.
    __

    Ron, thank you. I agree with your comment on point-counterpoint.
    I would like to see articles on opposing views side by side. Sometimes I see that in the linked articles at Realclearpolitics but too often its just a left view on one topic and a right view on another topic. Still it's a pretty good place to go.

  693. Mike M,
    Well, Hillary is still just as much a career criminal as she was in 2016. Which doesn’t make her entry into the race impossible, just problematic. The Dems selected her in 2016, so anything is possible. But realistically, there are a great many dedicated socialists and progressives for Sanders and Warren who would be very unhappy if Hillary were to be promoted over their preferred leftists. So Hillary’s selection as a ‘white knight’ candidate seems to me just about impossible. The betting markets seem to agree.

  694. JD, do you or anyone else have the WB filled out form copy? I don't see how the submitted legal brief can completely substitute for the official form. Of course, the ICIG form has the WB's name printed on it. Here is the old blank form from Brandon's provided link: https://www.scribd.com/document/427767481/Icwpa-Form-401-24may18
    .
    The NYT reported back in Sept 26, (forgotten now) that the WB went to the CIA general counsel before filing the WB complaint. So that is another agency that needed to be disclosed.
    https://www.nationalreview.com/news/whistleblower-filed-report-with-cia-before-submitting-complaint/

  695. The political divide on the legitimacy of the current impeachment inquiry, (besides its rules omitting due process rights to the defense), rests with whether asking for the investigation into the Bidens is an abuse of authority. I admitted earlier that if a president asked his IC, (or a foreign IC,) for a fabricated dossier against the opposing party's nominee THAT would be an impeachable offense.
    .
    Not surprisingly Adam Schiff quoted the President as asking 8 times for the Ukraine leader to "have dirt made up about my opponent, lot's of it." Schiff later said that his official remarks were a joke. But it does clarify what the real accusation is. My question to any Dem is do you believe the evidence supports a probable cause predicate for a legitimate Biden corruption investigation? If so, do you THEN still think the President's request was impeachable or even improper?
    .
    The entire pretext for the Russian meddling secret spying on Trump was that Trump might have been subverted by the Russians. Why wouldn't the same concern exist for a potential president Biden in relation to Ukraine and China? And tonight I here Giuliani mention Romania and more. Or should such allegations wait and only be made if Biden becomes the nominee or the president? Or would doing so be making an "insurance policy"? Real questions.

  696. Thanks Max,
    Every day this issues goes one way, then the other.
    Would be very interesting to see the report submitted to and rejected by the CIA weeks ahead.
    Thanks RG.
    If identical it would mean he got a complex legal document together very quickly.
    If changed it would indicate later Schiff input!
    Is anyone putting this line of reasoning together ?
    Have they conveniently lost the CIA report (Wray).
    Have they provided all of the complaints to the different agencies and compared them?
    Worth someone like Barr as the head getting them all together.
    It would be a shame to have it come out later they were available and were lost.

  699. The fact that there was so little public questions around the WB complaint besides Steve Mc and a couple of people from the Federalist is disturbing and I am still not understanding some basic points. We still don't know if the ICIG has a filled out form from the WB with his name on it and answers to all the relevant questions on the form. If the WB's legal brief is supposed to be a substitute for the form it takes a lot of liberties. It ignores most of the questions and intentionally alters the citing of the regulation requirements in order to self-qualify processing as and "urgent matter."
    .
    It says right on the original form that anonymous source complaints will NOT be processed to the ICIG. Also, in the paragraph above the signature lines it specifically has one signature box for consent of disclosure of name and a separate box for non-consent. We still don't know which box the WB signed. If they signed the consent then there is no basis for withholding his name during the impeachment of the President. If they did not consent the complaint was mishandled by getting directed to the ICIG.
    .
    The form also follows the assumption that the complaint is regarding wrongdoing within an IC agency, as the regulation states. On Page 4, item 6 reads: "Please describe the (**agency**) wrongdoing that you are disclosing, indicating how the (**agency’s**) actions fit within the type(s) of wrongdoing that you checked in item." (**my highlighting**) The office of the President is NOT an agency within the IC.

  700. The new WB complaint changed the policy regarding anonymity. The old form had separate signature blocks for consent or non-consent of identity disclosure. It explained that anonymous complaints would not go the ICIG or be investigated but simply routed to the appropriate agency. The old form stated consent read:
    "The IC IG will maintain the confidentiality of your identity where possible. The disclosure of your identity may become necessary in order to fully investigate, or take other appropriate official action on the allegations contained within your disclosure or information. Do you consent to the disclosure of your name to others outside the IC IG, but still within official channels, if it becomes necessary in taking further action on this matter?"
    .
    The new form has only one signature box and requires no disclosure consent and states:
    "*I understand that in handling my disclosure, the ICIG shall not disclose my identity without my consent, unless the ICIG determines that such disclosure is unavoidable during the course of the investigation or the disclosure is made to an official of the Department of Justice responsible for determining whether a prosecution should be undertaken."
    .
    I wonder if the WB's lawyer had to all the form revision before its September 24 publishing. I'm sure that there are scores of past authentic whistleblowers that would have loved to have had such an influential legal team.
    https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Documents/Hotline/Urgent%20Concern%20Disclosure%20Form.pdf

  701. Our betters are coming for the drive through restaurants now. They are such kind, loving, wonderful people. It's not important that these bans don't accomplish anything except inconveniencing the rubes, but it demonstrates their superior morality. Think of the kids!
    .
    What we need here is a massive taxpayer subsidized kale industry that delivers in electric cars. The rubes, I mean the people I care so deeply about, will need to show a McDonald's ration card before ordering documenting that they have ingested the proper amount of kale first. Compliance will be monitored using a sewer monitoring system at each household that wants to eat fast food. People who care about others (progressives making more than $100K) will be exempted.
    .
    Why U.S. Cities Are Banning New Fast-Food Drive-Throughs
    https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/10/10/765789694/why-u-s-cities-are-banning-new-fast-food-drive-throughs
    .
    "Roland Sturm, senior economist at RAND, a nonprofit research firm, calls the notion ridiculous. Proponents of the bans often tout potential health benefits, he explains, but there is no evidence to back up those claims.

    Obesity rates went up, not down, after South Los Angeles banned new stand-alone fast food restaurants and drive-through windows, according to research published in the journal Social Science and Medicine in 2015."

  702. Tom Scharf,

    As George Will noted many years ago, being a progressive means you want to constantly boss people around about every part of their lives. The drive-through idiocy is just more of the same. Most people just want to be left alone, but the left will have none of that.

  703. The WB's lawyers are arguing that every "substantive" claim has been validated thus there is no need for the WB's identity to be disclosed. They are also claiming the WB has always been a civil servant, implying they never worked as a Dem legislative staffer (but not eliminating the possibility the WB worked for VP Biden.)
    https://www.yahoo.com/gma/whistleblower-lawyers-client-never-worked-political-candidate-234912329.html
    .
    Question: When should the right to anonymity prevail?
    .
    Answers:
    1) If everything is validated by admissions, other witnesses and documentation?
    .
    2) If some substantial part of the accusations are admitted or validated?
    .
    3) If the allegations are disputed and rest on the accuser being an eyewitness?
    .
    4) If the accuser has no political bias, personal animus or interest?
    .
    5) If the accuser's safety would be compromised?
    .
    6) Some combination of the above?
    .
    7) All cases?
    .
    8) No cases?
    .
    I would say the combinations of 2 and 4 as well as 2 and 5 should protect anonymity. However, I still think that whistle-blowing on presidential and vice presidential actions are exempt, which is likely why Biden and Obama got away with so much. We need to be careful of who we elect. And, we need a robust press.

  704. For those here who think that Trump was *concerned* about corruption and influence peddling…

    What do you think about Guiliani's association with individuals who have been charged with involvement in straw donations to Trump's campaign, and with trying to influence US policy w/r/t Ukraine (i.e., moving out the ambassador)?

    Seems to me rather suspicious that someone who has some abiding generic concern with corruption and influence peddling would be linked, even possibly by a few steps of removal, to what appears to be, corruption and influence-peddling.

  705. Joshua,
    And I thought you had become deathly ill or something!
    .
    I don’t think Trump is terribly concerned about influence pedaling. But I don’t think most politicians are terribly concerned about influence pedaling… as is evident from the rather grotesque extent of influence pedaling among politicians.
    .
    The real question is if voters are enough concerned about it to have a meaningful effect on political influence pedaling. My guess (and it is only a perhaps optimistic guess!) is that the Clintons’ obscene influence pedaling…. over decades…. cost Hillary a couple of close states in 2016, and so the election. Yes, yes, I know, some will say it was only the appearance of influence pedaling by the Clintons, and they did ‘nothing illegal’. That observation is at least good for a laugh, and Potter Stewart probably chuckles along in heaven as well.

  706. Steven –

    > I don’t think Trump is terribly concerned about influence pedaling.

    My interest is in the response from people who do think so.

    Perhaps even more interesting – for those who think that Trump is truly concerned about corruption and influence peddling – is the possibility that Trump and Guiliani met with Rex Tillerson to press Tillerson for a prisoner swap for Reza Zarrab, who was facing charges of violating US sanctions on Iran's nuclear program.

    Not really even the potential for a few steps of removal there.

  707. Steve –

    Sorry for the "n".

    Also…

    >I don’t think Trump is terribly concerned about influence pedaling.

    Would that come from riding on a corrupt bicycle?

  709. Joshua: "For those here who think that Trump was *concerned* about corruption and influence peddling"

    …..
    In my view you are focusing on the wrong issue. Doesn't matter whether Trump was concerned about corruption. What does matter is finding out the extent of Biden's corruption. Hunter was paid something between 1.5 million and 3 million dollars for doing nothing but being the son of the Vice President who was point man for Ukraine. (Unfortunately, so far the news reports say that Biden was paid up to $50,000 per mo. Interesting that no one totals up his payments and what he was supposedly paid for.) His company was paid over $3,000,000. The public has the right to know about these payments and the President is in the best position to get it. Just for contrast, do you think the UN has the motivation or the ability to find out about these and almost surely other corrupt payments. Even if Trump didn't care about corruption (he probably doesn't — neither do the Dems, obviously), his request was reasonable and useful.

    …..
    Really funny to me that Dems are concerned about asking for an investigation into obvious corruption and not the least bit concerned about the actual corruption.

    JD

  710. > In my view you are focusing on the wrong issue. Doesn't matter whether Trump was concerned about corruption.

    .

    Is there some condition of mutual exclusivity? Why is one issue the "right" issue and another issue the "wrong" issue?

    My point of interest – the point at which I entered this thread, is how people reconcile Trump and his administration. From that point of entry, the question arose for me whether there's anyone here who believes that Trump was acting out of some kind of generic concern about corruption and influence peddling (something that seems highly improbable to me).

    It was pointed out that my language was imprecise. So without thinking I've found the perfect syntax, my question is whether think that he's focused on corruption (or influence peddling) per se, as opposed to his own self interest.

    So I'd be curious to hear your opinion on that, irrespective of whether you think it is the "right" or "wrong" question.

  711. My comments seem to inconsistently wind up in moderation and the trigger isn't obvious to me – based on the actual content of the comments.

    Might it have something to do with the frequency of comments or something not directly related to content?

  712. Looks like content… Let me try a variation on a bubble sort to see if I can find the problem:

    > In my view you are focusing on the wrong issue. Doesn't matter whether Trump was concerned about corruption.

    .

    Is there some condition of mutual exclusivity? Why is one issue the right issue and another issue the wrong issue?

    My point of interest – the point at which I entered this thread, is how people reconcile Trump and his administration. From that point of entry, the question arose for me whether there is anyone here who believes that Trump was acting out of some kind of generic concern about corruption and influence peddling (something that seems highly improbable to me).

  713. Bubble sort continued…

    It was pointed out that my language was imprecise. So without thinking I found the perfect syntax, my question is whether think that he is focused on corruption (or influence peddling) per se, as opposed to his own self interest.

    So I would be curious to hear your opinion on that, irrespective of whether you think it is the right or wrong question.

  714. Joshua,
    What ends up in moderation is a bit of a mystery to me also. Yours *do* seem to end up there more than most other people. I don't know why. It is NOT something I am doing. I released yet another one. (Note: when I say more, I would say , "MUCH" more. I haven't done statistics. But if you think it seems like more, I think you are not wrong.)

    I'm on the back 90 of the evening… so other than responding to that, I may not say more. (I will go read a bit more while Jim has the TV on pause.)

  715. JD –

    Btw –

    >Really funny to me that Dems are concerned about asking for an investigation into obvious corruption and not the least bit concerned about the actual corruption.

    .

    You should know that I'm not a Democrat, although I'm more likely to vote for Demz than Pubz.

    It certainly isn't only Demz who are concerned with the question of Trump's corruption.

    You falsely assume that I'm not concerned about corruption on the part of the Bidens. However, a couple of points on that.

    What seems more likely, or at least obvious, w/r/t the Biden's activities, IMO, is influence-peddling as opposed to corruption*. As for influence peddling, I think that it's taking place on a massive scale in the Trump administration – so then part of my point of interest is, how do people who are concerned about influence peddling by the Bidens rationalize what, it seems to me, is obvious influence peddling all the way down in the Trump administration, and in fact in Trump's entire life (in fact, he has pretty much explicitly acknowledged lifelong engagement in influence-peddling as a key component of his approach to his businesses).

    As for the corruption aspect, I think it is more or less equally plausible in connection to the Bidens and the Trumps. I don't feel any reason to rationalize the likelihood of the Bidens' corruption. What interests me is how Trump supporters respond to the plausible evidence of corruption in the Trump administration.

    *Edit: accepting for the sake of discussion right now that there is some kind of clear distinction between influence-peddling and corruption – something that I'm not really that sure about (I think it's a complicated question).

  716. Lucia –

    > I don't know why. It is NOT something I am doing.
    .

    That seemed rather obvious to me, as the moderation seemed very inconsistent, and was taking place (or not taking place) waaay to fast for it to have been in response to the content of my posts.

    .
    No need to dig that other comment out of moderation, as I by-passed the moderation by breaking the comment up into multiple posts. It seems that in the email I got about the comment in moderation, certain punctuation symbols (apostrophes and quote marks) were replaced with strings of characters (letters, symbols like the pound symbol, and numbers). Maybe that's somehow related, although I am quite sure if that was a straight-up explanation a lot of other comments would wind up in mod also.

  717. If you use different email addresses I think you need first time approval again. I could be wrong.

  718. Thanks Mark –

    The same email address nets differing results… except my email and name aren't being saved by my browser… So it might be a variation somehow in how I enter the email address (like an extra space at the end)?

  719. Tom Scharf (Comment #176813)
    October 10th, 2019 at 9:23 am

    "Our betters are coming for the drive through restaurants now. They are such kind, loving, wonderful people. It's not important that these bans don't accomplish anything except inconveniencing the rubes, but it demonstrates their superior morality. Think of the kids!"
    ________

    Reasons I might prefer to order food from my car:

    1. I’m too lazy to stand and walk.

    2. I’m ashamed of how I look.

    3. It’s too cold or too hot outside.

    4. Counter customers frighten me.

    5. I worry about leaving my car unattended.

    6. If I turn my car off it’s hard to restart.

    7. Damn car doors don’t work, climbing out windows is hard.

    8. My girlfriend flirts with counter clerks.

    9. Would love leaving kids in car, but it might get me arrested.

    10. No cars in the drive-thru lane, and I don’t have too pee.

    Actually, I have never ordered food from my car and likely never will. Tom, if you like ordering from your car I can understand why you don't like the ban.

  721. JD –

    I don't have a way to get past the paywall, but perhaps as a lawyer, you might…

    Re whether it's just Demz who are concerned about Trump's corruption:

    https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2019/10/10/16-conservative-lawyers-say-they-support-expeditious-impeachment-inquiry/?slreturn=20190910205630

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/george-conway-and-other-prominent-conservatives-call-for-expeditious-impeachment-probe/2019/10/09/4971b404-eade-11e9-9c6d-436a0df4f31d_story.html

  722. OK_Max (Comment #176831): "I have never ordered food from my car and likely never will."

    Me too.
    .
    OK_Max: "if you like ordering from your car I can understand why you don't like the ban."

    Do you understand why I don't like the ban?

  723. Joshua, you assume Trump is corrupt. Making a phone call asking for an investigation in this situation is not corrupt — in fact, it is anti-corrupt act. I make up my mind on all issues important to me and don't care in the least that some Repubs don't like what Trump did.

    On the other hand, Dems are simply lunatics. See this where Minneapolis is banning fast food drive thrus. https://www.motor1.com/news/364547/minneapolis-bans-drive-thrus/ I believe Los Angeles has done the same thing. It takes a major form of stupid and malicious hubris to do stuff like this, but you never know what lunacy the Dems will promote next. How anyone could even imagine such a stupid idea is beyond me. However, there seems to be an inexhaustible supply. Makes it easy for me to be a Trump supporter.

    In the same way that the Dems institute a corrupt coup by totally unwarranted spying on Carter Page and then have the gall to then claim that fighting their corrupt coup attempt is obstruction of justice. This call to Ukraine is way, way below what Comey and Sally Yates, under the auspices of Obama did.

    JD

  724. JD –

    Apparently you're not interested in responding to what I actually wrote. Which is just fine. But I think it would be more interesting if you did respond to what I wrote.

  725. Joshua
    **So it might be a variation somehow in how I enter the email address (like an extra space at the end)?**
    Hypothetically, that could be it. The program compares (email, name) combination to previous (email, name) combos. If the *pair* is doesn't match a previous pair, the script will auto moderate.

    Having said that, I will need to look to see if that is the case. (It will list your "number of comments" for each (pair).

    I know you don't entirely trust me…. but I honestly will need to look. I HAVE noticed the issue. You ARE moderated more than "normal". It's not intentional on my part.

  726. Joshua….
    I looked (briefly). I don't see anything "obvious". But… yeah. You DO get moderated more than normal. Sorry about that.

  727. Joshua

    **I found the perfect syntax, my question is whether think that he is focused on corruption (or influence peddling) per se, as opposed to his own self interest. **
    Per se? I'm not convinced Trump can distinguish corruption "per se" from "unfair to me personally". So *in his mind* he actually might believe he is focuse don corruption per se. But… well… he mostly senses "unfair to me".
    .
    This doesn't make him different from many people. And some in congress (on both sides) are similar. But.. well. I SUSPECT Trump is sort of less apt at distinguishing "unfair to me" from "corruption per se" than most people and EVEN most politicians.
    .
    So the question of "focus"…. well… he can't distinguish. His ability to detect corruption is like someone who needs corrective lenses. (As I do… I now need bifocals.) But in the case of Trumps, I mean metaphorical. Not literal bifocals.

  728. > I know you don't entirely trust me….

    ? I have had no reason to doubt that you'd tell me the truth about moderation. And like I said, after my one comment landed in mod and the next didn't, it seemed obvious to me that the moderation had nothing to do with me per se (and the speed of the contrasting mod decisions made it obvious it wasn't based on content – it happened too fast to be based in content except maybe through an algorithm filter).

  729. Joshua: Your influence peddling/corruption comment apparently came up late. I don't know where you came up with the distinction between influence peddling and corruption, (I have never seen it) but Hunter Biden's payments were clearly a disguised bribe for being nothing but Joe Biden's son. Don't know whether they violate some obvious statute. However, if you can claim that Trump's call was an in kind campaign contribution, there are many statutes you can use to make a plausible case that some criminal statute was violated by the disguised bribe. Maybe what Mueller used– a conspiracy against the US.

    …..
    Whether there is a statute or not, what the Bidens did was very wrong, and in and of itself, should disqualify Biden from the Presidency. Personally, I don't like to see the criminalization of politics, but that is the prime Dem strategy at this time. I am more concerned with the innate wrongness of what the Bidens did as opposed to the violation of a statute. However, the Dems are always manufacturing legal technicalities and evasions, and if that is to be American politics now, it will have to go both ways.

    I will add that Hillary is clearly a felon, but I didn't think she should have been prosecuted in 2016, because if the American people want to vote for a felon that is their right. In light of what has happened since then and the Dem criminalization of politics, I would prosecute her now if it was an election year.

    JD

  730. Joshua…
    There are some "bad words" which were based on a particular former visitor…. It might be use you use them.

    But honestly, if you saw the list….There was a particular person who had some theories about that involved "venus" and "jupiter" , "Josef Loschmidt". I can get away with putting those words in comments, but if you do… well… moderated. Well… "Cotton" is moderated as is "Soros". (I'd be willing to unmoderate Soros, but Cotton is right out. If you want to talk about your favorite fibers, write cott*n. Others will understand.)

  731. > Per se? I'm not convinced Trump can distinguish corruption "per se" from "unfair to me personally".

    I think that's a closely related aspect. He may have a very limited non-transactional frame for viewing corruption. Little, if anything in his favor could be corrupt. Little, if anything contrary to his favor could be non-corrupt.

    > This doesn't make him different from many people. And some in congress (on both sides) are similar.

    This could be one area where I really do think he is exceptional (in contrast to his belief that he's exceptional in almost every way)

    I think with him his transactional view of coeruption may be true to an extraordinary degree.

    Or it could be that he is uniquely unconcerned about pretending his definition of corruption ISN'T transactional – because he has worked it out that it works to his favor to be unconcerned about that. For some owolw, that trait comes across as being authentic.

    I have a hard time deciding. It may be some of both, but I lean towards thinking that he actually has no internal compass in that regard. He does actually display the kind of narcissism that would go along with having no compass.

  732. Lucia –

    No reason to apologize. It's a minor and unimportant inconvenience, and I'm sure it is through no failing or intent.

    I don't think it is a "bad" word filter issue. I reposted the same words in two chunks, and nothing got snagged – with the only modification being replacing the apostrophes and quotation marks since in the moderation email they showed up as a string of odd characters.
    .

    More annoying is that my hard line breaks to create empty lines disappear.
    .

    That's why I put in those lines with a period only to hold a line break.

    I'd like to know why that happens. I'd think it might have something to do with my browser, but I would imagine others are using Chrome also. It happens in my desktop as well as my phone.

    Ugh. Software engineers. Can't they do anything right? (for you, Mark)

  733. JD –

    I've written top many comments, so I'm going to sign off now (plus, the football game is getting interesting)

    But AFAIAC, you still haven't actually addressed my comments and I'm not interested in responding until it seems to me that you have. Of course, you're under no obligation to do what I find interesting.

  734. Joshua– You assume Trump corruption but don't identify it. There is nothing to discuss. Let's both move on.

    JD

  735. BTW, The first political fallout from the fauxpeachment of Schiff and Palosi is arriving. All year the Dems have been up on the generic ballot by 8-10 points. 2 polls in October show 3 and 4 points respectively.

    I continue to be amazed by how partisan and dishonest this decision is. In the case of Clinton and Nixon, the minority had subpeona powers and the president had his lawyer present for all hearings. In the case of Nixon, his lawyer could cross examine witnesses I read today. Schiff is truly conducting a star chamber proceeding and I think just trying to stir up enough dust to tarnish Trump. Most of the real dirt may blow back on Schiff himself, who has a pretty impressive track record of misrepresenting facts in the Russia faux collusion affair. If the media was more honest, this would collapse in a matter of days.

  736. Mike M. (Comment #176834)
    October 10th, 2019 at 7:12 pm
    OK_Max (Comment #176831): "I have never ordered food from my car and likely never will."

    Me too.
    .
    OK_Max: "if you like ordering from your car I can understand why you don't like the ban."

    Do you understand why I don't like the ban?
    _____

    My guess wouldn't be as good as your explanation.

  737. Joshua
    **More annoying is that my hard line breaks to create empty lines disappear.
    .

    That's why I put in those lines with a period only to hold a line break. **
    No.. it's everyone. Not your browser. I'm too busy to look into what WordPress is doing to fix it. It's not universal, so it could be something I did long ago.

  738. Joshua: "…I lean towards thinking that he [Trump] actually has no internal compass in that regard. He does actually display the kind of narcissism that would go along with having no compass."
    .
    Everybody has a blind spot when it comes to themselves. With narcissists it's might be larger. Type A personalities tend to produce both leaders and narcissists. Many times they are one in the same.
    .
    I vote on policy and effectiveness. Unfairness and deception are universally frowned on. We usually end up with a choice between two compromised individuals. Jimmy Carter is the only president I can remember that did not have any personal scandals, notwithstanding his brother Billy going to work for Qaddafi. But Carter was ineffective and weakened national security, emboldened Soviet adventures and gave us the worst unemployment and inflation combo since the Great Depression. Yet, he the most active and generous X-president since Herbert Hoover. (Maybe there's a link.)
    .
    Lucia, I don't mind that I went into moderation twice today, the html no longer works, that one must separate paragraphs with a period, that Google displays the site as "Not Secure." (Just means you didn't buy a SSL certificate. Don't worry about it.) As long as the edit feature keeps on working and you don't kick me off for musing too much I'm great.

  739. Thinking about it, I'd bet Google is not allowing the email to autofill now on sites without a SSL certificate. I believe you can still get set up for free using Cloudflare. WordPress might charge a small fee for installing it.

  740. Joshua
    “My point of interest – the point at which I entered this thread, is how people reconcile Trump and his administration. From that point of entry, the question arose for me whether there's anyone here who believes that Trump was acting out of some kind of generic concern about corruption and influence peddling”
    –
    For Trump to have survived 3 years of rigourous scrutiny of the whole lifetime of his business affairs and affairs says one thing to me.
    He is amazingly squeaky clean.
    Now no one is clean and business involves a lot of hard nosed dealing.
    Yet there are not thousands of aggrieved we wuz robbed people out there clamouring to sue someone who is rich enough to be worth at least having a go If you had some genuine dirt or gripe.
    –
    Re your point about corruption and peddling.
    Joe Biden allowed his son to sit on the board of a foreign company that was being investigated and then threatened and had the prosecutor of that country sacked by announcing that he withdraw a billion dollars in aid.
    He boasted about it.
    If you cannot see and admit that that is corruption then you would be both blind and biased.
    Peddling influence is something we all do everyday in our personal and business lives.
    Drawing a line between it and corruption is easy if you want to or hard if you do not want to.
    The worst thing that Trump has done is nepotism even though he has arguably got a couple of good negotiators out of it and a couple of rubes.
    To me he should have just gone out and got the best non family talent he could.
    Because it opens the door to possible or perceived corruption.
    America is more prosperous, more jobs, more security of a good type and more respected in the world. People respect and fear ( in a good way) him overseas.
    He is much more impressive than the Bushes, Carter and Nixon. He looks the part.
    Peddling is doing business, winners and losers. Corruption is backdoors shoddy deals, criminals and drugs and violence involves committing real criminal offences and circumventing the law.
    –
    Ask yourself this.
    Of all the people who have made campaign contributions illegally, how many others have been subpoenaed to appear before congress within days of the ink being dry on the paper.
    Not one.
    Corruption is not a one way street.
    This abuse of CIA and FBI power only directed at one side and involving criminality of the highest order is the issue.
    It has to be stopped, no, that is too simplistic.
    I would prefer if this time it is uncovered and stopped just as I would like underdogs to win.

  741. Joshua, re software engineers: yup. I marvel at times that anything with a microprocessor running it ever works at all. To put it poetically and only somewhat metaphorically, what we software engineers really do in large part is: we conjure demons from beyond to animate the inanimate. Its amazing that it doesn't go catastrophic wrong more often.

  742. God I hate my phone. Catastrophically wrong..
    [Edit: But it's a minor example. Darn phone thinks it ought to correct the words I type. I don't turn off the feature because it often saves time, but it doesn't do what I want or expect all the time. Deeeemons.]

  743. JD –

    > You assume Trump corruption
    .

    What type of lawyer are you? You have repeatedly drawn a conclusion that isn't supported by the evidence present. Further, you have failed to respond on point. As just one example, you said
    .

    …"funny to me that Dems are concerned…" as to Trump's actions
    .
    and I pointed out that it wasn't only Dems that are concerned as to Trump's actions…
    .
    and in response you said that…"I make up my mind on all issues important to me and don't care in the least that some Repubs don't like what Trump did."
    .

    I didn't refer to anything about your process of how you make up your mind or what you care about in the least. I was responding to your characterization of what Demz think and pointing out that it wasn't only Demz who think that.
    .

    But it interesting to me that you point to what Demz think (as a object of humor for you) but don't care about what Pubz think – particularly when the Pubz think things that are very similar to what you think is so funny about Demz' thinking.

  744. w/r/t Trump's putative concern about corruption and influence-peddling (per se) and his relative focus on his self-interest…and a possible connection to narcissism, I thought this was kind of interesting:
    .
    **********************
    George Conway: The thesis of the article is that, if you look at the ingrained personality characteristics of Donald Trump, and you use some of the knowledge that’s in the psychological literature and use the diagnostic criteria of the DSM, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, and focus on the criteria for narcissistic personality disorder and antisocial personality disorder, which you can also call pathological narcissism and sociopathy, you’ll find that his behavioral characteristics are simply inconsistent with what you need for someone to carry out the duties of the President of the United States. And in particular, that’s true about his narcissism. His narcissism, his extreme narcissism, is really his focus on himself above everything else in the world.
    .

    Preet Bharara: But other people are narcissistic.
    .

    George Conway: There are. In fact, narcissism is a continuum.
    .

    Preet Bharara: Can be good.
    .

    George Conway: It can be good. You need a certain amount of narcissism to be a healthy human being. You need that kind of confidence to go out in the world and accomplish things. It can become dangerous when it becomes excessive. And in the case of somebody like Trump, it means that he’s simply incapable of taking other people’s interests into account in going about his business. And in this case, he can’t take into account the interests of the country. He can’t take into account the interests of the Constitution. He can’t take into account his duties, and he puts his self, his own interests, above the country’s in almost any circumstance.
    .

    George Conway: And that’s exemplified by the most recent scandal, the Ukraine scandal, where he’s essentially using his office. He is using his office, using the power of potentially withholding funds or even simply the power of the presidency to extort a smaller nation, to try to get that nation to issue some kind of a statement against Trump’s principle political rival.
    ******************
    .

    https://cafe.com/stay-tuned-transcript-diagnosing-trump-with-george-conway/
    .

    Now for me to speak of the role of narcissism in Trump's behavior is one thing. I'm obviously on weak ground there since I've never met the guy, obviously, and I have no real knowledge about his behavior except in the most cursory manner from watching what he does in public and reading accounts in the press.

    Plus, I'm ideologically opposed to Trump's professed political ideology on quite a few levels – although there is some degree of alignment on Trump's recently professed ideology w/r/t America's involvement in military conflicts (I don't assume it's his real ideology since I view everything he does in the political arena as based on his assessment of political expediency)

    But Conway presumably has had quite a bit of interaction with Trump at a personal level, and obviously has a lot of information about trump from a source that knows Trump extremely well. And, Conway is presumably pretty close to Trump's professed ideology, or at least much closer to his professed ideology, than I am, on a wide range of ideological issues.

    I find Conway's views on Trump to be quite interesting – and I'm always curious as to how Trump's supporters reconcile the views of someone like Conway so as to maintain their support.

  745. mark –

    > we conjure demons from beyond to animate the inanimate.

    Wow. When you put it that way, I should thank you that you've reined in the demons to the extent that you have and kept us all safe. I'll keep that in mind the next time I want to throw my computer out the window.

  746. Angech: "Joe Biden allowed his son to sit on the board of a foreign company that was being investigated and then threatened and had the prosecutor of that country sacked by announcing that he withdraw a billion dollars in aid.
    He boasted about it."
    .
    Biden was only there to be a powerful but disinterested policeman to help the Ukrainians rid themselves of their corruption. It was his job to safeguard the inflow of billions in cash into the country and to point the prosecutor in the right directions for bad actors. One of those was Burisma — until they put Biden's on their board. Forget the later the strong-arming to get the prosecutor fired. The moment Hunter Biden started receiving big cash Joe Biden was no longer a disinterested policeman.
    .
    Crooked cops have been around since the beginning of time. The serious problem is when nobody can open their mouths to point at them. In the USA we can currently still point but the media will not report. Media corruption foreshadows systemic corruption.

  747. Joshua,
    >>I find Conway's views on Trump to be quite interesting – and I'm always curious as to how Trump's supporters reconcile the views of someone like Conway so as to maintain their support.
    .
    Sure. I can help with that. Whenever Conway uses the word 'simply' above, in my view he's making an unsupported assertion, putting forward his opinion as fact and using the word 'simply' as if it serves in the place of support.
    >>And in this case, he can’t take into account the interests of the country.
    I think he's done better than many expected for the country. The economy is doing well where experts scoffed. Some predicted economic disaster (repeatedly) that has not appeared to manifest. Trump hasn't gotten involved in any new wars and is bringing the troops home from Syria. So on.
    Maybe another way of looking at this – in essence, the guy has made a plausible effort to do much of what he said he'd do when he ran for office. Now, for those who didn't approve of what he said he'd do in the first place, this may be considered not a good thing. But I wouldn't confuse Trump doing things his ideological opponents never wanted done for being unfit to serve as President because he's narcissistic.
    In a nutshell, I don't much agree with Conway's opinion about unfitness for office and consequently don't have to reconcile anything there.

  748. Joshua,
    >>you've reined in the demons to the extent that you have and kept us all safe.
    :> Charitable of you, considering I'm one of the damnfools who brings the demons in the first place. Other societies at other times would have me burned at the stake, or buried in cursed ground or something.

  749. Joshua,

    Conway clearly isn’t a disinterested observer. Besides, psychologists and psychiatrists are, IMO, no better than, and possibly worse than witch doctors. Remember the recovered memories fiasco? Goldwater was ‘diagnosed’ remotely too. In fact the psychiatric society made it unethical to remotely diagnose anyone as a result. Conway’s apparently absolute certainty about what Trump can or cannot do is completely unwarranted. As a result I have no problem ignoring his assertions.

  750. I wasn't quite as explicit as I meant to be above regarding this:
    ——-
    >>And in this case, he can’t take into account the interests of the country.
    I think he's done better than many expected for the country.
    ——-
    The reason I think it's relevant that 'I think he's done better than many expected for the country.' is that I find it implausible that somebody who can't take into account the interests of the country can somehow bumble into inadvertently doing things that appear to be in the interest of the country. I think that the country appears to be doing pretty well (if one agrees with that) is evidence that Trump is *not* in fact unfit for office due to his narcissism.
    There.

  751. Mark –
    .
    I am interested in your reaction to Conway more generally, but here I'm interested in your thoughts about what he says more specifically about Trump's relative concerns about his own self-interest vs. his putative concern about corruption and influence-pending (per se). That was my point of entry here, and remains my main point of interest here.
    .

    So maybe I can extrapolate, let me try: you reconcile what Conway has to say on THAT topic (with your continued support for Trump) because of how you assess Conway's proclivity towards bias, and his lack of expertise for making an assessment? Would that be a fair characterization?

    Or maybe you have no particular thoughts on Conway's assessment on that issue because you don't particularly care about Trump's relative concern about his self-interest to that of the country because in balance, you see the outcomes of his actions as being good for the country?
    .
    I will point out, that he has failed to deliver on many of his promises as well – with some of those promises being quite fundamental to his campaign platform (but I don't want to do go down that road here – I was "just saying.'")

  752. Mark –
    .

    I see that your follow-on comment that was posted as I was writing my follow-on comment addressed my follow-on comment. IOW, we crossed.
    .
    Thanks.

  755. So let’s be clear on this. We can have years of investigation of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign based on zero evidence. But Biden gets a pass from the talking heads because there’s no evidence of corruption. As Kimberly Strassel says in today’s WSJ, it’s all smoke and mirrors.

    “Democrats and the media for three years used a fog of facts and speculation to lull America into forgetting there was never a shred of evidence of Trump-Russia collusion.”

    They did something similar to Kavanaugh and they’re doing it again with Ukraine. But heaven forfend that a leading candidate for the Democratic Presidential nomination could possibly be corrupt.

  756. mark bofill (Comment #176863): "The reason I think it's relevant that 'I think he's done better than many expected for the country.' is that I find it implausible that somebody who can't take into account the interests of the country can somehow bumble into inadvertently doing things that appear to be in the interest of the country. I think that the country appears to be doing pretty well (if one agrees with that) is evidence that Trump is *not* in fact unfit for office due to his narcissism."
    .
    Well said!
    ——–
    I think its clear that *almost everyone* thinks Trump has done better than they expected for the country. The main exception would seem to be a few idiots on the extreme right, like Ann Coulter. But most won't admit it. Very few attack his accomplishments; instead they attack who he is. I think that is because they can't attack his accomplishments.

    It reminds me of the old litigator dictum: When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the law is on your side, pound the law. When neither are on your side, pound the table.

  757. The presidency is overrated. The overall system is what matters. What is good for this country is it political and economic systems and the ideology of its citizens. If you need proof of that one could put a complete bozo into the highest office and see if catastrophe follows.
    .
    It hasn't, at least not yet, ha ha. Many of the difficult decisions a president makes are hardly more than coin tosses because of the high uncertainty involved and the lack of actual control one has over the outcome. As it turns out the opposition / enemy gets a vote.
    .
    Case in point. Obama opined ad infinitum on Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria. Being the smartest guy in the room wasn't very helpful in the end. Obama pulled out of Iraq on a campaign promise and ISIS was created with 400,000 dead in the Syria civil war. Trump bombed the sh** out of Syria and the civil war ended earlier than expected. Sometimes not fighting is worse than fighting.
    .
    Do you really want a person of super high moral character in office? Would the Pope be a better president? I doubt it. The obsession with Trump's character is just that, an obsession. The majority of the world sees the US the same regardless of who's in office. China won't be any different if their president Winnie the Pooh dies tomorrow.

  758. Mike M. (Comment #176869)
    "I think its clear that *almost everyone* thinks Trump has done better than they expected for the country."
    ______

    If that's true I don't know why Trump is underwater in approval rating polls. I suppose, however, you could say if he had done as expected, his approval ratings would be even lower.

  759. Max –

    > If that's true I don't know why Trump is underwater in approval rating polls.

    .

    Seems to me that the job approval polling is pretty stable from when he was first elected, which might be an indication that the view of his presidency is more or less in line with expectations. But then again, we might predict that it wouldn't change much based on the mechanisms of conformation bias. For example, I'd think that theoretically some of his supporters might think that he has underperformed, given that we don't have a massive and beautiful wall paid for by Mexico, we don't have a massive infrastructure program under way, we don't have a beautiful program of healthcare insurance that is both more comprehensive and that costs far less, no insurance across state lines, no immediate termination of DACA, no end of birthright citizenship, etc. But I doubt that many of his supporters have updated their views on his presidency because of any of that. Instead, they might just focus on the ways that they're satisfied with his performance. On the other hand, some of his detractors predicted a dire economic status with his election, and I doubt that they've improved in their assessment as a result of that. Pretty much BAU, IMO – prolly very much in line with how people viewed Obama's presidency.
    .
    ***************
    Tom –

    > The obsession with Trump's character is just that, an obsession.
    .

    I'm not sure what merits the descriptor of an "obsession," but I do think that the degree of focus on Trump's character is a big problem.
    .

    But IMO, that works both ways. The focus on defending his character, by making what seem to me to be highly implausible arguments, also seems problematic to me.
    .

    But both sides of that seem like identity-aggressive and identity-defensive behaviors to me. In themselves, relatively normal behaviors – but I think that the behaviors have increased in magnitude recently. Or maybe not. One interesting question for me is whether the focus on Trump is a symptom of a larger trend, or whether Trump plays a causal role in the increase, if in fact there is one.

  760. Tom Scharf (Comment #176870)

    "Do you really want a person of super high moral character in office? Would the Pope be a better president?"
    ___________

    Tom, that would depend on what you mean by "super high moral character." Tell me what you mean, and I will give you my answer.

    The Pope's morale character would place the world's interest above any national interests. He loves everyone everywhere equally. Americans probably wouldn't want a president with that much morale character.

  761. Joshua, I don't think the case of Ukrainian donors is a case of Trump corruption, but the donors breaking the law to influence policy. Embarrassing for Trump, but he was likely not aware of the straw donations. $325,000 in illegal donations is pretty routine at many companies where they reimburse employees for their donations. One Trump administration official is currently claiming to have no memory of his political donation while working at a law firm.

    Trump probably doesn't raise the issue of Biden on the call if Biden weren't running, but only because the issue would never have been raised by conservative media. Had he known about it, he would still have brought it up, because Trump's primary concern is Ukraine's collusion with Obama and Hillary in the 2016 election.

  762. Joshua (Comment #176872)

    Max –
    Seems to me that the job approval polling is pretty stable from when he was first elected, which might be an indication that the view of his presidency is more or less in line with expectations.
    ______

    Joshua, I read Trump is underwater in polls even in some battleground States he carried in his election, which suggests more voted for him than now approve of him. It may have to do with disappointment in Trump's efforts to revive manufacturing industries in those States.

  763. Joshua: "What type of lawyer are you? You have repeatedly drawn a conclusion that isn't supported by the evidence present. Further, you have failed to respond on point. As just one example, you said"

    I see no logic or insight in any of your posts directed to me. I think we are both best served to ignore each other's posts.

    JD

  764. I note the Trump was ‘under water’ in polls of battleground states just prior to the 2016 election. I think the same situation applies now. Which I suspect is at least in part due to Trump supporters not wanting to talk to pollsters….. I routinely (at least weekly!) hang up on them.

  765. MikeN –

    > Joshua, I don't think the case of Ukrainian donors is a case of Trump corruption, but the donors breaking the law to influence policy.
    .

    Sure. It isn't direct evidence of corruption on Trump's part.
    But it is evidence that suggests that Trump has no particular problem with being associated with people who are highly corrupt.
    .

    These guys made a $300K+ donation to his PAC, under the shell of a just-formed company that had no apparent viable business.
    They leveraged that donation to gain access to Trump's government – not the least through associations with his personal lawyer with whom he is in very close association. They lobbied for the removal of an ambassador, who was subsequently removed. It appears that her removal took place via non-standard practices. Those same people who organized a fraudulent scheme to exploit influence-peddling to gain influence, were apparently associated with Guiliani along a number of various vectors, including business interests in Ukraine, including an industry that is apparently well-known for a high level of corruption (natgas). Perhaps there was no corruption in any of those other vectors, but that seems implausible to me – applying the same logic that Hunter Biden's salary would be suggestive of some form of corruption or influence-peddling.
    .
    Be even if it is true, that Guiliani's involvement with those guys was above the board in all respects, it seems to me to undermine the argument that Trump has some kind of (per se) concern about corruption and influence-peddling.
    .
    I'm not focusing on the argument that Trump is corrupt – I'm focusing on the logic behind the argument that he has some kind of generic concern about corruption and influence-peddling, beyond a level where that *concern* is based in his own self-interest (i.e., political expediency).
    .

    > and that Embarrassing for Trump, but he was likely not aware of the straw donations. $325,000 in illegal donations is pretty routine at many companies where they reimburse employees for their donations. One Trump administration official is currently claiming to have no memory of his political donation while working at a law firm.
    .

    I doubt that a $325K donation from entity that doesn't have a history of political activism, which doesn't seem to represent a legitimate business practice, and which is represented by people who seem of highly dubious provenance just flies completely under the radar. And even if it did, it would be highly suggestive of an organization that certainly doesn't uphold some focus on a generic kind of corruption and influence-peddling. Again, that isn't direct evidence of Trump's corruption – but it does undermine the logic of an argument that he has some kind of generic concern about corruption and influence-peddling.
    **Edit: I'll also point out that the donations at least got them noticed to the point where they had personal picture-taking sessions with Trump. Which again, doesn't come close to *proving* corruption – but I'd think that someone who is per se concerned about corruption and influence-peddling would make an effort to vet the people who he has personal picture-taking sessions with, to make sure that they aren't overtly connected to highly corrupt practices. The picture-taking sessions would, indeed, suggest that their personal picture-taking sessions was more than just a typical campaign donation – as would their apparent rather more extensive associations with Trump's personal attorney who goes on TV all the time to represent Trump's interests.
    .

    > Trump probably doesn't raise the issue of Biden on the call if Biden weren't running, but only because the issue would never have been raised by conservative media. Had he known about it, he would still have brought it up, because Trump's primary concern is Ukraine's collusion with Obama and Hillary in the 2016 election.
    .

    Not taking you up on the internal logic of that paragraph, it still leaves the question behind. Do you think is "concern" about Obama and Clinton in the 2016 election is more likely because of some kind of generic concern about corruption and influence-peddling, or is more likely a function of his self-interest? Some combination of both? Where would you see the likely balance of those different motivations?

  766. Steve –

    > Which I suspect is at least in part due to Trump supporters not wanting to talk to pollsters…
    .

    I've seen that kind of speculation often, usually from people who are inclined to be on the Trump side of the ledger. But I see little hard evidence to support that conjecture, and I've seen quite a bit that actually contradicts it.
    .

    Do you have some supporting evidence?

  767. Steve,
    Yeah, after 2016 I no longer trust polls as much as I used to. I don't know why they've gone screwy. Maybe they were always less reliable than I realized.

  768. mark –
    .
    > Yeah, after 2016 I no longer trust polls as much as I used to. I don't know why they've gone screwy. Maybe they were always less reliable than I realized.
    .

    What about the 2016 polling led to your loss of trust in polls? They mostly pegged the popular vote within the margin of error – particularly those that were conducted after late-breaking and likely highly influential events. The state polls in some states had errors beyond the margins, of course, but I don't think that really merits a loss of trust in polling – there are always going to be some errors in polling.
    .
    The notion of a "hidden Trump voter" has been studied to some extent. I think that if you look at the studies, the bulk of them suggest that the notion doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

  769. Joshua,
    Maybe 2016 shouldn't have shaken my confidence in polls, but it did. Trump was *not* expected to win. I recall that Nate Silver was called out for giving Trump as large odds as he did. I watched the election fully expecting Trump to lose, and was quite honestly shocked when he won.
    Now, maybe the conclusion I should have drawn isn't that polls are unreliable. Maybe the explanation lies elsewhere, that's possible. But — I try to figure out today. Is Joe Biden currently in the lead? Is Elizabeth Warren? I look here (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/democratic_nomination_polls/) and the numbers are all over the place. Is Biden 8 points ahead or is Warren 3 points ahead? The polls disagree.
    I don't see what to make of it, except that poll results can be inconsistent. If they're inconsistent, well, some of them have to be wrong. Why are they wrong? Beats the heck outta me.
    Shrug.
    .
    I have seen articles that say pollsters have gone back over 2016 and they don't find the 'Shy Trump Voter' to have been a significant factor.
    Shrug again.

  770. Mark –

    > I recall that Nate Silver was called out for giving Trump as large odds as he did.
    .

    Yeah. No doubt. The pollsters' interpretation of the implications of the polling was largely in error. I was most interested in Sam Wang's (Princeton Election Consortium) level of error, as his method for interpretation is quite sophisticated. Same with Scott Armstrong's (noted "skeptic," and libertarian btw), over at Polyvote.
    .

    I will agree that it's hard to put together the widespread misinterpretation of the polling with the more general accuracy of the popular vote polling.
    .
    I tend to think that Silver's take on all of that is pretty interesting…especially since he gave a pretty good chance that Trump would lose the popular vote and win the EC.

  771. Here's some wild and baseless speculation that's probably wrong: maybe it's that the speed and pervasiveness of information flow today destabilizes polling in limited cases. Maybe it's like Turing's Halting Problem. As soon as everybody knows the answer, that information can *change* the answer.
    I dunno. Fun idea.

  772. JD –

    .
    > I see no logic or insight in any of your posts directed to me. I think we are both best served to ignore each other's posts.
    .

    You're certainly more than welcome to "Ignore" mine. I won't ignore yours, however, as they're interesting if not always in ways that are flattering.
    .

    Once again, on the off chance that you won't actually ignore my comments, I'll ask you what evidence you used to repeatedly state that I assumed corruption on Trump's part (given that you have no evidence that I have, that seems like a rather un-lawyerly thing to do)?

  773. Nate Silver had an even higher odds of a Trump win around 35%, until a late New Hampshire poll had Hillary up big, taking away paths to victory.

    I built a model in 2016 based on the Real Clear Politics polls and the theory of a shy Trump voter, and the results were posted above. At the time Max thought it was like the lottery.

  774. Joshua,
    Do you *not* assume corruption on Trump's part? I do and I'm a supporter. I assume a certain degree of corruption as more or less inevitable going in, regardless of specific details about the politician.

  775. Mike,
    Do you think shy Trump voters skew polls? I haven't made up my mind about this yet
    .

  776. Take bumper stickers. I live in Alabama, overwhelmingly conservative place (although Huntsville is more liberal than much of the state). I can recall seeing virtually no Trump bumper stickers. Anecdotal, but I bet if I measured I'd find something to it.

  777. Mark –

    > Do you *not* assume corruption on Trump's part?

    Assume? No. I think there's some evidence that plausibly suggests corruption. Some of it looks pretty solid to me, but I don't actually know. A lot depends on how you define corruption. I think that issue is complicated.
    .
    More specifically, in contrast to what JD seems to think that he knows about what I assume, I don't assume that there was corruption w/r/t Trump's phone call with the president of Ukraine. There's enough plausible deniability to block any "assumptions" on my part. I do think that Trump likely speaks in code, so I can see where it's plausible that he displayed corrupt intent. On the other hand, the president of Ukraine claims that he felt no such intent. Is it possible he's telling the truth? I guess so. Is it possible that the intent was there but the president of Ukraine didn't perceive it? I guess. I don't think it's plausible that Trump was just generically interested in ferreting out corruption and influence-peddling outside of his personal interest in political expediency. I think that such an argument is laughable – because he certainly hasn't had a history of displaying concern about corruption and influence peddling in other contexts. In fact, I'd say that more accurately, he has had a long history of indifference or or deliberately turning a blind eye to corruption and influence-peddling when it served his interests to do so, and has abundantly displayed that tendency since elected.
    .
    The texts are the closest to evidence that would support a conclusion that there was corrupt intent on Trump's part, but more context is needed to understand that evidence better. In and of themselves, they don't support a confident conclusion, IMO. Too bad that Sondland didn't testify, but I think that I saw that he's testifying next week? If so, that might help to better establish the likelihood of "corruption" on Trump's part.
    .
    But even there, with more context for that evidence, I wouldn't "assume" corruption. I would form an estimation of the probability of corruption based on the available evidence.

  778. Mark –
    .
    >Take bumper stickers. I live in Alabama, overwhelmingly conservative place (although Huntsville is more liberal than much of the state). I can recall seeing virtually no Trump bumper stickers. Anecdotal, but I bet if I measured I'd find something to it.
    .
    How many Clinton bumper stickers did you see? My guess is that in an area like where you live, if you buy the "shy voter" theory, the "shyness" would balance out on both sides. Also, maybe a lot of people who voted for Trump only did so because they hated Clinton so much, not because they were proud of being a Trump supporter.
    His unfavorability ranking was historically high. People who live in communities where everyone is a Trump booster, it seems to me, would be likely to feel a strong confidence in that identity and feel it's important to let a pollster know how they feel. The idea of the "shy voter" just seems too convenient as confirmation bias, IMO.
    .
    In fact, as I recall (I could well be wrong), Clinton underperformed in areas where she would likely have been popular and over-performed in areas where she wouldn't likely have been popular. Same was true of Trump, as I recall (could be wrong about that, also). That would suggest that if there is a "shy voter" effect, it was not significant relative to other factors. And the non-personal interaction with pollsters responses didn't seem to line up with the "shy voter" effect relative to the personal interaction with pollsters responses.
    .
    And as I recall, the "Bradley effect" basis for the "shy voter" theory kind of fell apart also (with Obama's election).
    .
    Social desirability biasing is a very real thing in self-report and public polling – of that I have no doubt, but I'm just always dubious when people who aren't scientists in a field like public opinion polling presume they know enough to make scientific conclusions about why the polling gets the results that they get, particularly when those conclusions just happen to line up with their ideological preferences. The conspiratorial garbage that people were spouting in the previous election about "skewing" of samples to favor Obama was just ridiculous

  780. Sorry, fair enough was for your first response.
    Strangely, I honestly think I see more old Hillary stickers. I may actually count.

  781. Joshua,
    Let me explain that personal experience makes me less willing to dismiss this idea than I'd otherwise be. I'm not a bumper sticker guy because I flat out don't like crap on my car. I don't have any bumper stickers. I had a corgi magnet once, and maybe a magnet from my kids elementary school, and that was about it.
    This said, I feel less inclined than ever to have a bumper sticker or a sign supporting Trump. In the case of the bumper sticker, I feel like that would be an invitation for people with Trump Derangement Syndrome to key my car. Similar situation with the sign; I'm not inviting loonies to play at my house.
    So that's just me, and I get that. It's essentially anecdotal. Still, if I feel that way, it seems likely that at least *some* percent of the population feels similarly. What percent is that? It could be small. I sort of doubt it's zero though.
    .
    Anyways.
    .
    [Edit: It may not be quite as paranoid as one might think to have such misgivings. More anecdote!
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/10/10/truck-with-trump-bumper-stickers-was-left-bar-overnight-someone-set-it-fire/
    [ and
    http://politicalcritique.org/world/usa/2017/deep-south-trump-supporters-georgia-krawczyk-chapter-2/
    ..Note – even if the idea is unfounded or irrational, that doesn't mean the idea isn't out there. Right or wrong, crazy or not, I think people worry about this stuff.
    ]

  782. Mark –
    .
    I get all of that. I live in a rural area. Lots of guns. Lots of "don't tread on me" yard signs (and anti- "safe act" yard signs particular to NY State) . A gun club up the road. I would think twice before displaying a sign advocating gun control, or even a Clinton yard sign. Certainly not an AOC yard sign, lol.
    .
    I used to work construction. I was pretty careful about divulging my political views or my (Jewish) ethnic background.
    .
    So my point is that I think it balances out to some degree. Even if not completely (let's say conservatives really are victims and more silenced by left-wing intolerance than the other way around), (1) how big is the effect relative to other factors and, (2) how much does that translate into a particular context like polling? I get there is plausibility to the argument. My point is it should be regarded with skepticism without evidence in support, particularly when advanced by those who have an ideological affinity to the theory.

  783. >>(1) how big is the effect relative to other factors and, (2) how much does that translate into a particular context like polling? I get there is plausibility to the argument. My point is it should be regarded with skepticism without evidence in support, particularly when advanced by those who have an ideological affinity to the theory.
    ——
    I agree with all that. (1) Could be essentially irrelevant in size. (2) No idea. The rest, sure.

  786. mark bofill (Comment #176882)
    The polls disagree.I don't see what to make of it, except that poll results can be inconsistent. If they're inconsistent, well, some of them have to be wrong. Why are they wrong? Beats the heck outta me.
    _______

    It''s not unusual for polls by different organizations to show different results when measuring the same thing. The proportion of respondents supporting Trump, for example. is always higher in the Rasmussen poll than in the Fox poll. Differences in sample selection, sample size, the way questions are asked, and other things about the surveys affect results. Nevertheless, polls conducted in a consistent manner should show similar trends.

  787. I think the notion that a 'Shy Voter' will lie to a live poller but tell the truth to a machine is dubious. It could be right. Could also be wrong. This seems to me to be the idea on which hinges the distinction between genuinely undecided people who 'broke' for Trump at the last minute and the 'Shy Trump' voter.
    I don't know.
    Bad weighting by education and the extra expense and difficulty of state polls, OK. But this doesn't increase my confidence in polls in general. I mean, great; there were reasons the state polls were wrong. They were still wrong…
    I gotta go spend some time with the wife and kids and dogs.

  789. Joshua,
    “Do you have some supporting evidence?”
    .
    In 2016 the average of several polls in the two weeks before the election had Hillary up by 4.5% in Pennsylvania and 6.5% in Wisconsin. Trump did better than his pre-election polls in almost every closely contested state. I don’t know if that counts as evidence, but it does suggest the the pollsters got it very wrong in 2016 in key states. Unless they have found a way to improve the accuracy of their sampling (and I have seen nothing to suggest that), it seems to me reasonably likely they will have the same bias in their poll results again. I am not the only Florida voter who refuses to talk to pollsters… several people I know have told me they do the same. Yes, it’s anecdotal, but it is consistent with inaccurate pre-election polls.

  790. Steve –

    > but it is consistent with inaccurate pre-election polls.
    .

    That looks to me like an argument by assertion, without any actual supporting evidence for the actual causal speculation that you're making (beyond talking to several people.)
    .
    I suggest that you read the article that Mark just linked. Yes, some state polls were wrong – particularly as you go further out so that they wouldn't account for late breaking events and late-deciding voters, and it's interesting to speculate as to why. But it would be unrealistic to expect all the polls to be accurate – especially all the state polls.
    .
    The national popular vote polls were well within the margin of error – why would your suggested causal theory work at the state level but not show up at the national level? I suppose there could be some sort of balancing effect – but the article does address the probability of a balancing effect along other lines of analysis.

  792. Joshua,
    I make no assertions, only observations; it is of course possible that the several people who told me they won’t talk to pollsters are wild outliers, but since they all also supported Trump, that begins to seem an unusual coincidence.
    .
    WRT national vote totals: they matter not at all, of course, so their accuracy (that is, within their stated errors) is irrelevant. The fact that Hillary won California by a vote margin greater than her total nation margin just means she won California’s electoral college votes, nothing more. Please remind me how many pollsters predicted Trump had a significant chance of winning. And how many suggested Hillary would almost certainly win. The only prediction that came close was Nate Silver, who was *ridiculed* for giving Trump a 35% chance of winning. You can (and probably will) believe the pollsters will be accurate in 2020, but I think there is a good chance they will continue to be unwittingly biased against Trump in some key states.

  793. The national polls were well within the margin of error. In a situation similar to 2016, Charlie Cook in 2004 said it was John Kerry's race to lose, but somehow everyone forgot that argument 12 years later and said Trump had no chance.

    What was not in the margin of error was the exit polls. The early exit polls had Trump losing every single swing state, including Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, and Iowa. This has generally been ignored, with I think only Mark Halpering reporting it on The Circus.

    Mark, I described it at the time, but I think my model assumed undecideds would break for Trump, on the grounds that every time he fell behind it was his number that was dropping, while Hillary wasn't moving up- people had decided they didn't want to vote for her. I also gave a shy Trump factor, assuming that people were declaring Gary Johnson rather than say they were voting for Trump. I think my model gave Trump half the Johnson vote, and a net 1/3 of the undecided.

  794. Thanks Joshua. I'll reply to that tomorrow once I've got my wits (such as they are…) back about me properly. Been a loooong day.
    Thanks Mike, Steve.
    .
    Nite all.

  795. From
    Joshua (Comment #176857)
    **I find Conway's views on Trump to be quite interesting – and I'm always curious as to how Trump's supporters reconcile the views of someone like Conway so as to maintain their support.**
    .
    I don’t support Trump. But I should think no Trump supporter would feel any need to “reconcile” Conway’s psychological musings to maintain support for Trump. Among other things: Conway is not a psychiatrist. So his psychological evaluation of Trump isn’t anything anyone needs to take seriously. So Conway is, in the ned, just another guy who doesn’t like Trump, and who wants to practice armchair psychiatry.

    .
    Dewitt
    **Conway clearly isn’t a disinterested observer. Besides, psychologists and psychiatrists are, IMO, no better than, and possibly worse than witch doctors. **
    Well… he’s not a disinterested observer. AND he’s got no training in psychology. His undergrad is in biochemistry and he has a JD.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_T._Conway_III
    .
    Chances are if he WERE a psychologist or psychiatrist, he would not have written that article “diagnosing” a mental illness.
    .
    What I really don’t understand is why Joshua thinks anyone needs or even things they should try to “reconcile” Kelly Conway’s husband’s opinion about anyone with any other opinion about that person. I mean…. neither Conway is my or anyone else spiritual leader or guru. They can have their opinion, I have mine.
    .
    (My opinion of Trump ain’t high. But the fact that Kelly Conway’s husband writes up psychiatric diagnoses in articles in the Atlantic makes me not think much of Conway!)

  796. SteveF
    I've ALWAYS lied to political polsters phoning. I think I got the idea back when Mike Royko wrote some column I read in…. oh… the late 70s?
    .
    I don't only lie about who I will vote for, who I did vote for, but I lie about demographic information and so on. That is: if I talk to them on the phone. But these days, I don't answer the land line, so I don't talk to them.
    .
    Of course, my lies don't tell us anything about possible inaccuracies in polling. I suspect polls have gotten harder to do. People don't pick up landlines. There are too many polls– not just the "real" ones, but all sorts of fake polls that are really groups trying to warm you up to donate to their cause, or get you to vote for a cause. These people asking you what you think of teachers pensions, unions, abortion, school funding, immunizations…. they ask, and then want to hit you up to send them money.
    .
    I think people who get hit up by these people end up not respecting the idea of a poll and are much more likely to refuse to answer them or lie.

  797. > What I really don’t understand is why Joshua thinks anyone needs or even things they should try to “reconcile” Kelly Conway’s husband’s opinion about anyone with any other opinion about that person. I mean…. neither Conway is my or anyone else spiritual leader or guru. They can have their opinion, I have mine.
    .

    ?? Need? Should??

    I share the confusion. Why would Joshua think anyone "needs" to, or "should" do so? Oh wait, maybe he doesn't think that anyone does "need" to, or "should" do so.

    Maybe you should ask him if he does?

  798. Ron Graf “the media will not report. Media corruption foreshadows systemic corruption.”

  800. Joshua (Comment #176879)
    > Which I suspect is at least in part due to Trump supporters not wanting to talk to pollsters…I've seen that kind of speculation often, usually from people who are inclined to be on the Trump side of the ledger. But I see little hard evidence to support that conjecture, and I've seen quite a bit that actually contradicts it. Do you have some supporting evidence?
    Well.
    There was an actual election.
    That went quite opposite to the polls in all states.
    And when it was analysed why, the general conclusion at the time, was that the public did not tell the pollsters their true voting intentions.
    Seems you still have a long way to go in the grieving process being stuck at square one.

  801. Just lurking in the comments. Anecdotal but I also will not answer polls, have rejected several,and am a supporter of the president. I also will give them BS answers if pressed. It started years ago when Gallup called and halfway in, I realized how the questions were obviously written to bias the answer to their intended result. I had previously expected that a polling organization would be more fair but the questions were absolutely leading.

    They can stuff it IMHO.

  802. OK Joshuah,
    **Maybe you should ask him if he does?**
    .
    Uhh… Or maybe if Joshua doesn't he should act like he does.
    .
    Evidently you object to my using the verb "need" or "should". But you wrote
    ****I find Conway's views on Trump to be quite interesting – and I'm always curious as to how Trump's supporters reconcile the views of someone like Conway so as to maintain their support.****
    .
    That you used "as to how" suggests you think this is something someone would somehow need to do. As opposed to something someone wouldn't even bother doing.
    .
    And then you PRESSED people to specifically address your "question"
    .
    For example
    Joshua (Comment #176867)
    .
    "ASFAICT, your comment doesn't address my question."
    .
    So: You are acting as if people SHOULD address that– and not even accepting Ron's explanation of how he reconciles Conways "psychoanalysis" with his support of trump.
    .

    But ok, if you object to my use of the word "need", then I'm CURIOUS why you or anyone would be CURIOUS why anyone would be "reconciling" the Conway's armchair psychoanalysis with their support for Trump.
    .
    It's obvious no one need to reconcile the two things. I don't, for example "reconcile" my love of chocolate with my dislike of beets.
    .
    So, I would be CURIOUS about your thinking process if you were CURIOUS "as to how" people reconciled their dislike of beets while still retaining a love of chocolate. And, I'd be even MORE CURIOUS if you kept pressing people to try enlighten you why.
    .
    Perhaps you don't think this sort of behavior– telling us you are "curious" about the need to reconcile to things and then *pressing* people to answer your question to somehow explain how they reconcile the two things doesn't come off as seeming to think people "need" or "should" reconcile the two things. But it does.

  803. Joshua,
    Regarding your link, to snip out what I think the key point is:
    –snip–
    Trump outperformed the polls the most in states such as North Dakota and West Virginia where we assume respondents would’ve had little embarrassment in declaring their support for him, while he did no better than the polls’ predictions in solidly Democratic states. Also, Republican candidates outperformed expectations in the Senate races, which casts doubt…
    –snip–
    .
    Again, yah, maybe. Maybe not. People are complicated, and these assumptions rest on (what is in my view) a grotesquely oversimplified model of people (apparently such as : Oh, you live in Alabama, it's not conceivable you'd be reluctant to show support for Trump).
    .
    To be clear, I'm not saying these arguments against the 'Shy voter' are obviously wrong. I'm saying I don't think they are obviously correct.

  804. FWIW, I didn't interpret Joshua as implying I should give a flip specifically *because it was George Conway*. I figured he was asking what Trump supporters think of the argument that Trump is unfit because of excessive narcissism. Since I might have misunderstood, let me clarify — I don't care what George Conway thinks about much of anything.

  805. Kimberly Strassel’s column in today’s WSJ is worth a read. It’s about the organized, through social media at least, bureaucratic resistance to Trump in DC. It started with acting AG Sally Yates ordering the DOJ to not defend suits against Trump’s Executive Orders. At least she could be fired and was. But she inspired a lot of lower level employees covered by Civil Service to also ‘resist’. That’s the real Deep State. It confirms my opinion that Civil Service needs a massive overhaul. Insubordination needs to be made an immediate firing offense with no appeal.

    I see that CBS is going to produce a miniseries about James Comey. Anybody want to place a bet on how he is portrayed? My bet would be as a great hero of the resistance.

  806. Joshua,
    For example this:
    https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2013/10/regions-personalities
    It may be unwarranted to assume a homogeneous distribution of personality types across the country. Before I made up my mind about 'shy voters' I'd consider the impact of personality on voting and the personalities of the different regions. I haven't done this, and I'm not going to. I offer this merely as one example of factors that may confound the assumptions of the arguments against 'shy voters'. The devil is in the details and people are generally chock full of complicated details.

  807. Mark,
    I took him to be asking "because it was Conway" because Joshua added this bit:
    .
    **But Conway presumably has had quite a bit of interaction with Trump at a personal level, and obviously has a lot of information about trump from a source that knows Trump extremely well. And, Conway is presumably pretty close to Trump's professed ideology, or at least much closer to his professed ideology, than I am, on a wide range of ideological issues. **
    .
    So he told us why one might consider the opinion *Conway* qua *Conway* to be more more worth thinking about that someone else.
    .
    I don't think few people anywhere think Conway's opinion is any more important than anyone elses. Perhaps Kelly considers it important though.

  808. Thanks lucia! Now that you point that out I'm at a loss to explain how or why I filtered that out. Didn't even register with me.

  809. Mark –

    Don't know if you followed this link from Gelman's crib:
    .

    http://peterenns.org/sites/peterenns.org/files/pdf/SPP.2017.HiddenTrumpSupporters.pdf
    .

    I emailed the author to see if he could explain why he thinks a "shy voter" causality behind errors in state polling wouldn't show up in the national popularity vote. I'll let you know if I get a response.
    .
    >Again, yah, maybe. Maybe not. People are complicated, and these assumptions rest on (what is in my view) a grotesquely oversimplified model of people (apparently such as : Oh, you live in Alabama, it's not conceivable you'd be reluctant to show support for Trump).
    .
    Sure.
    .

    > To be clear, I'm not saying these arguments against the 'Shy voter' are obviously wrong. I'm saying I don't think they are obviously correct.
    .

    No, I don't think they are obviously wrong either. The explanation certainly has a level of plausibility, IMO. I also think there are some problems with the explanation as well. From reading a bit more I'm seeing that more of the scientists in the field think the explanation is plausible that the impression I'd had previously. But even there, they don't really seem to offer much solid evidence (that I can tell), and mostly just kind of go with the "Yeah, it's plausible." perspective. As near as I can tell they seem to think it's some mix of the "shy voter" causality (without really ascribing much causality for why those voters would be "shy") and the late-breaking voters/reactions to late breaking events causality – with (perhaps in my view more than theirs) the evidence for the later of those two basic causalities being rather unarguable and the evidence for the former being rather speculative (or anecdotal).
    .
    .
    > FWIW, I didn't interpret Joshua as implying I should give a flip specifically *because it was George Conway*. I figured he was asking what Trump supporters think of the argument that Trump is unfit because of excessive narcissism. Since I might have misunderstood, let me clarify — I don't care what George Conway thinks about much of anything.
    .
    .
    Hmmm. It's maybe kind of a mix. I think Conway's argument is interesting because he's a conservative of some standing, a lawyer of some note (who has worked with people like Drudge and Coulter), is married to a key Trump administration member – and as such someone who has presumably had a lot of close and personal interaction with Trump (and certainly has had access to someone who has).
    .
    As such, I think that his perspective has some rather unusual angles – not the typical sameolsameol in terms of the libz/conz divide.
    .
    So the way I think of it is that it's not really because he's "George Conway," but because he's someone who has an interesting angle into the questions at hand. I hear people making assessments of levels of narcissism all the time (it was a frequent topic of discussion about Obama on the right), and I'm not particularly of the opinion that someone needs to be a psychiatrist to read the DSM and get a pretty good handle on what the strongest attributes of a malignant narcissist are – but I guess that some people are more into the appeal of authority in that regard than I am? I wouldn't take a non-specialist's diagnostic to the bank, but I don't think that not having a degree in psychology disqualifies someone from having an interesting perspective on the topic in some circumstances. But hey, I am kind of a cook and not nearly as smart as most of the folks here, so that should be taken with a gain of salt
    .
    [edit]: Also, I'll not that it isn't even really his diagnosis of narcissism that is of interest to me – so much as his observations of Trump from a close-in perspective, relative to Trump's level of self-focus compared to concerns outside himself. IMO, in many ways, whether Trump might be diagnosed as a narcissist by a professional diagnostician or not isn't really material to that larger question. I would think it is possible for someone to be rather incapable of seeing much of anything beyond their own self-interests as important without meeting the classic criteria for a clinical diagnosis of narcissism. As such, it's more that aspect of Conway's interview that I found interesting than the fact that he takes it on himself to make a diagnosis.
    .
    As I think that you know, I sometimes like to hear the perspectives of people who come from a different place than I do, so I can evaluate what their perspectives are and weigh them against my perspective.
    .
    [edited – I moved the rest of this comment to another comment as it wasn't really appropriate in a comment addressed to Mark]
    .

  810. Lucia –

    It seems to me that you can only conceive of the reason I'd ask people's perspective on Conway's is that I'm looking for some kind of "gotcha." And I guess you think that I think that the only way that someone can have a legitimate perspective on Trump's likelihood of being generically concerned about corruption and influence-peddling is if they can reconcile their views with Conway's, and so they have a "need" to do so or "should" do so. You're totally wrong about that, but IMO, that kind of error on your part goes along with your rather typical bad faith interaction with me. I hope I can get over it.

  811. DeWitt Payne (Comment #176922): "Sally Yates … inspired a lot of lower level employees covered by Civil Service to also ‘resist’. That’s the real Deep State."

    Indeed.
    .
    DeWitt Payne: "It confirms my opinion that Civil Service needs a massive overhaul."

    Definitely.
    .
    DeWitt Payne: "Insubordination needs to be made an immediate firing offense with no appeal."

    Uh, no. That would make it possible for a boss to fire any employee for any reason and claim insubordination.

    Firing civil servants for cause needs to be streamlined. Significant insubordination, among other things, should qualify as cause. But there must be some due process to ensure that the claimed cause is real.

  812. I don't think that characterizes Lucia's position accurately, but I think I can grasp why you'd think that. But I don't want to try to act as a peacemaker or translator or trouble shooter in this (or whatever). I'm not sure why exactly; just doesn't seem like a great idea. I don't mean to suggest or imply you'd want me to in the first place. Shrug.

  814. Lucia –
    .
    >So he told us why one might consider the opinion *Conway* qua *Conway* to be more more worth thinking about that someone else.
    .
    Really, is that what I told you? Consider that I find his perspective, based on some aspects of his political orientation and closeness to the topic, to be interesting. Consider that doesn't mean that I think it is "more worth thinking about than someone [some unspecified person] else." Consider that you are the one who is qualifying Conway's view in terms of relative value, not me. Consider that you are the one who is applying a fixed set of criteria for establishing the validity of Conway's diagnosis of narcissism, not me. Anyone else can have an interesting opinion as well. Myriad other people can also have a useful or interesting perspective, based on any number of aspects – their life experiences, their familiarity with the topic, their closeness to the issue at hand, etc. Or someone can have an interesting perspective independent of all of that, as well. It can also just be interesting (to me at least) just on its own basic merits. I don't have an expectation that anyone else "should" or "needs" to find his perspective interesting. I find it interesting, and as such am curious as to how people, who view Trump as having some kind of generic concern about corruption and influence-peddling, reconcile their view with what is, IMO, an interesting perspective. It doesn't render their opinions and less "important."
    .
    .
    > I don't think few people anywhere think Conway's opinion is any more important than anyone elses. Perhaps Kelly considers it important though.
    .
    No, neither do I. I don't think is view is any more "important" than yours, or mine. Sheece. It seems to me that your bad faith and lack of charitable reading of the things I write do lead you into a long list of misinterpretations. I suppose that could all be my fault. Yeah, that could be.

  815. mark –
    .
    >But I don't want to try to act as a peacemaker or translator or trouble shooter in this (or whatever). I'm not sure why exactly; just doesn't seem like a great idea. I don't mean to suggest or imply you'd want me to in the first place. Shrug.
    .
    >Oh. Hey. You edited, so disregard my response. Thanks.
    .
    Apologies. It was inappropriate on my part and I'm sorry I put it in there before moving it – when I realized that I was effectively putting you in a position I shouldn't have put you in.

  816. Lucia –
    .
    And with all of that, I'm done with this aspect of the discussion. It's boring. If you don't find Conway's perspective interesting, that's certainly your prerogative. There really isn't anything that needs to be said beyond that, IMO. In fact, that you don't is one form of an answer to my question (even if my question wasn't actually directed to you).

  819. Joshua,
    The question was directed at Trump supporters, which I'm not. But yes, I think your question was "boring" in the first place– in the sense that you are doing the equivalent of being curious about whether someone can reconcile their love of chocolate with their dislike of beets.
    .
    It's not surprising you will find it boring eventually.
    .
    What you've learned from the exchange I don't know. But at least two people pointed out that Conways armchair psychoanalysis isn't something they need to reconcile with anything.

  820. I also don't talk to pollsters when they call. Most real adults have too much going on in their lives to want to answer questions on the phone with someone they don't know and who in fact could be malicious in their intent. I suspect as well that Trump supporters generally strongly distrust the mainstream media which makes it unlikely they will want to participate in a poll that they think is biased and skewed anyway. The media echo chamber is very soundproof these days. The bias and partisanship of the corporate media is worse than any time since the 19th century. I would go out of my way to decrease the income of mainstream media and cause them financial pain because I think they are harming the country.

  821. David Young
    **to answer questions on the phone with someone they don't know and who in fact could be malicious in their intent.**
    .
    The notion a caller might have malicious intent is somewhat paranoid, but also not impossible. When someone you don't know calls, claims they are with "polling agency X", you don't know they are with a pollster.
    .
    Paranoia, suspicion or what have you could be differentially distributed.

  823. MikeN –
    .
    I actually thought about the similarities – in the sense of focusing on semantics. And pondered that. But I do think that these semantics were rather important because people were putting words in my mouth. I'm generally a believer that the writer has the responsibility for clarification (writer responsible prose). But if I think that someone is treating me in bad faith,and the misinterpretation arises from that as opposed to good faith misunderstanding, my calculus changes. Obviously, a judgment call.

  824. MikeN –
    .
    Just to follow up a bit… I have worked a lot with execs and academics for whom English is not their native language, and for many (Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans in particular, although for other non-Americans as well) the notion of a "writer responsible language" vs. "reader responsible language" can be a useful frame. The frame (and accompanying theory) has its limitations, but nonetheless it has influenced my take on misunderstandings in blog exchanges.
    .
    To give a taste.
    .
    https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=14467

  825. lucia (Comment #176939): "The notion a caller might have malicious intent is somewhat paranoid"

    Not the tiniest bit paranoid. I get lots of calls from criminals with malicious intent. I finally learned to not pick up.

  826. Joshua: "…Also, maybe a lot of people who voted for Trump only did so because they hated Clinton so much, not because they were proud of being a Trump supporter."
    .
    Bingo!
    .
    It took you a lot of pondering but I think you might have resolved your own question. This would be independent and additive to the "shy" polling effect. This also solves the question of why Trump might win in 2020 despite never achieving an approval rating above the forties. Sorry if that doesn't help you sleep. But it might get you to your next stage of grieving. (I'm insensitive I know.)
    .
    Mark, Turing's Halting problem is not in my training but it got me thinking. Media analysis can be seen as a Heisenberg Uncertainty problem: the more powerful their analysis becomes the more it distorts the very thing they are analyzing. If they were unaware of this it would only produce random distortion. But if they are conscious of it their efforts can be seen as a feedback amplifier of a pre-selected distortion. An example of this in the Carter Page FISA where then Isiskoff and Corn planted stories where used as independent confirmation of the concoctions in the planted dossier.
    .
    Angech, I agree with you that systemic corruption and media corruption are mutually supporting.

  827. Joshua, you seem to inadvertently bring up a good point that perhaps conservatives are more independent thinkers and less influenced by media or opinion leaders. I and I think very few people care about Mitt Romney's opinion of Trump even if they voted for both, as I did.
    .
    Kelly Anne seems to have not been influenced in the least by George. And she has not influenced him, even though she must know Trump at a much deeper level than he. Maybe the psychological problem is misplaced by George. Jealousy perhaps? Who knows. Only HuffPo and Atlantic readers care about George's disses of Trump because it fits a confirmation of their bias. They aren't skeptical about it.

  828. Mike M.,

    "Uh, no. That would make it possible for a boss to fire any employee for any reason and claim insubordination."

    So what? Real question. A boss who fired frivolously would probably get fired too. But let's limit this firing power to political appointees, not to any Civil Servant.

    "Firing civil servants for cause needs to be streamlined. Significant insubordination, among other things, should qualify as cause. But there must be some due process to ensure that the claimed cause is real."

    Due process in Civil Service firings is what we have now. IMO, no streamlining of the process would last. My alternate proposal would be for a limited number of no recourse pink slips to be given to each Cabinet member. A limited number should also keep frivolous firings to a minimum.

    I forgot to add that government employee unions have to go as well. They're bankrupting state and local governments. Look at Illinois for example. The state government is owned by the government employee unions.

  829. I'm sure that the distaste for Hillary had a lot to do with Trump winning. It remains a mystery to me why Schultz and the DNC and the media (but I repeat myself) went in the tank for her given how deeply corrupt she is. It helps explain why Trump's drain the swamp message resonates. There were plenty of other people to put forward.

    The Access Hollywood audio was supposed to destroy Trump but people had already factored in that Trump was a rogue and says lots of outrageous things. On the accuracy of polls, you can see that there is a problem given the huge spread of different polls. They show Trump approval/disapproval anywhere between +4 and -16. Someone's methodology is really badly flawed.

    The problem for Democrats is that Trump's approval rating is comparable to Obama's at the same point in their terms. We live in a hyper partisan era in which negatives are bound to be picked up amplified and exaggerated ad nauseum. If the Dems think Medicare for all and the cancellation of all private health insurance is a winner, they are quite wrong. If they think revoking church's tax exemption if they don't buy radical transgenderism is going to sell, they are sadly mistaken. The Dem debates so far are a gold mine of offensive ideas to use in the general election. I am surprised that there is so little pushback from the media. Perhaps they are too disconnected from ordinary Americans to know there is a problem.

  830. Ron –

    > Joshua, you seem to inadvertently bring up a good point that perhaps conservatives are more independent thinkers and less influenced by media or opinion leaders.
    .
    Lol. Yes, and perhaps they're more handsome and charming as well. Not that you might be biased about that, of course
    .
    I think that if anything, you'll find in the literature that examines associations between character traits and political ideology, you'd be more likely to see the opposite correlation (I.e., Haidt's stuff about conz leaning .more towards authoritariry and hierarchy – especially when you use a more favorable attitude towards Trump as a moderating variable). But I'm a symmetricist and actually think that on those kinds of axes the differences within groups are much larger than the putative differences across groups. And I don't think that there are very good controls for ferreting out confounding variables for measuring that stuff. And besides, we can reject all that science anyway, because we know that conz are victims of the massive left-wing bias of any social science research (well, at least any that draws conclusions they don't like). And anyway, as we can see in this thread, seat of the pants speculation based on nothing other than anecdotal observations by highly partisan outlier groups that don't form anything resembling a representative sample is a much better way to draw conclusions anyway, right?

  831. BTW – it seems to me that if Trump were really concerned in some genetic sort of way about influence-peddling and curruption, he wouldn't have appointed as ambassador to the EU, a hotelier who contributed $1,000,000 to his campaign.
    .
    But maybe that's just my left wing bias, and left wing tendency to slavishly think whatever the media tells me to think, talking. If only I could have that independent thinking streak that conservatives have!

  832. Joshua
    **because people were putting words in my mouth.**
    Well… if so, pot, kettle, black…
    .
    For example you write
    .
    " If you don't find Conway's perspective interesting, that's certainly your prerogative. There really isn't anything that needs to be said beyond that, IMO. In fact, that you don't is one form of an answer to my question""
    .
    I didn't say I didn't find the perspective *interesting*. I said there is no reason to "reconcile" the perspective with someone supporting Trump.
    .
    So, yeah. You put words in people's mouths.
    .

  833. Joshua/Mark

    **It seems to me that you can only conceive of the reason I'd ask people's perspective on Conway's is that I'm looking for some kind of "gotcha."**
    Nope. Oddly, I never for one second thought the reason you asked was you were looking for a gotcha.
    .
    I think you asked how a Trump supporter would reconcile things is because for some reason, you ACTUALLY THINK a Trump supporter would think they need or should "reconcile" their support for Trump with Conway (or someone similar to him) deciding that Trump is a narcissist.
    .
    **And I guess you think that I think that the only way that someone can have a legitimate perspective on Trump's likelihood of being generically concerned about corruption and influence-peddling is if they can reconcile their views with Conway's, and so they have a "need" to do so or "should" do so.**
    .
    Nope. Don't think that. As I said: I think your raising the question and pressing supporters to explain "how" they reconcile these things this suggest you think they "need to" or "should" do so. So: I think it based on your behavior of asking/ pressing.
    .
    That's it. I am not trying to read the deep hidden innerworkings of your mind. No connection to me speculating on your thought process about whether someone who doesn't reconcile these things has some sort of legitimate right to thing anything at all.
    .
    **You're totally wrong about that, but IMO, that kind of error on your part goes along with your rather typical bad faith interaction with me. I hope I can get over it.**
    .
    Well.. Okely… dokely…

    This is how the above sounds to me:
    .
    You came up with an UTTERLY IMAGINARY AND SPECULATIVE THEORY of what I "must" think. You dreamed up this theory NOT that I said it, but that YOU can't "imagine" what else I might think. (Evidently, you can't even imagine I think what I said I think!)
    .
    Because you can't imagine I think anything other than what your speculative theory suggests I think you concluded I DO think that.
    .
    Then you tell me my thinking this thing you imagine I think is an error on MY part.
    .
    And then you tell me that I think that somehow goes along with bad faith interaction on MY part!
    .
    I'm glad you can live with these thoughts of yours! Because really, honestly doubt there is ANYTHING I say that can convince you that I don't think what you dreamed up out of the blue!

  834. Lucia.
    Squeak! Since your response included me, here's what I think:
    Yeah. Things went south fast there.
    As far as I can make out, when people talk there's the 'spoken' component, and then there's the 'implied' or 'assumed' component that frames the spoken component. (I.E, what does it look like the other person is getting at, where does it look like they are coming from or going in their speech.) I think it's something like that anyway. Since the implied or assumed component isn't explicit (since it's not articulated), it's rife with opportunity for misunderstanding. Maybe when people aren't already friends or some other mitigating factor exists, this is when discussions blow up.
    I get more and more fascinated with people the older I get. Unfortunately I suck at people and don't feel like I understand them all that well at all. I say this because I wish I had something constructive to offer about this, but I don't really.
    I hate to end a comment on a down note, so how bout a silly note instead. Clearly, the answer is for you and Joshua to journey forth together with a selection of ten (10) items from a list into the wilderness of North Canada and survive together for two (2) weeks! I bet that'd take care of the problem. :>
    Anyways. :/

  835. Joshua,

    Buying ambassadorships with campaign contributions has been de rigueur in presidential politics practically forever. Given Trump's antipathy to career government employees (and their antipathy to him), i.e. the swamp, it's not only not unusual, but completely expected.

  836. Joshua,
    >> Yes, and perhaps they're more handsome and charming as well.
    It's good that you're finally seeing reason.
    :p

  837. DeWitt –
    .
    > Given Trump's antipathy to career government employees (and their antipathy to him), i.e. the swamp, it's not only not unusual, but completely expected.
    .

    The set of people who aren't career government people employees and who also haven't given $1,000,000 to his campaign is, I would guess, rather large.
    .
    Given his campaign promises to "drain the swamp," and his pretense to not do what politicians typically do. offering that it's standard practice to sell influence seems to me like a rather lame rationalization. But maybe my expectations w/r/t what a person might do if they're *concerned* about influence-peddling are unreasonable.

  838. Joshua,
    .
    Does Ilhan Omar's apparent anti-semitism bother you? Do you feel like there is anything for you to reconcile there, given your heritage?

  839. I ask this for multiple reasons.
    1) I'm genuinely (although very mildly) curious.
    2) Is this a reasonable parallel to the question you put forward? Does it provide any insight to consider or answer? It might be no to both. It was a bit of an impulsive question.
    .
    I hope that you do not construe malicious intent on my part in asking the question, because as far as I'm aware, I don't have any malice towards you here.
    .
    Thanks.

  840. mark bofill,
    I agree there is always an "assumed component". I'm just amazed at the vastness and complexity of what Joshua assumes. Maybe he ought to consider the possibility that when I say the reason I think he is implying Trump followers "need" to do reconcile something, it's because (a) he wrote a post asking how they do it, and then (b) over a few comments pressed people to explain how they reconcile it.

  841. Lucia,
    >>when I say the reason I think he is implying Trump followers "need" to do reconcile something, it's because (a) he wrote a post asking how they do it, and then (b) over a few comments pressed people to explain how they reconcile it.
    ——————-
    That seems both (1)reasonable to me and (2)like something that shouldn't excite controversy or outrage.
    Even if you've got it completely wrong (and it's not clear to me you have), I don't understand why this excites offense or conflict. I'd *really* being speculating wildly without basis to venture into those waters [speculating as to why this excites offense or conflict].

  842. Mark –
    .
    > Does Ilhan Omar's apparent anti-semitism bother you?
    .
    Well, the use of "apparent" is important there for me, but yes. I'm not sure that she's really antisemitic, as opposed to unaware (maybe ignorant or stupid are better terms?) on the topic. It's a difficult call to make.
    .
    But yes, she should be accountable for saying things that are either based in ignorance (or stupidity) or antisemitism, either way.
    .
    So yes, it bothered me. To the extent where I called her offices in DC and her home office and left messages expressing that I was bothered by her use of the "American Jews have dual loyalty"* trope, and emailed her about it as well.
    .
    I also contacted both her and Ali Hassan when I heard her speaking on his podcast, and she said something to the effect that people only objected to her raising concerns about the foreign policy impact of Israeli lobbying, or think that she's antisemitic for doing so, because she's a Muslim. Actually, lefty Jews are often called "self-hating" when they raise concerns about Israeli lobbying.
    .
    > Do you feel like there is anything for you to reconcile there, given your heritage?
    .
    Yes. I like to think that it isn't only a matter of my heritage, but a matter of principle – but either way, I absolutely have to reconcile when she says stupid stuff to the extent that I support her (which is always contextual). On the flip side of the coin, I also would have to reconcile my support to a politician to the extent that I think they're leveraging antisemitism for the sake of political expediency, when I think it's happening when politicians (Demz included) cross over the line to imply or outright state that objecting to the effect of Israeli lobbying on our foreign policy is equivalent to antisemitism.

  843. Wow. Good answer. That helps me understand where you're coming from a bit better. Thanks
    .

  844. Mark –
    .
    To turn that around a bit…what do you think about Trump's comments that have intersected with a variety of antisemitic tropes (to the extent that it elicited a response from the ADL)?
    .
    .
    https://theintercept.com/2019/04/07/unlike-ilhan-omar-donald-trump-accuse-american-jews-dual-loyalty-israel/
    .
    I'm curious if you think there's anything there for you to reconcile with your support for him, to the extent that you're a supporter (I will say that I assume that you do). I'll note that I don't think that there's anything wrong or unusual with "reconciling" any variety of issues within one's formation of an opinion. I think that's what people *should* do when formulating an opinion. I also think it's interesting to see how people do that, and when, sometimes, they don't even try.

    .

  846. Joshua,
    The short answer is that I don't think I feel the same degree of personal responsibility for the things Trump says or does that I disagree with that you may feel for political figures you support. I'm not sure why that is. I think it's something along the lines of — in a large republic like ours of 330 million people, the guy at the top isn't going to represent me in everything. I don't expect him to. Heck I don't know; maybe that's not it. Sometimes it's hard to know what's true and what's a rationalization when I grope for an explanation for something I don't understand.

  847. Mark –
    .
    > The short answer is that I don't think I feel the same degree of personal responsibility for the things Trump says or does that I disagree with that you may feel for political figures you support.
    .
    That's an interesting response. My first reaction is that I don't feel personal responsibility for things that a politician might do or say; I feel responsibility for thinking carefully about how I control for biases when formulating an opinion (even while knowing that it's basically impossible).
    .
    But I need to think about that a bit. I think there might be something about what you said (I'm not sure what it is) that I need to work out and it will require some thought.

  848. Yeah, I'll kick it around too. Something in my answer triggered my bullshit detector. It might have been a false reject, might not. I'll think it through as well.

  849. Mark Bofill,
    You didn't ask me. But I'm going to comment on this:
    .
    ** Is this a reasonable parallel to the question you put forward?**
    .
    You asked Joshua to reconcile support for Omar with something Omar said or wrote.
    .
    Joshua asked Trump supporters how they reconcile *Conway's* pscyhiatric diagnosis of Trump's personality with support for Trump.
    .
    So, while they share the aspect of "reconcile something" with "support for candidate", they differ in an important dimension.
    .
    If this were physics and we took a cross product A x B, the result isn't zero. 🙂

  850. Jewish politics I think is a conundrum for all, including the Jews. I share Joshua and Brandon's family religious heritage yet obviously come down with opposing ideologies. My father once tried to explain it to me that Jews are eager to assimilate politically, and have a heritage of doing so in most all countries. The countries where that was not successful was more likely due to such strong nationalist and racial cohesion that there was little room made for assimilation.
    .
    My theory is that Jews are more independent thinkers and also more handsome and charming.

  851. Thanks Lucia, just so. You are *always* invited to respond to anything I say btw. I value your insights highly. [And I just plain like talking with you.]

  853. "Actually, lefty Jews are often called "self-hating" when they raise concerns about Israeli lobbying."
    .
    Lefty Jews also have attacked Zionism for about 100 years. I am not a fan either of divine rights to land though I am for life and liberty. Many lefty Jews seem to be against those as well, or are just delusional about human nature. For example, its hard for me to believe that Omar is just against Israeli lobbying when she tweets:
    “Israel has hypnotized the world. May Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.”
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/07/opinion/ilhan-omar-anti-semitism.html

  854. Trumps query about the Jews not having loyalty obviously came out wrong. Loyalty itself is not a virtue. Omar's loyalty to the anti-Semitic views are not, obviously. The question Trump was asking is how can Jews can be so fiercely loyal to their ideologies that they torpedo their own homeland and heritage, and in the case of the 1930's New York anti-Zionists, their own relatives.
    .
    Perhaps other countries around the world are asking the same question of America (regarding our political divide).

  855. Alright, let me see if I can muddle out a better answer.
    .
    I'm responsible for my support. There are things Trump could hypothetically do that would cause me to withdraw my support. If he sent the troops out to confiscate everybody's firearm for instance.
    .
    This said, in a representative democracy, we none of us have the level of pure control we'd have in a direct democracy. In order to decide about our support or opposition, it seems to me that we have to do some sort of simplifying operations (like weighted summation or the equivalent) that takes into account the decisions and/or/maybe actions a representative makes/takes, and decide to continue to support or withdraw support on that basis. The number of candidates with a realistic chance of getting into office aren't infinite and aren't even large enough to approximate a continuum, in my view, so … so what. So maybe to some extent I feel inclined to choose to support what I consider to be the 'maximal' option, which need not be close to the 'ideal' option.
    .
    Effectively, I end up supporting Trump for this reason I think. He's the best option in my view, despite the fact that he's *far* from the ideal option. I overlook many flaws that cause him to not be the ideal option. This should not be taken to mean that there is nothing I won't overlook and that my support is unconditional.
    .
    There. I think that's more or less what I really think.

  856. mark,

    There’s an adage that I think applies here: Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

    That being said, I think Trump allowing himself to be rolled by Erdogan is getting close to a good reason to remove him from office. He seems to think that he was making Americans in Syria safer. It’s looking like the opposite.

    If I were a Kurd in charge of ISIS prisoners, I would make sure they weren’t a future threat before I left, as they say, by any means necessary.

  857. mark bofill (Comment #176974): "Effectively, I end up supporting Trump for this reason I think. He's the best option in my view, despite the fact that he's *far* from the ideal option. I overlook many flaws that cause him to not be the ideal option. This should not be taken to mean that there is nothing I won't overlook and that my support is unconditional."

    I agree with that. But I would add that for me Trump is much closer to the ideal option than he is to any of the plausible alternatives. So it would take a lot for him to lose my support.

    Normally, I think that I am generally pretty good at separating my overall support for an individual from support for specific things he might do or say. But recently I have been noticing in myself a tendency to reflexively support whatever Trump does or says. I think that is a reaction to the way so many people reflexively attack anything he does or says.

  858. Lucia,
    "I agree there is always an "assumed component". I'm just amazed at the vastness and complexity of what Joshua assumes."
    .
    That is an interesting observation. But in my very limited experience of 69 years, it is a very common characteristic of people on the left of the political spectrum. It seems to me that people in general, but especially those on the left and those who hold strong religious beliefs, have a difficult time imagining that anyone can rationally and in good faith have policy preferences different from their own. You see this manifest itself in many ways; for example, the widely held belief that opposition to draconian 'climate change' policies must be due to an 'information deficit'… with the implication that if those opposed just understood 'the science' they would no longer oppose drastic action to reduce fossil fuel use. The reality is very differnet

  859. DeWitt Payne (Comment #176975): "That being said, I think Trump allowing himself to be rolled by Erdogan is getting close to a good reason to remove him from office."

    I have seen lots of criticism of the withdrawal. In the abstract, I don't like it. But I have yet to see any realistic suggestion as to what Trump should have done instead.
    .
    DeWitt Payne: "He seems to think that he was making Americans in Syria safer. It’s looking like the opposite."

    Huh?

    Whatever that refers to, there is a really obvious and simple solution.

  860. I haven't been keeping great track of the situation in Turkey. Maybe I ought to look into it in more detail.

  861. Mike,
    >>But recently I have been noticing in myself a tendency to reflexively support whatever Trump does or says. I think that is a reaction to the way so many people reflexively attack anything he does or says.
    ——————–
    I think that's an astute observation. I do the same, and there's a deliberate component to it for me. In my mind it goes something like – the more people scream bloody murder at every little pretext, the more inclined I am to bend over backwards in my support. Probably there are downsides to this, but.. When people push hard, they shouldn't be surprised that others will lean hard against the push.
    *shrug*

  862. Lucia,
    "I agree there is always an "assumed component". I'm just amazed at the vastness and complexity of what Joshua assumes."
    .
    That is an interesting observation. But in my very limited experience of 69 years, it is a very common characteristic of people on the left of the political spectrum. It seems to me that people in general, but especially those on the left and those who hold strong religious beliefs, have a difficult time imagining that anyone can rationally and in good faith have policy preferences different from their own. You see this manifest itself in many ways; for example, the widely held belief that opposition to draconian 'climate change' policies must be due to an 'information deficit'… with the implication that if those opposed just understood 'the science' they would no longer oppose drastic action to reduce fossil fuel use. The reality is very different of course: people are guided in their policy choices by personal values and priorities, not just by facts. In spite of knowing "the facts" lots of people think most of the proposed fossil fuel policies are foolish, costly, counterproductive, and more harmful than helpful.
    .
    Trump drives 'progressives' crazy, not because he is a scoundrel, serial liar/exaggerator, unrelenting skirt chaser, and overall buffoon (which he is!), but because enough people voted for him to win the 2016 election. Disagreeable scoundrels are common, of course; they just are not commonly elected to high public office. Progressives faced with the reality of Trump seem to me a bit like that strange 16 year old Scandinavian girl, endlessly shouting "How dare you!" (vote for Trump). What they appear to miss completely is that the policies endorsed by the alternative (Hillary in 2016) were utterly contrary to the values and priorities of lots of people. Elizabeth Warren, if nominated, is going to face the same reality in 2020.

  864. Ron Graf,
    “Israel has hypnotized the world. May Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.”
    .
    Based upon my travels in the Middle East, that is not at all an unusual POV. It is in many places, like Saudi Arabia, the overwhelming *majority* POV. Yes, Omar, is an unrelenting and vehement anti-Semitic, but the larger point is that most of the Arab world is as well. People who imagine otherwise have just not talked to Muslims in Arab countries.

  865. Mark –

    I heard back from that guy who wrote that paper positing a "shy" Trump voter impact:
    .
    > Although the national polls ended up corresponding quite closely with the national vote margin, we did find evidence of “shy” or “hidden” Trump supporters in earlier national polls. Here’s an article we wrote on the topic (gated) (ungated).
    .
    Ungated = http://peterenns.org/sites/peterenns.org/files/pdf/SPP.2017.HiddenTrumpSupporters.pdf
    .
    Not sure that answers my question to him (why there wasn't an effect in the final national polls in this election – why would the effect just disappear if the effect manfested in errors in state polling?), but I'll take a look. Let me know if you have any insight.

  866. Oh, wait – that's the same paper I linked before. I'll have to take some time and digest it more closely and I'll follow up with him if I still can't figure out his logic.

  867. Much obliged Joshua, thanks!
    [Edit: well, I didn't read it before (must've overlooked the link), so thanks regardless.]

  868. To fight ISIS, US allied with Kurd fighters(YPG) who Turkey considers a terrorist group, allied with PKK that conducts attacks in Turkey.
    With ISIS largely defeated, Turkey requested that Trump stop allying with YPG and to withdraw.

    Trump felt the US mission was to fight ISIS, and rejected the idea that "Assad must go". He agreed to Erdogan's request, to Erdogan's surprise.

    President Trump is surrendering the US position in that portion of Syria, and giving it to the Assad regime. The Kurds will now have to make a deal with Assad to keep from being overrun, and it appears they have done so.

    It remains to be seen what will happen with the US forces elsewhere in Syria, which along with the mission of overthrowing Assad, are trying to prevent Iran from getting a land route to Israel.

  869. MikeN (Comment #176987): "Turkey requested that Trump stop allying with YPG and to withdraw. Trump … agreed to Erdogan's request, to Erdogan's surprise."

    Do you have any evidence for those claims? We have not stopped allying with YPG. As I understand it, there was no "request"; Erdogan said he was moving against the Kurds in that area whether we withdrew or not. But we don't really know what was said.
    –
    MikeN: "President Trump is surrendering the US position in that portion of Syria, and giving it to the Assad regime. The Kurds will now have to make a deal with Assad to keep from being overrun, and it appears they have done so."

    Do you have any evidence? My reaction is "that is just bonkers" but maybe I've missed something.
    .
    MikeN: "It remains to be seen what will happen with the US forces elsewhere in Syria, which along with the mission of overthrowing Assad"

    I am pretty sure there is no U.S. mission to overthrow Assad. Their target is the remnants of ISIS.

  870. Mike M.,

    We have good reason to believe that Trump ‘went off script’ during the phone call with Erdogan.

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-phone-call-erdogan-turkey-syria

    https://www.rawstory.com/2019/10/pentagon-still-in-shock-3-days-after-trump-went-off-script-in-erdogan-call-and-betrayed-the-kurds-fox-news/

    I have heard that Trump didn’t even bother to read his briefing papers before the call.

    Now Trump has ordered a complete withdrawal from Syria. We’ll be lucky if it isn’t a withdrawal under fire from ISIS or Arab militias in league with ISIS. If you think Iran won’t take advantage of this to gain a land route to Israel, you’re dreaming. Probably within a month and certainly before the end of the year we’ll see the ISIS flag raised again.

  871. “I get more and more fascinated with people the older I get. Unfortunately I suck at people and don't feel like I understand them all that well at all.”
    People are endlessly fascinating but sometimes we have to have time off.
    Your second sentence is even more nerve touching. I often find turning the statements upside down helps in evaluation, from a distance.
    “Hence people really suck at being people in our estimation, not that we suck in their estimation.”
    Don’t run yourself down and don’t run others down, we are all stuck in the same mire.
    You really do understand people well.
    Don’t run yourself down again.
    Most of the time the more people we know the more involved we have to be with them. We all have our limits and need time out. What you are really doing is asking for other people to be or think more like ourselves. Really good in concept but fraught in practice

  872. DeWitt Payne (Comment #176989): "We have good reason to believe that Trump ‘went off script’ during the phone call with Erdogan."

    That would be a good thing. Trump is not an actor reading a script provided by the Deep State. He is the President. He gets to decide.
    .
    DeWitt Payne: "I have heard that Trump didn’t even bother to read his briefing papers before the call."

    I have concluded that such unsourced statements about Trump are lies.

    I suppose the origin of that claim is the "well-placed military source" who is the basis of the articles you linked to. In other words: the Deep State speaking in service of their own interests. The truth is irrelevant to such a source.
    .
    DeWitt Payne: "If you think Iran won’t take advantage of this to gain a land route to Israel, you’re dreaming."

    Speaking as a person who can find all the relevant countries on a map, that makes no sense.
    ——–

    OK, I better check if I am responding reflexively. Check done. I'm clear.

  873. From DeWitt's Fox News link:
    "During the phone call, Trump had talking points, according to the source: “Tell Erdogan to stay north of the border"."

    In other words, they assume that Ergodan takes orders from Trump. Yeah, right. So far as I can tell, that is the assumption being made by all Trump's critics in this matter. I think the reality is that Ergodan was going to go ahead with the operation, one way or the other. So what alternative did Trump have? Real question. But all the critics refuse to answer it. Or even acknowledge it.

  874. Mike M,

    I suspect Trump's message was: "I don't really give a hoot about what you do in Syria. Just make sure you don't let ISIS get back up."

  875. Mark and Mike, It's not hard at all to understand why evangelicals and many cultural conservatives are strong backers of Trump. They have grown tired of losing every political battle on issues important to them and of being constantly blamed and shamed by elites. Trump fights hard for ideas they agree with and defends them as people. It's really very simple. Basically, conservative movement leaders (usually self anointed) have failed on virtually every issue they used to say was critical and very important.

    I don't quite understand why the foreign policy establishment has gone so ballistic over the Turkey invasion. Unless we wanted to go to war with them, there is little we can do aside from sanctions. Do we really know that the result will be worse than the current horrible situation? Hundreds of thousands have died in the latest excesses of the religion of peace and there is little reason in my view to believe that will change. I hope I'm wrong, but this has been happening for 1300 years. The only difference in the last 50 years is that Muslim cultures have gained a lot of wealth and power and the military means to kill much more effectively.

  876. David Young (Comment #176994): "I don't quite understand why the foreign policy establishment has gone so ballistic over the Turkey invasion. Unless we wanted to go to war with them, there is little we can do aside from sanctions."

    Because it is not about the Kurds, or the Turks, or ISIS. It is about Trump. Trump is the enemy of those who have been controlling both parties and running the country into the ground. The establishment, coastal elites, clerisy, privileged internationalists, whatever you want to call them. The foreign policy establishment and Pentagon insiders are part of that. Their attempt to bring Trump down with the Russia hoax has failed. None of the second-rate kooks running for the Democrat nomination can beat Trump in 2020. They are desperate to preempt the election.

    It is really rather clever and diabolical. First they cook up the Ukraine silliness to have a pretense for impeachment. Then they attack Trump's reluctance to continue the Forever Wars to get the militaristic senators like Lindsey Graham on board.

    Remember that Trump is not a Republican. He is an Independent who staged a hostile takeover of the Republican party. There are still a lot of Bush establishment types in the Senate. They would love to see Trump gone.

    Basically, we are witnessing a coup attempt.

  877. Mike M.,

    I see there is no point in further discussion. AFAICT, you believe Trump can do no wrong. But abandoning an ally that has shed a lot of blood for us is simply disgusting, especially after he claimed to be protecting them in June. Whether they fought with us in WWII is totally irrelevant. Turkey wasn't our ally in WWII either.

  878. DeWitt Payne (Comment #176996): "I see there is no point in further discussion."

    I guess if you insist on posturing rather than discussing, then there can be no discussion.
    .
    DeWitt Payne: "AFAICT, you believe Trump can do no wrong."

    Nonsense.
    .
    DeWitt Payne: "But abandoning an ally that has shed a lot of blood for us is simply disgusting"

    The Kurds have not shed one single drop of blood for us. That is a romantic fantasy. They have not been fighting alongside us because they think Americans are wonderful. They have not been doing so because they think it is the right thing to do. They have acting in their own self-interest. That incurs no obligation on our part, unless we have promised them something in exchange. But there is no such unfulfilled promise.
    .
    The reason I say that Trump is doing the right thing is that nobody can make a reasonable suggestion as to what he should do instead.

  879. MikeM, the surprise acceptance of Erdogan's request happened on an earlier phone call when Trump announced a withdrawal from Syria that shocked so many people. He eventually backtracked from that a bit.

  880. > The reason I say that Trump is doing the right thing is that nobody can make a reasonable suggestion as to what he should do instead.
    .

    Here you go: Trump could simply had maintained the existing policy. That's what he should have done instead.
    .
    Turkey wasn't going to do anything as long as he continued the existing policy. He only changed the policy because of (1) some twisted sense of political expediency or, (2) he had some particulsr reason to please Erdogan or, (3) he has no real overall clue and just kind of did it without really thinking it through out of some sense of admiration for Erdogon.

    His excuse, about the safety of the troops or commitment of resources, makes no sense, as the chances are actually greater that this move will increase danger to troops and require greater commitment of resources in the long run, as Turkey widens the engagement and the situation deteriorates.
    .
    He has assumed much greater risk for no real reward. The danger to the troops was minimal as was the current devotion of resources.

    Perhaps his judgment of the political expediency will pan out, and this move will increase his domestic political standing. In the end, that's all he really cares about. But that doesn't make it any less twisted – in fact it makes it more so. I hope the demz hammer him for appeasing a fascist dictator at the expense of people fighting for their independence. But unfortunately, they're probably too feckless to do so effectively. Maybe the pubz with some sense of decency will – but chances are they'll fold once Trump turns up the heat on them.

  881. Joshua (Comment #176999): "Turkey wasn't going to do anything as long as he continued the existing policy."

    *If* that is true, then he should have done so. But I do not believe that is true. I know of no evidence that is true. I have seen claims that is most certainly is not true, but I am not sure how reliable those claims are.

  882. > Because it is not about the Kurds, or the Turks, or ISIS. It is about Trump.
    .
    Actually, I kind of agree about that. Except that IMO, it runs both ways. IOW, for Trump it's all about Trump just as for his opposition it's al about Trump.
    .
    I will say, it seems there are a few Pubz who actually seem to care about the larger implications. And of course, there is the foreign policy establishment, which has a philosophical belief that we should be involved in influencing global conflict. They, also, are concerned about something larger than just Trump, IMO.
    .
    I think that for Trump, this is all about Trump. I think it's kind of funny that you seem to think otherwise. It's kind of like people thinking that his *concern* about Hunter Biden is because he's concerned about corruption. It's kind of amazing to me when people don't see right through his conman charade.

  883. Mike M –
    .
    The reason why Turkey didn't do this earlier, although they wanted to, is because the risks of doing it were too high under the existing policy. Trump changed the policy, eliminating the risks to Turkey, and Turkey responded immediately.
    .
    What more evidence do you need?

  884. Mike M –

    Do you think that the situation was something like Erdogan saying to Trump "I'm going to do this whether you like it or not, so you may as well get out of the way?"
    .
    If not, how do you think it played out?

  886. Joshua (Comment #177002): "The reason why Turkey didn't do this earlier …"

    Evidence?

    Or they were not ready yet. They have certainly been threatening and planning it for a while. There were negotiations going on. Ergodan decided it was time to move.
    .
    Joshua: "Trump changed the policy, eliminating the risks to Turkey, and Turkey responded immediately."

    Good point. "Immediately" pretty much proves that their action was not in response to Trump, but was going to happen anyway.
    .
    Joshua (Comment #177003): "Do you think that the situation was something like Erdogan saying to Trump "I'm going to do this whether you like it or not"?

    Yep. If not, there would have been a delay while they got their ducks in a row.

  887. Mike M –
    .
    As the article I linked pointed out, Turkey launching incursions into Northern Syria is not unprecedented. Given that, the amount of time needed to get their ducks in a row would have been minimal. Further, they probably long had reason to think that they could get what they wanted out of Trump.
    .
    The question is, IMO, whether this incursion will take place on a scale that is larger than what has happened previously. Trump has set the stage for that by suggesting that developments short of "wiping out" the Kurds are going to be fine, in his infinite wisdom. If this incursion is like the previous ones, then it would seem a valid argument to say that Trump's policy shift wasn't causal. It seems to me that isn't likely to be the case, but it may turn out that way.

  888. On Trump pulling back in Syria, I personally think this was a good policy change. The civil war has gone on too long now and needs to end.
    .
    With the US there in minimal force, the entire situation was frozen in place. With the US withdrawing, the local Syrian population has to make a choice: ally with the Syrian federal government or ally with Turkey.
    .
    Not much of a choice for the Kurds as Turkey wants to grind them over. This will strengthen the federal government and allow the civil war to come to a close. A strengthened federal government plus sanctions by the US on Turkey will end ( or at least cool it off ) the hot Turkish border war and allow for a unified federal government again which will stabilize Syria.
    .
    Personally I am very happy to finally have the official US posture in the middle east to be one of hands off in regard to the local federal governments. Being the world policeman is NOT a policy I support as it does great harm to the fabric and treasure of the US.
    .
    The effective repudiation of the Treaty of Westphalia that ended the great religious wars of the 1600’s has caused great harm over the last centry. Internal issues of states should NOT be concerns for other states.

  889. Joshua (Comment #177006): "Turkey launching incursions into Northern Syria is not unprecedented. Given that, the amount of time needed to get their ducks in a row would have been minimal."

    That is a fair point. The flip side is that Erdogan's threat to act unilaterally was credible since the troops were in position to move.
    .
    Joshua: "The question is, IMO, whether this incursion will take place on a scale that is larger than what has happened previously."

    But I think it is clear that the current incursion is much larger than previous ones. Since the troops were in place for that, it made the threat that much more credible.
    .
    IMO, a key question is whether Erdogan was bluffing and whether Trump erred by not calling that bluff.

  890. Ed Forbes (Comment #177007): "The civil war has gone on too long now and needs to end."

    I agree. But I am not at all optimistic that will happen anytime soon, whether we stay or leave.
    .
    Ed Forbes: "The effective repudiation of the Treaty of Westphalia that ended the great religious wars of the 1600’s has caused great harm over the last centry. Internal issues of states should NOT be concerns for other states."

    That goes right to the heart of the matter. Trump is on one side of that issue; his critics are outraged that he might bring the endless interventions to an end.

    "Bring the troops home" is just rhetoric. We have had troops in Japan, Germany, and South Korea since before most of us were born. The issue is troops in a combat role in the middle of internecine conflicts, such as Syria and Afghanistan. That is what needs to stop.

  891. The EU are budding world moralists and aspire to empire. They can step up for a change instead of finger wagging from the sidelines.

  892. Joshua: "His excuse, about the safety of the troops or commitment of resources, makes no sense, as the chances are actually greater that this move will increase danger to troops and require greater commitment of resources in the long run, as Turkey widens the engagement and the situation deteriorates.
    .
    He has assumed much greater risk for no real reward. The danger to the troops was minimal as was the current devotion of resources."
    _______________
    Joshua, one must remember that this is identical to the prevailing wisdom in most all US interventions. If we had left Vietnam in 1968 there would have been a huge outcry by the hawks that we were surrendering to communist aggression. If we left Lebanon before the barracks bombing I'm sure Reagan would have been attacked for not sticking around for Lebanon to stabilize. If we had left Somalia just a months after landing there instead of with out tail between our legs from Blackhawk Down Clinton would have been excoriated for an incomplete mission leaving warlords in place. More recent interventions have not given the generals any more credibility on the fruits of nation building. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan. The point is our stated mission was complete. History told Trump that US forces are a target of opportunity for many actors. If we take losses in our withdrawal is that a good reason that we should have stayed? I don't agree that the danger is greater for our troops now. Neither Turkey nor any other player want to invite Trump to reverse the withdrawal by attacking US troops.
    .
    Trump has demonstrated many times an uncanny instinct that turns out to be correct even when he has few experts to back him. And, if he got rolled by Erdogan and he should have drawn a red line he wouldn't be the first president to make a mistake.

  893. It funny that nobody is putting any responsibility on Erdogan, a leader of a NATO country. Erdogan is making a big mistake if he is planning a long occupation. Perhaps the UN can step in and broker a deal between all parties in Syria. Maybe that is exactly what Erdogan wants and is just staking a bargaining position to get the Kurds to commit to giving up on their aims into Turkey.

  894. I'm surprised the Dems are not asking for the transcript of the Erdogan call. They'll likely subpoena that tomorrow.

  895. Ron –
    .
    > Trump has demonstrated many times an uncanny instinct that turns out to be correct even when he has few experts to back him. And, if he got rolled by Erdogan and he should have drawn a red line he wouldn't be the first president to make a mistake.
    .
    Here's what I love most about the whole Trump phenomenon – where people who pride themselves in their skepticism about accepted facts, and their cynicism about the mechanisms of government and the self-interested parties involved in government, embrace a romanticized notion of Trump as some kind of truth-speaking, take-it-to-the-man, working class hero who's there for the little people, who, without the typical trappings of politicians who are seeking self-interest, is battling the "deep state."
    .
    Take, for example, the "uncanny ability" we saw promoted among the right with respect to Trump's engagement with NoKo. Indeed, so many were convinced about his "uncanny ability" to divert from the status quo to bring Kim to his knees and de-nuclearize within a year's time. Never mind that it's well more than a year since those proclamations were made, what's more important, IMO, is the gullibility of Trump's supporters and their willingness to suspend the kinds of reasoned analysis they might typically apply in so many other situations. But even worse than that, what we see is the inability to re-visit their previous visions of "uncanny ability" to place them in the context of the myriad failures of Trump's "uncanny ability" so as to come up with an analysis that extends anywhere beyond the confines of confirmation bias.
    .
    With the situation in Syria, Trump was dealt a hand. Irrespective of what I think about the wisdom of decades of US involvement in ME affairs, the relevance of that past to the current state of affairs and the state of affairs going forward has some limitations. Irrespective of whether we should be where we are in the ME, decisions have to be made in the now as to the risk/reward of actions in the current arena. The risk, was relatively low along a variety of axes, and now that risk is much higher. And what was the reward? As I see, quite little. Is making some kind of proclamation about the US being unwilling to engage in military involvement in the ME of some reward? Perhaps, some principled stance on that issue – even if I were to believe Trump's proclamations as to that being his motivation (again, I find it amusing how willing Trump supporters are to take him at his word for things such as his claims of going after Biden because of some abiding concern about corruption – something I consider ludicrous) – might indeed have some value going forward. But I would say that the value of that principled stance needs to absolutely be weighed against other aspects of principle – such as the message sent by the abandonment of allies – not to mention that most likely in future situations, the actual developments on the ground will render much in the way of generic principles a far secondary consideration for what actions need to be taken real time.
    .
    The simplest explanation for Trump's actions, as a politician so obviously focused on self-interest and his standing in the polls, and his chances of re-election, and his popularity with his base is that no matter what he says, those are his over-riding points of consideration. It's just so funny to me that people are so willing to convince themselves of something else.
    .
    >Joshua, one must remember that this is identical to the prevailing wisdom in most all US interventions.
    .
    I've already spoken to that w/r/t the institutions of foreign policy (often referred to as "the blob."). But the problem, again, IMO, is that referencing past considerations is only of limited value.
    .
    > If we had left Vietnam in 1968 there would have been a huge outcry by the hawks that we were surrendering to communist aggression.
    .
    And so, the value of imagined counterfactuals about a situation completely different in almost all ways is limited – except as a means of satisfying a confirmation bias.
    .
    > If we left Lebanon before the barracks bombing I'm sure Reagan would have been attacked for not sticking around for Lebanon to stabilize. If we had left Somalia just a months after landing there instead of with out tail between our legs from Blackhawk Down Clinton would have been excoriated for an incomplete mission leaving warlords in place. More recent interventions have not given the generals any more credibility on the fruits of nation building. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan. The point is our stated mission was complete. History told Trump that US forces are a target of opportunity for many actors. If we take losses in our withdrawal is that a good reason that we should have stayed? I don't agree that the danger is greater for our troops now. Neither Turkey nor any other player want to invite Trump to reverse the withdrawal by attacking US troops.
    .
    I think your counterfactuals there are likewise problematic – but the one thing that we'll find consistent throughout all those circumstances in the alignment of agreement vs. disagreement with the policy actions of presidents in those situations, is that supporters of the presidents applauded their actions whereas opponents of the presidents opposed their actions. Trump supporters aren't unique in that regard, far from it, but imagine if…
    .
    Obama had done something similar, where he abruptly made a decision, afterwhich a stable situation, with little active downside for the US, transformed almost overnight into a religiously intolerant, facist, Muslim dictator launching an incursion targeting long-standing American allies who partnered with the US in fighting against terrorism, with absolutely enormous potential downside with respect to humanitarian impacts, as well as future security threats with the re-establishment of ISIS, the release of ISIS fighters, and an increase of terrorist threats to Europe – and to make it even more interesting, then bragged about the fact that increase in threat to terrorism would be primarily to Europe and not the US.
    .
    I hate playing the what-about game. It's an endless, recursive loop. And both sides can legitimately play it, because everyone are hypocrites. But I bring it up to help illustrate the point of how absurd this particular defense of Trump is – not based on real facts, but on cherry-picked observations of his paradigm breaking genius and dedication to some over-riding moral principles, freed from the burdens of self-interest, when there are countless examples that prove that fantasy wrong, let along before the actual facts on the ground justify such conclusions.

  896. FWIW –
    .
    I much prefer to see more of the kind of comments Mark writes, where he at least addresses and considers the potential for a form of ideological inconsistency, where he at least acknowledges that he's making a bottom line calculation about pros and cons. Reverse engineering Trump's actions, particularly when it involves certainty-laced statement of facts based on vastly complicated counterfactuals such illusory and ill-defined "lessons learned from history" (and who writes history?), strikes me as quite amusing, even if also quite troubling.
    .
    Which of you, if the facts of today were presented to you two weeks ago, would have said, yeah, it would be a great idea for Trump to follow "uncanny instincts" and make a move of this magnitude without consulting with people who are well-versed in the particulars of the region, let alone even, apparently, consulting with his cherry-picked cadre of advisors who likewise think that their "uncanny instincts" formulate a solid basis for geo-political moves of this magnitude without such consultation.
    .
    My guess is that Guiliani would have told Trump this is a great move, given that he's a stable genius. Or maybe even DiGenova.
    What else would we need, eh?

  897. Joshua,
    >>I much prefer to see more of the kind of comments Mark writes
    Heh. I'm crazy partisan actually. Being aware that I'm essentially a chimpanzee with a really good symbol processing / manipulation CPU expansion doesn't stop me from being a chimpanzee, it just makes me aware of it to a certain degree.
    But hey, if you don't like talking with Ron, don't talk with Ron I guess. I'd hate to see a world full of 'mark bofill' clones, that's a really ghastly thought in my view when you get right down to it.
    shrug.

  898. I'll also note, somewhat parallel to my view about Trump's actions in Syria, I wasn't exactly, categorically unsupportive of Trump engaging in talks with Kim. Of course, to get there I had to get past my laughing fit at thinking about how those righties praising Trump for his "love affair" with Kim might have reacted had Obama courted Kim in a similar fashion. Yeah, I am generally in favor of seeing what happens with talks. I find the whole "encouraging bad behavior" line of analysis to be pretty vapid. But what's problematic is how righties looked past the situation on the ground to convince themselves of how Trump's hand-holding and letter-writing with Kim were proof of the"uncanny instinct" of the master negotiator, before there were even enough facts to make an actual assessment of any type, let alone make an actually useful assessment that can *only* be made over the course of time. If the argument were simply something like, "I have long felt that we should engage in bi-lateral talks and I'm glad that Trump is doing it," that would be fine, IMO. But when I see people who would likely have proclaimed "treason" if a Dem had engaged in bilateral negotiations with Kim proclaim Trump's deal-making and paradigm-busting genius based on some bizarre combination of imagined, non-existent outcomes and a gullible fantasizing about a man who displays many of the most abhorrent personal attributes imaginable, I'm just left admiring in awe at the power of motivated reasoning.

  899. Mark –
    .
    > But hey, if you don't like talking with Ron, don't talk with Ron I guess.
    .
    I like talking to Ron to some extent. But I do prefer to read opinions, where, IMO, people seem (to me at least) to be openly applying a due skeptical diligence to their own opinion formation..
    .
    Of course, Ron may be doing that and I just can't see it (blinded by my own confirmation bias) – but I've told Ron before that IMO, I think that he has a tendency to believe in things that I consider highly implausible (i.e., the vaccine/autism causality).

  900. Joshua,
    If you told me 'I prefer the way Lucia responds to my comments over the way you respond', I'd likely say 'fine. Go talk with Lucia.' That's mostly what I was trying to get at. I wouldn't presume anybody's gonna change their … whatever exactly, style of analysis I guess merely because I prefer it. I only involve myself in this because you held me up as an example.

  901. Joshua,

    I was hoping that my previous comment #177008 would establish at least something on which we could agree; i.e., that a key question is whether Erdogan was bluffing and whether Trump erred by not calling that bluff. So I am disappointed to see no reply to that.

    ———
    Joshua (Comment #177014): "The risk, was relatively low along a variety of axes, and now that risk is much higher. And what was the reward? As I see, quite little."

    That clarifies a lot. I don't know if Ergodan was bluffing or not. Neither do you. But in calling a bluff, one must indeed consider the possible risk and reward. If the reward is small and the risk large, then the smart move is to fold.

    Reward of calling Ergodan's bluff: Continuing U.S. entanglement in a messy, endless, internal conflict. Not much of a reward, unless you think that such entanglements are a good thing.

    Risk of calling the bluff: A military conflict with a NATO ally. On their turf. With no chance of winning without a huge escalation on our part. Possibly fracturing and destroying NATO.

    A massive risk for no real reward. Trump made the right call.
    ————

    Joshua (Comment #177015): "Which of you, if the facts of today were presented to you two weeks ago, would have said, yeah, it would be a great idea for Trump to follow "uncanny instincts" and make a move of this magnitude without consulting with people who are well-versed in the particulars of the region …"

    Not me, for sure. I'd say the same thing today.

    But that was not what happened. Trump most certainly did consult with the experts. The experts admit that. They are mad because he chose a different path from what they recommended. He made a carefully considered decision. That is why his "instincts" seem so "uncanny": he thinks hard about what he is doing.

    Given the track record of our "experts", it is wise for Trump to think for himself.

  902. Joshua, you say the previous policy should have been continued.
    In Trump's view, the policy was to have the military in Syria working with YPG and other groups to defeat ISIS. Withdrawing troops is in line with that policy.

  903. Using approval ratings as a proxy for how an election will turn out doesn't make a lot of sense. I suggest there are plenty of people who disapprove of Trump who will vote for him over Warren or Sanders. The focus on this is just the day to day media horse race obsession.
    .
    One can better ask who would you vote for in a head to head match-up. Obviously this didn't work out so well in 2016, but the errors here were not huge, but they were systemic in favoring Clinton across the board. Systemic errors do happen as not every election is the same and over-tuning polling models will just lead to bigger errors.. There is no other words for it but over-confidence and arrogance in the media reading of these tea leaves that may also have put in a complacent attitude in the electorate.
    .
    There will be no complacent attitude in 2020 which works against Trump.

  904. "What I really don’t understand is why Joshua thinks anyone needs or even things they should try to “reconcile” Kelly Conway’s husband’s opinion about anyone with any other opinion about that person. I mean"
    .
    I don't need to reconcile my political views with people who I even respect and care about, much less Conway. I only need to look across the dinner table to find anti-Trump views. I totally understand them.
    .
    How hard is it to understand why somebody didn't vote for Trump? Come on, this is such a black hole of idiocy.
    .
    Now my impression is that the reverse is less true. How many people understand why people DID vote for Trump? And the true test of this is answering it in a way that Trump voters agree with. Good luck WP, NYT, CNN, etc.
    .
    The media to this day still sends in cultural anthropologists like they are looking for the missing link trying to understand that question. Sometimes they get it right, or at least describe a Trump voter that seems real. Others, the majority of the national media, seem predestined to pin it to things like racial resentment and other newly discovered moral failings. Somehow the omnipotent power of their cultural microscopes never get turned around at their own wonderfulness.

  905. Joshua
    **if the facts of today were presented to you two weeks ago, would have said, yeah, it would be a great idea for Trump to follow "uncanny instincts" **
    .
    Not me. And I still don't buy the notion that Trump has uncanny instincts. I disagree both with supporters and detractors when someone seems to be suggesting he's playing 3 dimensinoal chess OR has "uncanny instincts" generally. (He might have uncanny ones vis-a-vis vote getting. But that's not a general rule for his instincts with everything!)
    .
    At some point, Trump's "instincts" may result in catasatrophe for the US (and has form some other people.)

  906. > Joshua,
    .
    > I was hoping that my previous comment #177008 would establish at least something on which we could agree; i.e., that a key question is whether Erdogan was bluffing and whether Trump erred by not calling that bluff. So I am disappointed to see no reply to that.
    .
    Apologies. I got a bit riled up by the "uncanny instincts" pablum.
    .
    I don't sure your confidence that Erdogon said to Trump something on the order of "I'm going to launch a large scale incursion whether you like it or not." What evidence do you use to reach your conclusion? As such, I don't know if the key question was whether Erdogon made such a threat. It does seem a bit implausible to me that Erdogon would threaten Trump with military action that would have endangered American Troops if Trump didn't withdraw them. Especially considering Trump's frequent bloviation about being a tough guy.
    .
    The rest of your comment is based on the assumption that a bluff was made. I'll hold of on responding until I see evidence that Erdogon made such a threat to Trump.
    .
    > But that was not what happened. Trump most certainly did consult with the experts.
    .
    Which experts did he consult with, and what is your evidence of such? The experts admit that.
    .
    ? Which?
    .
    > They are mad because he chose a different path from what they recommended. He made a carefully considered decision. That is why his "instincts" seem so "uncanny": he thinks hard about what he is doing.
    .
    ? Where is your evidence that he thought hard about what he did? The evidence I've seen, such as statements from people who were on the inside like Tillerson, is that Trump acts on what he considers to be his "uncanny instincts."
    .
    > Given the track record of our "experts", it is wise for Trump to think for himself.
    .
    False dichotomy.

  907. Lucia –
    .
    > He might have uncanny ones vis-a-vis vote getting.
    .
    Maybe. But he lost the popular vote to an historically unpopular candidate who ran a bad campaign – running in the party of a two-term incumbent (which I believe doesn't predict success), during a relatively mediocre economy. Seems more to me like he utilized an effective strategy that has long been his strategy – one he didn't develop himself but inherited from people who developed it like Roy Cohn. He was advised by shrewd politicians. He was helped by unforeseeable events. And, he used his aggressive strategy to ride the tide of a particular political context, that included an increasing partisan divide and a festering resentment among key political constituencies (i.e., working class Demz). I think that Trump is rather a one-trick pony who used the right strategy at the right time. I doubt that he'd have the "uncanny instincts" to modify his strategy as the conditions might dictate. I don't see any evidence of strategic flexibility.
    .
    It has long puzzled me why he didn't just do something like really commit to an infrastructure program or lessen his vitriol, as doing so could well have increased his political support. It is rather notable that his support has not increased in any observable way during the 3 years he's been in office (despite a strong economy, which of course the "uncanny instinct" crowd will attribute to his genius – but IMO, it's silly to attribute large scale macro-economic trends to the influence of a president over relatively short time periods). Of course, the "uncanny instincts" crowd will claim that's all because he's been a poor victim of the big bad enemy of the people (when they aren't claiming that he's a master manipulator of that same enemy of the people) and the socialists that have invaded our country and amassed huge political power, but, well…
    .
    Consider his "uncanny instincts" w/r/t his ability to pick "only the best people" for his government. How is that "uncanny instincts" working out?

  908. Ron –
    .
    Here's a good example of why I'm skeptical of counterfactuals about what might have happened in the past if X,Y, or Z been different – because reality is too complex for such facile extrapolating:
    .
    https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/10/13/kurds-assad-syria-russia-putin-turkey-genocide/?smid=nytcore-ios-share
    .
    Meanwhile, in contrast to that commendable article, Trump is now suggesting that the Kurds are deliberately letting go the ISIS fighters they risked their lives to capture – (suggesting they're doing so in order to lure the US into a war with Turkey.) Notice, also, that he's using Turkey's membership in the "obsolete" institution NATO as reason to not interfere with their military aggression.
    .
    Yes, what "uncanny instincts" – accusing allies who risked their lives capturing ISIS fighters of just letting the fighters go willy-nilly to extort support from the US.

  909. Joshua
    **Maybe. But he lost the popular vote to an historically unpopular candidate who ran a bad campaign – running in the party of a two-term incumbent (which I believe doesn't predict success), **
    .
    Sure. That's one way to look at it. But despite zero experience, and being personally repellent, he won a primary, and then got the votes that counted. I'd call that "uncanny" vote getting. Others might not.
    .
    Also, I'm not sure Democrats admitted Hilary was unpopular until after she lost. 🙂 Nor did they seem to admit she ran a bad campaign.

    **Seems more to me like he utilized an effective strategy that has long been his strategy – one he didn't develop himself but inherited from people who developed it like Roy Cohn.**
    I didn't think he developed it himself. I don't think developing it oneself is a necessary for "having" the ability. All you need to do is USE something that works. Beyond that, since Roy Cohn has been dead since 1986, I really don't think Trump had Roy Cohn at his side guiding his strategy. I know you merely suggested Trump "inherited", but honestly, I don't think one can "inherit" the nuts and bolts of a strategy to implement. I can't imagine any meaning of "inherit" by which Trump could have "inherited" some strategy Cohn had. But if you want to elaborate and explain what you mean by that,maybe I could understand what you are claiming and further explain why his "inheriting" a vote getting strategy (of any sort) would then mean he couldn't "have" whatever he "inherited". ( Generally, if one inherits money, one then HAS money. No one is prevented from HAVING what one inherited.)
    .
    ** He was advised by shrewd politicians.**
    Oh? Trump doesn't strike me as someone who takes advise from anyone. Neither when deciding to deal with Ergodan or running his campaign.
    .
    But even if taking advise WAS his method of developing his ability, that also would not preclude his HAVING the ability.
    .
    **Consider his "uncanny instincts" w/r/t his ability to pick "only the best people" for his government. How is that "uncanny instincts" working out?**

    Well…. that would not be vote-getting. I said I don't think he has uncanny instincts IN GENERAL. To quote myself, I wrote
    "And I still don't buy the notion that Trump has uncanny instincts."
    .
    So you are bringing up evidence to support my stated view. Thanks! 🙂
    .
    I said he MIGHT have them vis-a-vis vote getting them. The fact that he won the votes *where they counted* is the evidence that the latter is possibly. While your explanations of how he *developed* this ability might be correct, as I pointed out, the are not evidence he does not have the ability.
    .
    Whether his ability will be good enough to win in 2020 remains to be seen. But, honestly, the fact that a man who is so repellent won as many votes as he did– and in the right places…. I find that uncanny. (This is not necessarily a compliment of Trump. )

  910. > . But, honestly, the fact that a man who is so repellent won as many votes as he did– and in the right places….
    .
    The fact that someone that was on tape talking about grabbing pu**ies got as many votes as he did is uncanny to me also. I would certainly have predicted it would never happen. And it happened, but that doesn't necessarily mean it was the product of us "uncanny instincts."

    Was it also "uncanny instincts" that caused voters, like evangelicals, to decide that such utterances from a seriel philanderer also on tape talking about catching peeks at naked teenage girls, was mere locker room talk? I dunno. It's possible, I guess, but that isn't how I see it. I see it as him using a strategy he had long used and it worked in a particular context.
    .
    How do we draw these lines? Was it also a function of his "uncanny instincts" that he was caught on tape making those comments? Was it a function of Obama's "uncanny instincts" that he got as many votes as he did (more than Trump), despite having attended pastor Wright's church?
    .
    This looks like a Rorschach test to me. People see whatever "uncanny instincts" they want to see in the inkbkots.
    .
    > But despite zero experience, and being personally repellent
    .
    Personally repellent to you. But not personally repellent to many of his voters. They found him refreshing, in fact. Was that because of his"uncanny instincts. ". I dunno. I don't happen to think he has such magical powers to convince people that he's refreshing while talking of grabbing pu**ies by virtue of" uncanny instincts. ". My guess is that there's a more complex dynamic in play.
    .
    > Also, I'm not sure Democrats admitted Hilary was unpopular until after she lost. 🙂 Nor did they seem to admit she ran a bad campaign.
    .
    I fail to see what demz did or didn't" admit" has to do with the question at hand, but as I recall her favorable/unfavorable polling was historically bad for a major candidate for quite a while leading into the election. Of course, his "uncanny abilities" might have had something to do with it, but I think more likely is the decades long political opposition to Clinton, and the email servers, and her grating personality, and the increased influence of the rightwing media, etc.., wwere probably more explanatory for that.
    .
    >
    . Oh? Trump doesn't strike me as someone who takes advise from anyone. Neither when deciding to deal with Ergodan or running his campaign.
    .
    Flse dichotomy. Parscale, Bannon, Conway, etc. likely had a significant effect on his voter outcomes. Of course, you can attribute all of his votes to his refusal to listen to advice. That strikes me as rather implausible.
    .
    >
    I really don't think Trump had Roy Cohn at his side guiding his strategy.
    .
    Oh, and there I thought that Cohn had come back from the dead to do so. My bad.
    .
    >
    But if you want to elaborate and explain what you mean by that,maybe I could understand what you are claiming and further explain why his "inheriting" a vote getting strategy (of any sort) would then mean he couldn't "have" whatever he "inherited". ( Generally, if one inherits money, one then HAS money. No one is prevented from HAVING what one inherited.)
    .
    I wasn't merely referring to a "vote getting strategy" per se, but a rhetorical and political strategy ala Roy Cohn and Roger Stone. These are not obscure influences, and I don't see their influence as particularly controversial. There's a documentary about Roger Stone and one about "where's my Roy Cohn" if you're interested. I'm guessing you aren't, but I'd be happy to talk about it if you so – so we have some context. I'm not inclined to start from scratch on the issue.
    .
    I didn't mean to suggest that he inherited his instincts, I instead was suggesting that he inherited a strategic approach that. Imo, is more explanatory than skmw handwave to some nebulous "uncanny instincts" as an explanation for why he got the votes that he did. Maybe if you care to lay out the causal connection between specific "uncanny instincts" and how they win him votes, I'll better understand what you're arguing.
    .
    My comment about his "uncanny instincts" w/r/t his hiring abilities wasn't directed at you, actually.but pointing out that he doesn't have such claimed instincts when it comes to hiring people doesn't do anything to show that he does when it comes to attracting votes.

    .

  911. BTW, Lucia –
    .
    > I disagree both with supporters and detractors when someone seems to be suggesting he's playing 3 dimensinoal chess
    .
    Who are you thinking about when you're thinking about his opponents who suggest he's playing 3 dimensional chess? Pretty much whenever I'm talking to Trump opponents and suggest that he's employing a useful strategy, they pretty much say that I'm nuts and that he is incapable of strategic thinking of any sort, let alone playing 3 dimensional chess.

  912. Joshua
    **Oh, and there I thought that Cohn had come back from the dead to do so. My bad.**
    .
    I wasn't suggesting you thought Cohn was resurrected.
    .
    But I really find it odd to somehow suggest Trump "inherited" this the "strategy" of someone LONG dead who– if I am not mistaken– wasn't even a campaign manager. So, Cohn is someone who didn't even have a fleshed out campaign strategy that someone could just pull out use to organize as an actual *campaign* strategy and certainly did not organize one for a presidential candidate. So it would be difficult for someone to just "inherit" this thing that never really even existed before.
    .
    **These are not obscure influences, and I don't see their influence as particularly controversial.**
    Well… you've now added Stone when previously you only mentioned Cohn.
    .
    They aren't "obscure" and they might be "influences". But being "influences" of some sort is not the same as saying they created a "campaign strategy" nor that Trump "inherited" that or even used it. Martin Luther King was not "obscure" could have "influenced" any number of politicians.
    So MLK being "not obscure" and an 'Influnce" is not enough to conclude politicians he influenced inherited a *campaign* or *vote getting* strategy from MLK.
    .
    **There's a documentary about Roger Stone and one about "where's my Roy Cohn" if you're interested. I'm guessing you aren't, but I'd be happy to talk about it if you so – so we have some context. I'm not inclined to start from scratch on the issue.**
    .
    Well, if I wanted to know more about what Stone thought of the long dead Cohn, I might. But I don't see how this would tell me Trump "inherited" a fully blown campagin strategy fron Cohn when Cohn *didn't have one*.
    .
    **he inherited a strategic approach that**
    Well…. honestly, I still don't know what you think "inheriting" a strategic approach *means*.
    Certainly, I don't know how once could inherit one from Cohn, who has been dead for over …what … 33 years? But even if someone adopts (rather than inherits) an "approach" from someone that's not the same as actually *getting a strategy* frome them. The person who *adopts the approach* still has to *develop a strategy* which is a different thing.
    .
    But even if you want to somehow think of something just landing in Trump's lap, I would suggest that whatever strategic approach Trump used: HE PICKED IT. He chose to implement that approach rather than another one.
    .
    Part of an ability to get votes includes picking a strategy. You can use the verb "inherit" all you want. But candidate strategies don't just fall out of the sky, land on them, stick to them and just "become" their strategies in some sort of way that has nothing to do with the candidates choice.
    .
    Obviously, we aren't going to agree on what "uncanny instincts" for means. He might have them for vote getting– which is all I wrote. Or he might not.
    .
    I don't Trump has "uncanny instincts" in general. We seem to agree on that.

  913. Joshua
    **Who are you thinking about when you're thinking about his opponents who suggest he's playing 3 dimensional chess? **
    .
    On the 3D chess, you previously wrote
    ** I do think that Trump likely speaks in code, so I can see where it's plausible ….**

    I realize you might not think the "speaking in code" is an element of 3D chess. But I lump it in the same category.

    **he is incapable of strategic thinking of any sort,**
    .
    I don't think he's *incapable* of strategic thinking. I just don't think he speaks in code much. I think he just sort of blurts and babbles!
    .
    I would suggest that "speaking in code" requires an element of strategic thinking. Perhaps not a deep element…. but still it's an element. So, if he DID speak in code, I would consider that evidence of strategic thinking.
    .
    WRT to his "strategic" thinking: I think he sort of CAN do it. He just doesn't want to very often.

  914. Lucia –
    .
    I think that long ago, during his long association with folks like Roy Cohn and Roger Stone, Trump came to learn and employ a rather explicit (if you read about what they have said) political/rhetorical strategy, which he employed previous to, and during the 2016 campaign, and since, and which has served him well in gaining political support. And which is, imo, more explanatory for his political success than some kind of "uncanny instincts," particularly since these "uncanny instincts" have not really been spelled out, let alone a case made for how they would be causal beyond some kind of handwave to an association between these magical "uncanny instincts" and the number of votes he got.
    .
    Yeah, I don't think of "speaking in code," as described by Cohen, as anything akin to playing 3D chess. I think if it as a learned strategy, as often employed by criminals, or maybe pretty much anyone who regularly seeks to convey messages along with a concern that they be held accountable for being explicit in what they're saying..
    .
    Are there other opponents you were thinking of besides my reference to speaking in code? Perhaps other opponents who refer to him as speaking in code?
    .
    But that's just an opinion.

  916. Joshua,
    There are other opponents who I've heard suggesting that on some occasions there is some deep strategy on his part. But I don't keep a log book of these things!
    .
    We aren't going to agree on this whole "inheriting a strategy" thing. So I don't think there is much reason to beat that horse to death! (Much as I sometimes love to do that….. metaphorically speaking.)
    .
    I had too exciting a weekends which included doing a line dance lead by Tony Dovalani. I did it VERY badly (but then so did nearly everyone else. We didn't have time to figure it out!!)
    .
    Was the event commemorated on video? Yes it was. Am I recognizable… oh…. yeah….. Is it on facebook for everyone to see? Yep.
    .
    I need to have a wine, dinner, and unwind.

  917. Mike M. (Comment #177020) "Given the track record of our "experts", it is wise for Trump to think for himself."
    .
    It took JFK just one year to learn that lesson.
    .
    Joshua, you seem to be saying that I would have criticized Obama for doing the same things as Trump. I'm sure lowering taxes would not be among your examples.
    .
    So lets look at Obama's pull out of Iraq. You admit that because of political platforms some presidents are naturally advantaged over their predecessors in certain deal making. Example, Reagan could get the Iranian hostages released the day he took office. This is a bit akin to good cop – bad cop.
    .
    If all agree that the withdrawal from Iraq was the destabilizing rip cord that led to ISIS then we ask: how was that decision made. Obama claims his hands were tied with no status of forces agreement in place. But couldn't he have leveraged his Not-George-Bush Nobel Peace Prize to assure the Iraqi's that he only wanted to aid and stabilize Iraq's new democracy? The answer is of course. Obama just didn't think he needed to give a hoot about the ME.
    .
    Lucia, are good instincts the same as good chess playing? I will have to think about that. Somehow I don't remember any politicians touting chess championships when running for office. There are different kinds of intelligence IMO. Business sense is a matter of crunching risk and reward combined with human factors and feedbacks. This comes from assigning values to hundreds of variable unconsciously (aka common sense). Having good information about those variables is essential but is not sufficient for the skill. His decision about Syria might turn out as bad as Obama's in Iraq. Turkey might be as bad a ISIS. Probably not, but you can guess the press treatment for every atrocity.
    .
    BTW, I like Mark's comments too, Joshua. Everyone has been telling me for years I should take a Dale Carnegie course.
    I always tell them: Screw That!

  918. Joshua and Lucia, You are making this way way too hard. It's actually about substance and not style or electoral bean counting. The main concern of conservatives about Trump was that he was really a liberal and would betray them again much as Bush did. Trump sensed that there was an outsider group in the US (actually a majority in many measures) that feels under attack by the elites and the left and he designed his campaign to appeal to those voters. It worked. And he has been very smart to fulfill as many of his promises to his base as he could. This has cemented the bond.

    Americans are remarkably tolerant of personal foibles and sexual license and forgive these things easily. This is incidentally a key point in Christian theology too. Elites are just too bigoted to see this and have a cardboard cutout and ignorant view of Christians and Christianity.

    As I mentioned above, Trump like Teddy Roosevelt is not just a policy wonk but a personal advocate for his supporters and their interests. I personally think Trump is a lot stronger electorally than the media will admit. As we found out today, Zucker has a personal hatred for Trump and has personally sent CNN on a series of fake narratives to get him out of office. I actually believe that some polls are influenced by this subtle pressure to deliver the result powerful titans of the media want. Distrust of the media is a smart position given their terrible track record since 1980 really. And then there is Harvey Weinstein or Matt Lauer if you want to see actual sexual assault.

  919. Joshua,
    You are remarkably (almost ridiculously) funny. I gently suggest you do not visit any to the many countries that are stridently aligned against Israel, since it might turn out badly for you personally. That said, you should continue to accept vehement anti-semetics like Omar, so long as they embrace your other policy preferences.

  920. U.S. sanctions alone could be damaging to Turkey's economy, but I doubt destroy it as Trump claims. The damage could be very severe, however, if other countries joined the effort. Turkey's economic counter options are very limited.

    I presume Trump knows U.S. nukes are stored at Incirlak air base in Turkey. I have read reports about the possibility of Turkey holding these weapons hostage in response to Trump sanctions, but I don't know whether this is anything to worry about. If it is something to worry about, the nukes should have already been moved out of Turkey.

  921. David Young (Comment #177037)
    Americans are remarkably tolerant of personal foibles and sexual license and forgive these things easily. This is incidentally a key point in Christian theology too. Elites are just too bigoted to see this and have a cardboard cutout and ignorant view of Christians and Christianity.
    _______

    I don't know whether you mean tolerance is a key point or forgiveness is a key point in Christian theology. If you mean tolerance, as a former Southern Baptist I can tell you I found few in that church to be tolerant. If you mean forgiveness of sins, people brought up in Christian churches know what that means regardless of being elite or not. Even Jewish elite likely know the importance of forgiveness in the Christian faith, though they might be puzzled how someone like Ted Bundy could receive forgiveness for his sins.

  922. Joshua: "Of course, his "uncanny abilities" might have had something to do with it, but I think more likely is the decades long political opposition to Clinton, and the email servers, and her grating personality…"
    .
    You were ticking off her claims pretty well up until that part.
    .
    I think your eliminating "uncanny instincts" due to lack of proof of "strategic thinking" is poor reasoning. Trump's uncanny instincts show in knowing how to appear to be authentic, not the say-anything typical professional politician. And he now has a track record of putting his promises into actions. I was not a Trump supporter until he was the last GOP candidate. But by election time I was a full-throated supporter.
    .
    Hillary on the other hand may be a prime example of a strategic thinker that has horrible instincts. Trump summed it up with uncanny, (actually comical), accuracy: "Crooked Hillary."

  923. Ron –
    .
    > Obama claims his hands…
    .
    I thought we were discussing Trump's recent decisions w/r/t Turkey and Syria? What about? is boring! It's an endless recursive loop.
    .
    It seems to me to be clearer over time that Trump's move will advantage Turkey, ISIS, Iran, and Russia. It looks like the Kurds will be losers. And the US? I see little material gain and the potential for significant losses.
    .
    > Trump's uncanny instincts show in knowing how to appear to be authentic, not the say-anything typical professional politician.
    .
    You may have gotten closer to actually describing an "uncanny instinct," than mere handwaving to some kind of magical powers.
    .
    In other words, indeed, Trump may be gifted in his ability to constantly lie, pander for political expediency, etc., and yet appear to people as authentic and not a typical politician who panders for political expediency.
    .
    But the problem there is that the numbers show that indeed, many Americans, even many of his supporters see him as a serial liar. So I think more likely than having magical powers to appear authentic even though it's obvious he is a serial liar, he has instead utilized a specific strategy that enables him to get away with being obvious as a serial liar – but to still be seen by a diehard minority who are dedicated supporters as somehow "authentic" because he voices an antipathy and hatred towards libz that they resonate with.
    .
    So they are willing to dismiss his constant lying as irrelevant as they assess his "authenticity," and instead, even though they see him as a liar, since he is open with his hatred in ways that previous politicians tended to either not share, or felt reasons to not express so directly, his use of his strategy lends a pervading air of "authenticity."
    .
    His long-standing strategy of being open about lying, and aggressively attacking in a juvenile manner, synergistically aligns with the trend in the US of partisans seeing people from other groups as the enemy, and a resentment from the constituency that forms his base – where there is a sense of victimhood at the hands of an "other" which Trump openly reinforces.
    .
    And so his supporters can dismiss his serial lying with a "I do wish he wouldn't tweet so much" as if it isn't a truly significant feature of his character, and still maintain their delusion that he's "authentic."
    .
    It's like how it's completely obvious that he is constantly focused on his polling (like how he tweets every time his Rasumussen favorables nudge over 50%), yet his supporters think of him as not caring about the popularity of his policies, but only focused on protecting Americans and making America great again.
    .
    It's like how his supporters can believe him when he says that he doesn't care about Biden being a candidate, he only pushed to have him investigated because of an overriding concern about corruption. It's all part of the same phenomenon.
    .
    > And he now has a track record of putting his promises into actions.
    .
    More evidence of the same. How about his promises to eliminate the deficit or deliver 4%, no 5%, no, 6% GDP growth? How about that beautiful and cheap healthcare that would cover everything for less?
    Mexico paying for the wall? Deporting all "illegal immigrants?" Eliminate birthright citizenship? Get rid of DACA? Invest trillions? in an infrastruture plan?
    .
    See how it works? No matter how many "promises" he fails to put into action, his diehard supporters will ignore contrary evidence and believe what they want to believe. It's the same phenomenon.
    .
    > I was not a Trump supporter until he was the last GOP candidate. But by election time I was a full-throated supporter.
    .
    And with that, you locked yourself into the pattern of believing that he's somehow different than those other politicians who lie, who pander to public opinion, who make promises that they don't keep, etc. And then you became invested in confirming that belief.
    .
    > Hillary on the other hand may be a prime example of a strategic thinker that has horrible instincts.
    .
    Actually, I think Clinton is a pretty good example of someone who has bad instincts and had a bad political and rhetorical strategy.
    .
    > Trump summed it up with uncanny, (actually comical), accuracy: "Crooked Hillary.".
    .
    I see that as the use of a strategy he perfected long ago: Incorporate juvenile name-calling into his means of achieving what he wants.

  924. David –

    > The main concern of conservatives about Trump was that he was really a liberal and would betray them again much as Bush did.
    .
    I'm not quite sure who elected you as spokesperson for conservatives, but from what I've read, there were a ton of conservatives who were concerned about considerably more than that w/r/t Trump. As I see it, some of them decided that they would go along with Trump despite those concerns, because he animated a strong support within a particular constituency, that could then be leveraged for other advantages. Not entirely unlike what Mark Bofill described above.
    .
    And over time, despite his total abandonment of many of the issues they previously felt to be definitional – such as reducing the debt and government spending (ah, remember the budget hawks and fiscal responsibility?), or relying on "invisible hand" of the market (and instead basing fiscal and foreign policy on a tactic that largely defies what was previously a fundamental tenet of fiscal conservatism – tariffs, obviously) – some of them decided to hitch their wagon to his political successes.
    .
    Of course, some other "movement conservatives" of long-standing jumped ship, leaving behind mostly the diehard Trump supporters who actually didn't have a long-standing investment in conservative principles but who were attracted to Trump's rhetorical and political strategies. And along with that, some measure of reluctant conservatives who see their "support" not actually as support, but a transactional, strategic calculation.
    .
    It's funny that you described how conservatives decided that Trump wasn't a liberal in sheep's clothing like Bush, because one of the main factors that caused the vapors among conservatives about Bush was the increase in debt under his government.
    .
    Really, you gotta admit that's pretty funny, right?
    .
    > Trump sensed that there was an outsider group in the US (actually a majority in many measures) that feels under attack by the elites and the left and he designed his campaign to appeal to those voters.
    .
    Well, I think that's close to true. But I don't think you quite worked it out. Trump had a long-standing political and rhetorical strategy, that we can see he inherited from people like Roy Cohn and Roger Stone. They were explicit about that strategy and Trump was explicit about utilizing that strategy. And it turned out that strategy synertistically aligned with conditions on the ground in the US – conditions that we can see as a result of some long standing trends in the US (for example, a trend over time of increasing partisan antipathy across the political/ideological divide).
    .
    It wasn't, IMO, that he "designed" his campaign to appeal to a certain set of voters (which did not include conservatives, btw), but that his long-standing strategic approach aligned well with the conditions on the ground. And he had the support of people like Bannon, who also specialized in a similar strategic approach (actually, I do think Bannon deserves credit for being deliberate in designing an approach to exploit the circumstances – he is actually a strategic thinker, IMO, as opposed to someone who effectively utilizes a particular strategy in a somewhat rote fashion) and who brought significant resources to bear in support of Trump.
    .
    > It worked. And he has been very smart to fulfill as many of his promises to his base as he could. This has cemented the bond.
    .
    I love this. So conservatives, who previously advocated for decades that fiscal responsibility was a foundational tenet, see Trump as "fulfilling" promises that cemented their bond to him as a true conservative. Fantastic!
    .
    > Americans are remarkably tolerant of personal foibles and sexual license and forgive these things easily. This is incidentally a key point in Christian theology too. Elites are just too bigoted to see this and have a cardboard cutout and ignorant view of Christians and Christianity.
    .
    Take a look at the polling of evangelicals on the importance of a politician's personal behaviors w/r/t appropriateness to be in a position of political power. Prior to Trump, it was very important to them. After Trump, not so much. That would suggest to me that you have the causality exactly backwards. It wasn't a matter of tolerance in general that was then granted to Trump, but a loyalty to Trump that then altered their views on tolerance (at least w/r/t Trump). We can find many, many examples where no such "tolerance" was granted to politicians as was granted to Trump.
    .
    A similar kind of pattern can be found in the polling of Republicans w/r/t their hawkish attitudes towards Russia. It's all part of the same phenomenon.
    .
    Of course, I should add that there's nothing unique to Pubz or conz in this regard. I'm sure that if I went through the past comments at this very site, we'd find many comments on the willingness of Demz or libz to extend "tolerance" towards Obama that they would not extend to Bush or to Trump. And no doubt, IMO, there would be some legitimacy to at least some of those comments.
    .
    But what is always funny to me is the confidence with which people who have strong alignments one way or the other convince themselves the patterns among "others" but not within their own group. Why is it so hard for acknowledge, in context and not in some abstract manner, that those behaviors are bipartisan? People spend time sharpening their skills for spotting the problem in the "other" group, and spend a lot of time doing so – yet those skills don't transfer into a more general context that includes themselves. It's an interesting question, IMO – and particularly interesting when we can see such resistance among people who are smart, well-informed, experienced in careful analysis, and pride themselves in embracing the basic tenets of skeptical thinking.

  925. Joshua,
    I think evolution had something to do with it. We were tribal animals [from as far back as] 65 million years ago [until now] but only homo-sapien as recently as 300,000 years ago. But you probably know that about my position, seems to be we've probably covered that ground before between us.

  926. Joshua, Balanced budgets have never had a large constituency in America post Reagan. If that's the best you can do in arguing that Trump has not governed as a conservative, you've got nothing. Trump has been more conservative than any president since Reagan and he does have an excellent track record of keeping his promises to conservatives. That's a big deal and explains his strong relationship with his voter base.

    Conservatism is a large and complex movement. Evangelicals and conservative Catholics form a large part of the movement. Never Trumpers like George Will or Kristol have never been important opinion leaders for grass roots conservatives. That's particularly true after the Iraq war fiasco.

    I'm not a spokesman for social conservatism. I do know quite a few of them quite well however. Voting is always about making the best choice among usually poor options. That was true in 2016 too. Many held their noses and voted for Trump because he was better than Clinton. I would just point out however that Clinton was the last president who was reasonably popular at the end of his term in office. Bush, Obama, and Trump all have not had high job approval ratings as their terms evolved. Trump is actually about equal to Obama in terms of job approval 3 years in.

  927. Mark –
    .
    Sure – I agree.
    .
    I just heard something that I think fairly wall encapsulates what I was getting at above.
    .
    Trump doesn't care whether you believe him (in fact, many of his supporters don't really even believe him much of the time), but what he cares about is that you disbelieve his opposition (and indeed, that is certainly true of virtually all his supporters).
    .
    All of this does not take place in a vacuum. For example, the partnership between Trump and Cambridge Analytica is not irrelevant to the "strategic" synchronicity of Trump's campaign and the era in which is campaign is embedded. The technique of fusing new technologies and massive online distribution of disinformation is a factor, IMO. Trump embraces disinformation, without regard to veracity, because he sees that it helps him to achieve his goals. And he has no particular concern about the downside of obviously peddling disinformation. Think of his statement about how he could shoot someone on 5th avenue and his supporters would still be behind him. IMO, that kind of attitude explains much about his strategy. Think of his ridiculous peddling the notion that he only went after Biden because of his concern about corruption, Biden's candidacy had nothing to do with it.
    .
    Is that because he developed that as a campaign technique? No, I don't think so. IMO, Trump has utilized disinformation strategies throughout his life. And indeed, that was an explicit component of his rhetorical and political mentors. That seems to me to be basically unarguable. Roy Cohn used the technique with McCarthy, Stone has talked about "dirty tricks" as an explicit strategy for years and years.
    .
    Think of those tapes of him pretending to be his own publicity man, calling the press to disseminate disinformation about himself. This wasn't a technique he devised to advance his campaign. He has been using disinformation as a PR technique for a very long time. Think of his promising us that he had the real scoop from the investigators he hired to examine Obama's birth certificate.
    .
    And he came to the forefront politically at exactly the same time that sophisticated tools were being developed, by people who have specialized in the study of how to use those tools for "advertising" purposes – whether it be product advertisement or political advertisement.
    .
    The use of those tools has actually been going on for a while – there's a ton of evidence of the Russians using and perfecting those techniques. But the power of applying those tools within a political campaign has really exploded relatively recently. You don't worry about restricting information anymore – instead you just concentrate on flooding the blogosphere with disinformation.
    .
    Now, before everyone here gets the vapors and laughs at me for saying Trump only won because of "The Russians," that isn't what I'm saying at all. Clinton was a rather uniquely terrible candidate – perhaps the only one the Demz could have run who actually had a smaller % of people who viewed her as honest than The Donald did. There are a number of reasons why Trump won. But that isn't a reason to dismiss certain unarguable factors that led to his victory, and IMO, trotting out some vague notion of "uncanny instincts," with no actual explication of what they are or how they're causal, doesn't stand up very solidly in relief against certain, rather unarguable factors – like Trump's employment of disinformation and his campaign's embracing of new technologies in order to advance disinformation.

  928. David –
    .
    > Joshua, Balanced budgets have never had a large constituency in America post Reagan. If that's the best you can do in arguing that Trump has not governed as a conservative, you've got nothing.
    .
    The budget and the deficit were a primary component of the rhetoric that animated Republicans and conservatives for quite a long time prior to Trump. After Trump won, crickets.
    .
    Not to mention – the disillusionment with Bush's "conservative" bonafides were, undoubtedly, tied into the growth of government spending under his administration (of the sort we've seen under Trump's).
    .
    If you can't acknowledge that, there's nothing left for us to discuss.

  929. Thanks Joshua.
    I read what you've got to say about Trump. Some points I don't disagree with. But nothing really animates an interest in me regarding the discussion, so I'll drop back to lurking I guess. Rhymes with working, which is what I ought to be doing anyway.. Maybe I'll do that too.

  930. Perhaps if there were other lines of evidence of uncanny ability, such as becoming a billionaire real estate developer, an Ivy league graduate, a best seller author, creating and running a very popular prime time television show, or maybe being one of the most well known people on the entire planet.
    .
    Trump may be a bozo, but he is a phenomenon the likes of which we have not seen before. The only thing missing is a WWF title. Oops I guess he's almost got that too, ha ha.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMKFIHRpe7I
    .
    He's an inspiration to loud mouth irresponsible imbeciles the world wide. The world will be talking about Trump for 100 years after everyone else in this age is long forgotten.

  931. Tom –
    .
    > Perhaps if there were other lines of evidence of uncanny ability, such as becoming a billionaire real estate developer, an Ivy league graduate, a best seller author, creating and running a very popular prime time television show, or maybe being one of the most well known people on the entire planet.
    .
    Rather than just assuming that correlation = causation, what "uncanny" abilities are you talking about, and how did they translate into electoral success?
    .
    We might argue that he has an "uncanny" ability to be a successful reality TV star, and that is name-recognition is part of what propelled him to victory. Ok, but what do you think is "uncanny" about his ability to be a TV star? Is that same ability shared by all TV stars, or is there something about his TV star success that marks him as "uncanny?"
    .
    The same question would apply to his financial success – as someone who inherited a vast sum of money. What % of people who inherit that amount of money don't go on to accumulate vastly more wealth? Of those who were also able to do so, do they all share that "uncanny" ability, or is there something that you can actually describe, not just hand-wave to, that would help to paint a picture of what those "uncanny" abilities are?

  932. Tom –
    .
    > an Ivy league graduate,
    .
    That one's particularly funny, given some of the discussions here about the "meritocracy" of Ivy League schools.
    .
    I've worked at Trump's alma mater, and I have to say the fact that he's a graduate from that institution, indeed, does not impress upon me that it is a criterion to establish his "uncanny" abilities – particularly since he entered the school as someone from a family of vast wealth.
    .
    Again, perhaps you could explain how being a graduate of an Ivy League school reflects "uncanny" abilities? Or was that more just you paying homage to appeal to authority?
    .
    I just heard that Adam Schiff went to Harvard Law. Does that mean that he shares the same "uncanny" abilities as Donald Trump?

  933. Joshua,
    ————————
    What % of people who inherit that amount of money don't go on to accumulate vastly more wealth?
    ————————–
    I read that there are 36 million millionaires in the world today. There are about 2 thousand billionaires. If we assume all billionaires started as millionaires (just to get into the ballpark) then the odds of a millionaire becoming a billionaire might be something like one in eighteen thousand.

  934. Mark –
    .
    How much did Trump inherit? A quick Google said almost 1/2 billion. (I have no idea of the veracity of that estimate). A 1 million inheritance is considerably less than an inheritance of hundreds of millions. Plus, Trump benefited from the power of his family.
    .
    I'm not suggesting that Trump has zero skills that can help explain his wealth. I'm suggesting that there may have been far more in play than "uncanny abilities."

  935. I'm not sure what people are thinking on Syria. They weren't our friends before the country became a smoking pile of rubble and they aren't going to turn into our friends after we actively made it a pile of rubble. Was now a good time to extract ourselves with little notice and leave a void? Maybe not, or maybe it won't matter. Anyone who thinks they can predict this with any certainty please place your bets here.
    .
    Syria won't *** become *** a mess because it already is a mess. The WSJ had maps of who controls Syria and it looks like 7 varieties of mashed potatoes thrown against a wall. Syria being a mess is to the US's strategic advantage as they used to threaten the region, mostly Israel, and were developing secret nuclear capability. Letting them implode seemed like a good idea until that chaos poured over Syria's borders, which nobody saw coming.
    .
    The US babysitting this chaos to prevent a spillover from happening again seems like it might be wise, but so does getting out of a hotbed of animosity that has little future upside.
    .
    We spent decades becoming much less dependent on this region's energy and it has maintained its clusterf***edness (TM) the entire time. Allegiances shift with the wind, someone quoted a ME proverb, "don't get yourself into a well with an American rope". I find the certainty with which people talk about Syria and ME strategy laughable. There are no good options. My view is minimal intervention and mow the jihadi grass when it's absolutely necessary, like it was in Syria.

  936. Yeah. I remember thinking Trump was some sort of genius. Since then, I dont think his general intelligence is off the charts, but I don't discount the idea that some combination of personal attributes contributed to his success. Everything is always more complicated; I don't imagine external factors played no role. It's hard to know how much is due to what.

  937. Here, even assuming Trump started with much less (say a lower bound of 40 million); there's a lot fewer of those people and the odds estimate would change pretty substantially.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_high-net-worth_individual
    Say odds no more substantial than 1 in 30 or 40.
    If he started with half a billion, there's not really all that much difference in the numbers of people who have half a billion and who have a billion; a few thousand.

  938. State Department website promotes Mike Pompeo speech on 'Being a Christian Leader

    “WASHINGTON – A recent speech about “Being a Christian Leader” by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was promoted on the State Department’s homepage Monday, and has been met with criticism that it potentially violates the principle of separation of church and state enshrined in the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.
    The speech was delivered at the America Association of Christian Counselors on Friday in Nashville, Tennessee. Pompeo touts Christianity throughout the remarks, describing how he applies his faith to his government work, referencing God and the Bible during the entirety of the speech.”
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/14/state-dept-website-promotes-mike-pompeo-speech-critics-decry/3980544002/
    ________
    Assuming Pompeo is sincere, I wouldn’t be surprised if he puts his religious beliefs ahead of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. But I don’t know whether he is truly devout or using the Bible as a mask. When people boast about their faith, saying how much they love Jesus and all that, I think they are trying to tell me how good they are. I don’t find it convincing. I wonder how good they are when not being watched.

    Luke 12:2-3 
    2 For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known.
    3 Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops.

    The Bible, King James Version

  939. The beginning of the end phase of the civil war in Syria with the reestablishment of federal control over Kurdish areas in Syria.
    .
    Trump winning again over the deep state that favors endless wars.
    .

    “..The United States announced on Sunday it was withdrawing its entire force of 1,000 troops from northern Syria. Its former Kurdish allies immediately forged a new alliance with Assad’s government, inviting the army into towns across the breadth of their territory..”
    .
    “..Reuters journalists accompanied Syrian government forces who entered the center of Manbij, a flashpoint where U.S. troops had previously conducted joint patrols with Turkey.

    Russian and Syrian flags were flying from a building on the city outskirts, and from a convoy of military vehicles.

    Russia’s Interfax news agency, citing Moscow’s Defense Ministry, said later that Sysrian forces had taken control of an area of more than 1,000 square kilometers around Manbij. This included Tabqa military airfield, two hydroelectric power plants and several bridges across the Euphrates river, it said..”
    .
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-security-turkey-usa/trump-sanctions-fail-to-slow-turkey-assault-moscows-allies-advance-idUSKBN1WU1D8

  940. Didn't explicitly make my point – I agree that there is nothing extraordinary about Trump making it to billionaire status given his starting point. He still might have remarkable characteristics, but his change in wealth isn't all that remarkable in my view.

  941. Joshua,
    I'm not going to debate the semantics of the meaning of words with you. Trump has been successful in * different genres * by any reasonable measure of a human being. That he has the "possession of the means or skill to do something" is proven by a successful track record, and given his evident character flaws it is "strange or mysterious, especially in an unsettling way".
    .
    Debating what the secret sauce is here is basically just opinion, my take is he is very good at self promotion and his time in reality TV gave him a better pulse on the electorate than all the think tanks and focus groups DC has to offer.

  942. I have to agree with mark and joshua….. Trumps reaching billionaire status (assuming he really is one) is not "uncanny" given his head start by way of family background.
    .
    I also don't think he getting an Ivy League education is not "uncanny" given his family background.
    .
    I do think they suggest he has *some* ability. Possibly some luck and so on. I just wouldn't put those under "uncanny".

  943. Ron Graf (Comment #177041): "I was not a Trump supporter until he was the last GOP candidate. But by election time I was a full-throated supporter."

    Took me longer. When it became clear that Trump would be the nominee, I was horrified. Then I started to take him seriously rather than literally. By the time of the conventions, I thought I might be able to hold my nose and vote for him. After listening to Hillary's acceptance speech, I knew I would be doing so. By the time of the election, I was hopeful, but still not certain. No need for nose-holding. It has only been since he took office that I have become a strong supporter.
    ——–

    Joshua (Comment #177042): "No matter how many "promises" he fails to put into action, his diehard supporters will ignore contrary evidence and believe what they want to believe."

    I am very much aware of Trump's failed (but not broken) promises. They are reasons for continued support. He has had great success on things that he can do as the executive and things that Republicans agree with. He has failed when blocked by his own party and the "resistance" in Congress and the courts, not because he has changed direction. The only way to continue to make progress is to keep Trump in office.

  944. Joshua (Comment #177042): "It seems to me to be clearer over time that Trump's move will advantage Turkey, ISIS, Iran, and Russia. It looks like the Kurds will be losers. And the US? I see little material gain and the potential for significant losses."

    It can hardly advantage all those parties since they are not all on the same side.

    I agree there is nothing to be gained in withdrawing. But what is the risk?

  945. Tom –
    .
    I will readily agree that Trump has been uncommonly successful at self-promotion. I guess that roughly translates to uncommonly *good* at self-promotion (with a mix-in of having uncommonly rich resources to enhance the impact of his self-promotion).
    .
    And I have little doubt that his self-promotion has positively impacted his electoral outcomes.
    .
    So, maybe that translates to "uncanny instincts" – I really don't know. But at least there I can see a causal pathway between a potential "instinct" and his ability to garner votes.

  946. Mike M –
    .
    >He has failed when blocked by his own party and the "resistance" in Congress and the courts, not because he has changed direction.
    .
    Seems to me that the failure to deliver on many of his promises is due to the absurdity of the promises themselves – such as ridiculous economic growth rates or Mexico paying for the wall.
    .
    This goes back to his self-promotion; he'll say just about anything because he's not concerned that he'll be held accountable if he fails to deliver. His supporters will just rationalize it away as his being a victim of the enemy of the people, socialists, the Fed, recalcitrants in his own party, [insert another way he's been treated unfairly here], etc.
    .
    But yes, not (at least always – what about the infrastructure package) because he's changed direction. That, actually, feeds back into my "one trick pony" point. He doesn't seem to have much flexibility – just an effective strategy that he uses the same way in virtually all situations.

  947. Mike M –
    .
    > But what is the risk?
    .
    Seems to me that there's risk, relative to the status quo before his policy change (this assumes that your bluff from Erdogon didn't actually happen, and Trump had the choice to maintain the status quo, at least for a while when a better plan going forward might have been implemented), of: (1) ISIS gaining strength, (2) increased terrorist threats throughout Europe, (3) Kurds dying, (4) sending a negative message to other potential allies, (5) having to enter into a far deteriorated situation at a later time, (6) demoralizing our military forces, (7) generally degrading the impression of reliability of the US as a partner, (8) suggesting to our allies that our decision-making process is capricious, (9) increased power for Russia, (10) increased power for Iran.
    .
    Some of them are somewhat interconnected. And it would be difficult to measure the differential impact of this one decision along any of those particular vectors…but I think that there is significant risk in each of those areas, and likely others I couldn't think of off the top of my head. I'd much rather see the US providing robust support for the kind of efforts that the Kurdish commander outlined in the article I linked above. More upside, less downside risk.

  949. Yes Max you are right about Christian doctrine. I do think however that in general our tolerance for sexual license has increased dramatically over the last 100 years or so. In the 1930's Roosevelt would probably have not been reelected if he divorced his wife.

  950. I hope that people here are aware that there are very few "good guys" in the middle east. The Syrian Kurds are in fact doing terrorist attacks inside Turkey according to one middle east expert, Mike Doran and those terrorists are Communists. Why would anyone think Turkey would be more friendly toward ISIS? My guess is that they want ISIS to go away so they can dismember Syria. In the middle east, there are always downsides to any possible policy.

  951. Joshua, I have no idea where you get this idea about the ideological important of balanced budgets to conservatives. Republicans have controlled Congress for most of this century and the debt has soared. It's not an important issue for most conservatives or indeed for most members of Congress. Tax cuts will always win out for them. That was not true in the 1990's as the rise of Ross Perot showed.

  952. I bumped into this. More anecdotal fodder for the 'Shy Trump' idea
    https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/10/15/democratic-debate-supporters-ohio-donald-trump-country-column/3984999002/
    .
    " I found that a lot of folks didn't want to talk about Trump. They didn't want to put themselves out there for fear of being verbally bludgeoned on Facebook and Twitter or in the grocery store or even at church."
    .
    These are Ohio appalachians. I'd think that's as much MAGA country as anyplace else, and yet these people seem reluctant to express their support for Trump.
    Shrug.

  953. David Young (Comment #177068)
    October 15th, 2019 at 2:50 pm
    Yes Max you are right about Christian doctrine. I do think however that in general our tolerance for sexual license has increased dramatically over the last 100 years or so. In the 1930's Roosevelt would probably have not been reelected if he divorced his wife.
    ________

    Tolerance for pre-marital sex has increased most dramatically in the last 50 years as birth control pills eased fear of being an unwed mother. I doubt tolerance for adultery has increased much. I may be wrong but I think in Roman Catholicism divorce is considered worse than adultery, whereas in Protestant churches it may be the other way around. By that I don't mean the latter believe a divorce is necessary if a spouse commits adultery.

  954. OK_Max
    ** I may be wrong but I think in Roman Catholicism divorce is considered worse than adultery**
    .
    I grew up Catholic. I would say this is NOT doctrine, nor is it what most Catholics think. Technically, married people can part– that's not a sin. However, the church considers them to still be married. They prohibits remarriage inside the church because they don't consider marriage something that can be dissolved (with some caveats). Of course, the church can't prevent LEGAL divorce, but they just don't think that has much of anything to do with SPIRITUAL divorce.
    .
    The deny communion to those who remarry outside the church. This is because their "living in sin" is generally open, can be identified and is recurring.
    .
    In contrast: adultery is harder for the church to deal with in a public way.
    .
    First it is is generally concealed– so the priest isn't going to know he should be denying the adulterers continued sin.
    .
    Second, it might be in the past, so it is not recurring. (The Church recognizes forgiveness of sins– but you are supposed to be trying to stop sinning!)
    .
    Third: the ongoing adulterer might be claiming s/he has stopped but somehow just keeps falling into sin over and over. Sort of like an alcoholic. But at least in between sins, the church's policy is he's forgiven.
    .
    So it's not so much that divorce is "worse" than adultery. It's that divorce and remarriage is highly visible, can be detected, and the church can enforce their policy of "no communion for those who have decided to live in sin". The sin wouldn't need to be remarriage.
    .
    A priest would probably do the same for a doctor who hung out a shingle and worked as an abortionist.

  955. Wow. I was an active catholic as a kid. Never occurred to me somebody might be denied communion. I wonder if that ever happened [in the services I went to] and I just didn't notice!

  956. David –
    .
    > I have no idea where you get this idea about the ideological important of balanced budgets to conservatives. Republicans have controlled Congress for most of this century and the debt has soared.
    .
    Oy.
    .
    Please, look again at what I said:
    "The budget and the deficit were a primary component of the rhetoric that animated Republicans and conservatives for quite a long time prior to Trump. After Trump won, crickets."
    .
    *Concern* (and fear-mongering) about the debt and deficit were a constant rhetorical device used against Obama for his entire 8 years by Pubz and conz. And it was a rhetorical device used by Pubz and conz before that as well. And after Trump got elected?
    .
    Crickets – despite his constant campaign promises to eliminate the debt and the deficit.
    .
    The fact that actually Dem administrations, on average, have had lower debt to GDP and revenues to expenses than the Pub administrations that came before and after (at least for many decades up until Obama), doesn't mean that a putative *concern* about the debt and deficit weren't a constant rhetorical scoring point that Pubz constantly used to prop up the myth that they were the fiscal conservatives.
    .
    I didn't say that Pubz actually came through in a way that was consistent with their rhetoric. So don't put the burden of that absurd assertion on me.
    .
    It's fairly well-established that their concern about the debt and the deficit is primarily focused on those time periods when a Dem is in the Whitehouse.
    .

  957. David –

    BTW – I didn't mean to suggest that I think that the actual debt to GDP and debt to revenue ratios are simply a product of who is in the Whitehouse (or even simply a product of who controls the Congress). I think there's a complex mix that determines those numbers, including factors about the economy along with who has the majority in the two houses of Congress, respectively.
    .
    But again, if you're really in denial about the Pub and con rhetoric, for freakin' 30 years, about the debt and deficit, which is only all that much more interesting because of their failure to actually address those issues when they have had power, then there's really nothing left for us to talk about.
    .
    But try to not put words in my mouth to suggest that I've said something I haven't said.
    .

  958. OK Joshua, I slightly misstated your point. In its final form it seems to be just that Republicans are hypocritical and use the deficit as a political tool, but don't really believe in balanced budgets. OK, that's not in my view an important point either and has nothing to do with Trump really. It's really a bipartisan thing of course. Democrats also have complained about the deficit during Bush's term especially as it was used to fund the war. And they were really big sellers of Clinton's having balanced the budget in a single year before the tech bubble burst. They really complained about Reagan's deficits too. I haven't heard a lot of loud voices from Democrats during Trump's term either on this issue. Perhaps they fear blowback now that they run the House. More likely, they are too busy being outraged and angered by Trump and scheming to get him out of office.

    In the 19th Cenury and before WWII, it was the opposite. Even Franklin Roosevelt was a fervent balanced budget believer. That is a broad cultural change I think and I'm not sure what the causes are really. At that time a very strong currency was thought to be a really good thing. The current default however seems to be mild inflation. This is a great way to reduce real debt and allows governments to continue to run them virtually in perpetuity. In the 21st century, the Fed has joined the party by getting interest rates to historically low real levels. I certainly don't understand how this all ends. I do think there can be a steady state condition of gradually increasing debt and mild to moderate inflation.

  959. "This goes back to his self-promotion; he'll say just about anything because he's not concerned that he'll be held accountable if he fails to deliver. His supporters will just rationalize it away as his being a victim of the enemy of the people, socialists, the Fed, recalcitrants in his own party, [insert another way he's been treated unfairly here], etc."

    I think Joshua this is not really correct and shows a lack of understanding of conservatives. If Trump had appointed justices who were not conservative, his supporters would have been angered. If he had flipped on abortion, likewise, he would be in big trouble. However, people are smart and realize that Trump says a lot of things that should not be taken very seriously.

    A more accurate and unbiased description is that like Teddy Roosevelt Trump likes to control the narrative by constantly being the focus of the conversation. In some cases, he says things he has to walk back. That's of course impossible to avoid. Even someone whose opus of public utterances is much smaller has to do that a lot if they are honest. Roosevelt certainly said some very alienating things about big businessmen for example. And of course, all politics is about multimillion dollar self-promotion campaigns. You seem to resent the fact that Trump is very good at it. Hillary was terrible at it despite a slavish media promoting her and covering up her ethical and legal issues. BTW, I have held a security clearance for many years and the training makes crystal clear that removing any classified material from a classified area or system (even if not marked) is a felony. If you author a document, you are responsible for placing appropriate markings on the document. Hillary was so arrogant she thought she could get away with it and indeed she received exceptionally lenient treatment.

  961. David –
    .
    > OK Joshua, I slightly misstated your point. In its final form it seems to be just that Republicans are hypocritical and use the deficit as a political tool, but don't really believe in balanced budgets. OK, that's not in my view an important point either and has nothing to do with Trump really.
    .
    Talk about making things overly complicated. You keep getting more and more confused and further from the mark the further you go.
    .
    My point is that people who claim that Trump has "kept his promises" are cherry-picking, and avoiding the many promises he hasn't kept. Of course he never actually cared about the debt and the deficit, but he talked about them a lot, making absurd promises, which makes him a liar and undercuts the sychophantic narrative that he isn't a pandering politician but some kind of truth to power, straight-from-the-gut, everyday working man.
    .
    *Concern* and fear-mongering about debt and deficit reduction have been a key plank of the political rhetoric of Pubz and conz for 30 years. It's unarguable. And because of that, Trump pandered to Pubz and conz on that issue to get their votes. It was a big part of his platform. And lo and behold, despite his not keeping his promises, a favorite talking point of Pubz and conz to justify their support for Trump is that he's kept his promises. Despite a rapidly rising debt and deficit, barely a peep is to be heard from Pubz and conz on the issue since the election, despite a fevered pitch of hand-wringing on those issues for years.
    .
    Pubz and conz are not likely any more hypocritical than Demz and libz, IMO. My point isn't to make a general one that Pubz and conz are hypocrites. My point is to debunk the mythology around Trump, including the myth that he's some kind of straight-talking, truth-telling, non-pandering, promise-keeper.
    .
    Now you might say that Pubz and conz never really cared about the debt and deficit despite that 30 years of rhetoric. Well, maybe so, I kind of doubt that, though. I think more likely is that their concern about that issue, like pretty much their concerns over any issues, (no different than Demz and libz) is contextual.
    .
    Sure, it's possible that abortion and SCOTUS rank the highest on their list, and so they're willing to overlook Trump's failure to deliver on any number of other issues as long as he holds the line in those areas. But then just say that's why you like him, and don't bother with all the other transparent rationalizations. Follow Mark Bofill's lead!

  962. David –
    .
    >However, people are smart and realize that Trump says a lot of things that should not be taken very seriously.
    .
    See, this is what I love. On the one hand, Trump is a non-pandering truth-teller who doesn't craft his messaging based on polling data, but only a true concern with the welfare of the people and a deep and abiding love of his country.
    .
    Yet on the other hand, he says a bunch of stuff over and over, that nobody should bother to believe, because he says a lot of things that shouldn't be taken seriously.
    .
    And how do we know when he's telling the truth and when he shouldn't be taken seriously? Well, that's easy. When he says that he's going to do something and he does it, then he's a truth-teller, who's amazing for how he keeps his promises. And when he says that he's going to do something and then doesn't do it, well then he hasn't really broken any promises because he didn't really mean it in the first place (or, because the poor victim that he is, he tried valiantly, but the mean and evil forces stacked against him were too much for even a superhuman like Trump to overcome).
    .
    Watch how this will work with the whole "deep state" narrative with Bolden and HIll. Like so many other of his appointees, they were great folks when he appointed them, and an indication of his genius, no, wait, his "uncanny instincts" for hiring people…but now that they have some not so nice things to say about his administration, they're proof positive of a "deep state" conspiracy out to get him, which can easily explain anything questionable about his administration.

  964. Joshua, You didn't respond substantively to my point that balanced budgets is a talking point of both sides of the aisle. You just repeated your points more verbosely without any evidence and showed annoyance that I won't take your word for it. There is no strong ideological preference for balanced budgets among many conservatives I know. You may be mistaking certain conservative elites (and by no means a majority at that) for grass roots conservatives. It's actually more an issue for Ross Perot independents.

    I never said Trump was a "non-pandering truth teller." You should not put words in my mouth. His supporters generally believe that he fights back instead of accepting the playing field as the media and other elites define it.

    You are also cherry picking Trump's statements yourself. I mentioned to you a couple of fulfilled promises of Trump that are very important to his voters. He clearly hasn't delivered on balanced budget and instead provided tax reform, which is actually a vastly more important conservative ideological point than balanced budgets anyway. Few of his supporters believe the straw man of him you have erected so you can tear it down and cast aspersions on his voters in the process. There is a huge gap between what Clinton would have done and what Trump has done. Trump is infinitely preferable and that's the real calculus of his supporters. It's really very simple. You of course didn't respond to this probably because its transparently true.

    You would find life more enjoyable if you accepted that Trump supporters are rational and voted their interests. They are not the cardboard cutouts of your biased imagination. Debunking the "Trump myth" is a useless fantasy exercise that will make no difference to any rational human being. You should stop wasting valuable time.

  965. David –
    .
    > You didn't respond substantively to my point that balanced budgets is a talking point of both sides of the aisle.
    .
    Of course it is. But that has nothing to do with the point that I started with, that this fluffing about Trump is absurd. .

  967. David –
    .
    > You would find life more enjoyable if you accepted that Trump supporters are rational and voted their interests.
    .
    I pointed to Mark as an example of someone who simply says that he supports Trump (to an extent) for just those reasons, and I said I respect that and find it refreshing
    .
    Of course most Trump voters are rational and vote their interests (like demz), and some construct and promote ridiculous myths about Trump, like his "uncanny instincts," and his promise keeping prowess (demz construct their myths also), or the mythology about his *concern* about corruption.
    .

  968. Re lucia (Comment #177074)

    lucia, thank you for helping me better understand how the Roman Catholic church regards adultery and divorce. In my previous comment I said “I may be wrong but I think in Roman Catholicism divorce is considered worse than adultery.” You explained the problem with my statement. It does seem to me that in Catholicism divorce has greater consequences than adultery.

    Perhaps Catholic policy against divorce partially explains why predominately Catholic European and Latin American countries are more tolerant toward extramarital affairs than the U.S. A Pew Research Center study back in 2014, which looked at attitudes on moral issues in 40 countries, found more than 80% of American respondents thought extramarital affairs were morally unacceptable compared to less than 50% of the French, according to the linked WaPo report. Respondents from European countries in general and most Latin American countries were less likely than Americans to think affairs were morally unacceptable, while respondents from predominately Islamic countries were even less tolerant than Americans.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/rampage/wp/2014/04/16/mistresses-really-are-ok-in-france/

  969. >>Follow Mark Bofill's lead!
    ~scowls~
    I really dislike this. Joshua, I'd appreciate it if you'd cut that sort of statement out.

  970. Mark –
    .
    Apologies. It didn't seem to me similar to the other situation (putting you in the convo between me and someone else) but I can see how it would seem that way. Won't happen again

  971. OK_Max,
    France may be a *historically* Roman Catholic country, but when I lived there, no one I knew was religious. Mind you– when I was a tourist and visited some small older churches, some of the people running things in there were religious, but this is a minority.
    .
    So it's not clear their view on adultery is influenced much by the Catholic church. On the other hand, it might be affected at least historically.
    .
    But certainly, the idea that *nearly all* sins can be forgiven, once you give up that sinning and repent (and then they can be forgiven *instantly* does mean adultery can be forgiven. The problem with remarriage in particular is not that it's worse, but that it's ongoing. It too could be "forgiven"– but then you have to leave your second spouse. (Which some might do, probably not for the motive the church would necessarily consider "repetance". Others might consider rather ironic that the second legal divorce followed by repentance could put you back in the category of the church being able to forgive you!!!)

  972. David/Joshua,
    There are several important issue with unfulfilled campaign promises.
    .
    (1) Some are considered hyperbole and puffery in the first place. So, for example, GDP increasing 6% a year might have been perceived as pufery, and interpreted only to mean that the candidate was going to make a growing economy a key priority. (As opposed to say, making the priority "living income" or "green jobs".) In that case, no matter how the candidates *detractors* view failing to deliver 6% grown a year, while "only" having much, much more growth than the previous administration is seen as *fulfilling* the "promise". (A similar thing happens when you go to a restaurant advertising "best donuts in the world". You don't really think the restaurant is guilty of "false advertising" if the donuts are only very good, but you think your grandmas homemade donuts are the "best".)
    .
    (2) Sometimes, a candidate is clearly working to fulfill a promise, but is unable to do so because others block them. So, whether or not the republicans "have been" in charge "most" of the past whatever many years, they do not have control of the House right now. So, like it or not, Trump will not be seen to have "broken" promises if he continues to be saying he wants to do something, but the House (or even Senate) will not pass legislation to enact that. "Fixing" immigration (in the direction Trump wants) and so on will be seen by his supporters as falling in here. They will not see him as having broken that promise.
    .
    (3) Similar things can be said for balancing the budget. Like it or not, no matter what Republican's did for all those supposedly zillions of years, *right now* the House is in the hands of Democrats. So no one is going to see it as TRUMP breaking a promise because the Democrats won't do something. The reason they did see BUSH as breaking a promise is Bush did turn around and change his mind about things like taxes and so on after the election. That was he, himself, turning around.
    .
    Like it or not, some of the things YOU see as broken Trump "promises" made on the campaign trail are not promises Trump broke.
    .
    FWIW: Yes, you can come up with a litany of complaints about Trump supporters creating a litany of ridiculous myths. Many can be justified. But other politicians supporters also create ridiculous myths. (I'm not going to list. Sorry…. not enough time in the world for that.)
    .
    What's worse about your decreeing some of these decry as believing a "myth" falls in the category of "having an opinion". I've read your attempt to "rebut" "uncanny instincts" and it seem to be based on (a) excluding many things from the category of "instinct" that most people would recognize as what supporters (and others) consider "instincts" and (b) I have to admit to not being sure what you do and don't consider "uncanny". So it's really not worth arguing you about whether one can "inherit" a "strategic approach" at all. And it's certainly not worth pondering, how, IF one did "inherit" said "approach", and internalize it to the point that it appears to have become to be part of ones inner core being, afterwards one would NOT be said to have "instincts" associated with the internalized approach.
    .
    (And more oddly, I don't know how IF the guy inherited and "strategic approach", which WORKS and uses it one would then also say the guy is "incapable of strategic thinking of any sort". I think you have said both– but I may have lost track. Because really, all your attempts to discuss your notions about his lack of "uncanny abilities" seem to contain so many self-contradictions that I'm just not reading them any more.
    .
    The reason *I* don't think he has "uncanny abilities" *in general* is that he makes a lot of mistakes and blunders. I think he COULD have gotten more done by changing tack at some points and so on. But perhaps his supporters think I'm wrong about how much he could have done if he did things differently. If so, they would be justified in thinking differently from me.
    .

  973. David Young (Comment #177085): "Joshua, You didn't respond substantively to my point that balanced budgets is a talking point of both sides of the aisle. You just repeated your points more verbosely without any evidence and showed annoyance that I won't take your word for it."

    Are you still expecting anything else from Joshua? 🙂
    .
    David Young: "There is no strong ideological preference for balanced budgets among many conservatives I know."

    I think that fiscal conservatives and libertarians want balanced budgets, social conservatives like balanced budgets but don't prioritize it, and big government Republicans (I won't call them conservatives) don't care.
    .
    David Young: "Trump is infinitely preferable and that's the real calculus of his supporters. It's really very simple."

    Exactly. Joshua wants Trump supporters to compare him to some fictional ideal, not to the existing alternatives. I, for one, am unhappy about the budget deficit; but Trump is no worse than most conventional Republicans and much better than the Democrats on that point.
    .
    lucia (Comment #177095): "There are several important issue with unfulfilled campaign promises."

    Good post. I'd add that most congressional Republicans are only nominally in the same party as Trump.

  974. Lucia: "The reason *I* don't think he has "uncanny abilities" *in general* is that he makes a lot of mistakes and blunders."
    .
    Lucia, I don't think any Trump supporters would disagree with you about his making cringe-worthy tweets. The uncanny part (to his supporters as well as his detractors) is that he keeps on going, undeterred, and many time succeeds, in the midst of the constant media onslaught, backstabbing advisers, leaks from the IC and tell-all books, anonymous NYT op ed, anonymous "whistle-blowers" regarding his attempts to get to the bottom of the"insurance policy we [McCabe, Strzok, Page and others] discussed in Andy's office".
    .
    Trump, I think gains a lot of my support from his being the underdog. The current impeachment was planned before he was elected. If Comey and others were not intending to take Trump out I don't know what they were doing.
    .
    Last night's Dem debate questioners forgot about the debt, immigration and climate change (to Greta's chagrin). They did debate whether Trump should be removed from Twitter.

  975. Lucia
    ….
    "But, honestly, the fact that a man who is so repellent won as many votes as he did– and in the right places…. I find that uncanny."
    …

    At a base level, it is not surprising when a pedophile in Alabama can get 48.3% of the vote. Among the various reasons, a low-hanging fruit is stoking majority grievance, which is always there for the picking. This is something that is typical of third world politics with reasoning such as "preserving the culture" etc. It transcends class and various other barriers of sophistication. Someone else will come along and exploit it even more effectively.

  976. Lucia –
    .
    > (And more oddly, I don't know how IF the guy inherited and "strategic approach", which WORKS and uses it one would then also say the guy is "incapable of strategic thinking of any sort". I think you have said both– but I may have lost track. Because really, all your attempts to discuss your notions about his lack of "uncanny abilities" seem to contain so many self-contradictions that I'm just not reading them any more.
    .
    That's a classic. Yes, so "odd."
    .
    So you put "strategic approach" in quotes, suggesting an attributable statement about Trump to me, as an example of the flaws in my reasoning and one of my many self-contradictions, even though you don't really even know if I said it or what I said about it. And yet, because it's so difficult to keep track of what I say because there are so many self-contradictions, you aren't really tracking what I said – but still it *could* be one of those self-contradictions.
    .
    How long might it have taken to do a Control-F to check to see if you got my argument about Trump's "strategic approach" correct? Maybe 10 second, at most? Give it a shot. See what you get. You'll find that actually, I was saying that he uses a strategic approach; in fact I said it many times. I never said differently. No self-contradictions there. But, don't let that interfere with the possibility that what I said about it *could* be a self-contradiction. Indeed, it *could* be.
    .
    "Incapable of thinking of any sort?" Also in quotes. Really? Put that in search and see what you get. Remarkable. Especially given that you seemed to be disparaging the sophistication of his thinking more than I was.
    .
    A few more comments and then this little foray over to the Blackboard is over with. I'm finding it increasingly boring to engage with people who make such sloppy arguments. You won't have to put up with the pain of trying to weed your way through my self-contractions.
    .
    > (1) Some are considered hyperbole and puffery in the first place.
    .
    Could be. But also, people can retroactively dismiss a failure to deliver on a promise as simply something like "hyperbole and puffery" that Trump never really meant.
    .
    I read comments over at places like Breitbart. In my observations, many of his supporters absolutely believed these kinds of claims, made many times, about how he was going to bring about unprecedented economic growth, or 4%, or 5% or 6% gdp growth, or eliminate the debt. People were so familiar with his claims of getting Mexico to pay for the wall (was it perhaps the one line from his platform that stands out as the most emblematic of his campaign? Maybe, or maybe "lock her up?"), that he could get his audiences to finish his sentences on the topic.
    .
    So what we get is a loop of unfalisiability. Unless people identify at the outset which of his boasts were "puffery" and which were "promises to be kept," it creates exactly the kind of self-reinforcing myth-making of the sort I described. So they can say he's a man of his word and also say that you don't have to pay attention to what he says. So I think that's what I see. If you see something different, that's fine with me. And you can even claim that what you see is fact and that what I see is inconsistent with reality. That's fine with me also.
    .
    > (2) Sometimes, a candidate is clearly working to fulfill a promise, but is unable to do so because others block them.
    .
    Sure. Sometimes that can happen. And sometimes a candidate can make claims as a part of his/her platform for the specific purpose of pandering for votes, and then claim that he tried to achieve those claims but was blocked by the forces aligned against him/her. And while a supporter might see that as an indication of his/her integrity in trying to live up to his/her promises, others might say that they were ridiculous claims to begin with, that never had a realistic shot at being a reality, and were only stated by the politician in order to pander for votes and tell people what they wanted to hear. I see this going on right now with the Demz, and the criticisms from other candidates of Warren for her platform of providing Medicare for all without giving explicit detail for how it will be paid for. Some are saying that she shouldn't make unrealistic claims, lest it become another weapon to be turned against Demz ala "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor." I'm of the viewpoint that candidates have a responsibility for utilizing responsible rhetoric, and that they should be held accountable for rhetoric that wasn't responsible – rather than be allowed to just claim victimhood at the hands of a political reality that was easily foreseeable. But many times supporters are quite content to just sign on for the victimhood defense. And they certainly have that right.
    .
    > (3) Similar things can be said for balancing the budget. Like it or not, no matter what Republican's did for all those supposedly zillions of years, *right now* the House is in the hands of Democrats. So no one is going to see it as TRUMP breaking a promise because the Democrats won't do something. The reason they did see BUSH as breaking a promise is Bush did turn around and change his mind about things like taxes and so on after the election. That was he, himself, turning around.
    .
    I guess I missed where Trump staked out his plan to deliver on that promise, but was prevented from doing so by Demz. And I kinda thought that both houses of Congress were in Trump's party for his first two years in office, but maybe I'm wrong about that. Because clearly, the problem was that Demz wouldn't do something. Or maybe I was right about that, and Trump made great efforts to reduce the debt and deficit, rather than propose drastic cuts to the budgets, and fought hard for them, but was blocked by people in his own party – and I just missed that? Yup. Trump can't be held accountable for making unrealistic promises as he pandered for votes (e.g. eliminate the debt and deficit while not cutting programs like Medicare) because he's such a victim. Such a victim when he isn't a master manipulator, that is.
    .
    I don't think that Trump is anywhere unique in this regard. My point is that the arguments that he is unique in delivering on promises, as a man of his word who doesn't care about political correctness, attributes that maybe we can attribute to his "uncanny instincts," are laughable. And my point is that what's funny to me is to see people who are usually extremely cynical about pandering from politicians, create an unfalisifiable logic to suspend their disbelieve that Trump is just like basically any politician.
    .
    Ah, the power of motivated reasoning. It's a sight to behold.
    .
    Ciao

  977. One of the better analyst of the ME probem. One part of the link.
    .
    “..This is where the Kurds come into the equation. Eastern Turkey is Kurdish, and maintaining stability there is a geopolitical imperative for Ankara. Elements of Turkey’s Kurds, grouped around the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK, have carried out militant attacks. Therefore it is in Turkey’s interest to clear its immediate frontiers from a Kurdish threat. The United States has no overriding interest in doing so and, indeed, has worked together with the Kurds in Iraq and Syria. But for the Turks, having Kurds on their border is an unpredictable threat. American dependency on the Kurds declines as U.S. involvement in the Middle East declines. Turkey becomes much more important to the United States in relation to Iran than the Kurds..”
    .
    “..Trump clearly feels that the wars in the Middle East must be wound down and that a relationship with Turkey is critical. The faction that is still focused on the Middle East sees this as a fundamental betrayal of the Kurds. Foreign policy is a ruthless and unsentimental process. The Kurds want to establish a Kurdish nation. The U.S. can’t and doesn’t back that. On occasion, the U.S. will join in a mutually advantageous alliance with the Kurds to achieve certain common goals. But feelings aside, the U.S. has geopolitical interests that sometimes include the Kurds and sometimes don’t – and the same can be said of the Kurds..”
    .
    https://geopoliticalfutures.com/the-origins-of-new-us-turkish-relations/

  978. I find this from Joshua is amusing.
    “..Ah, the power of motivated reasoning. It's a sight to behold..”

  979. Lucia, I'm confused by this part of the article:

    However, these couples do exist and their anguish is real. The couple described in the previous paragraph is one of them. (Although this description does not represent any real specific couple, it is, I believe, realistic enough.)

  980. RB: "…it is not surprising when a pedophile in Alabama can get 48.3% of the vote." [deplorables]
    .
    Joshua: "A few more comments and then this little foray over to the Blackboard is over with." [conversing with the deplorables]
    .
    It seems to be the underlying assumption that conservative or libertarians supporting conservatives must be mostly "deplorables" to the left. Hillary's uttered term was not untrue as far as she and her staff believed. I think this might be the most important and perplexing issue.
    .
    Taking Roy Moore, for example, (the media labeled pedophile), is it possible that 43% of Alabama voters did not fully trust the leftwing news? Is it possible that Moore would have had a convincing defense had he been charged or put on trial? Those questions are moot when the accusation of creepiness (whatever the standard for that is) is assumed to mean pedophilia.
    .
    Us deplorables have seen the "creepy" accusation used relentlessly by the left. They even used it on Biden. But it's mainly effective when used against a conservative. If one agrees that is true does it follow that conservative voters are more deplorable (less sensitive to morality) than Dems? One might logically conclude the opposite.
    .
    Listening to the Dems and CNN last night it occurred to me that every solution the Dems have involves concentrating more power to government, whether it be to coordinate regulating the climate or stopping big corporate corruption. None of them ever asked the question why more power in government would mean less corruption. I would think just the opposite. If my regulations and chances in court all depended on the power of critical bureaucrats why wouldn't I see it prudent to spend even a larger portion of my budget on lobbying and favors to those authorities? This is exactly how cleptocracies work, from Russia to banana republics.
    .
    Limited government depends of building an educated, moral and civic minded population. And Trusting Them. I don't see how the success of a political movement that justifies their actions by seeing half the country as "deplorables" (to dismiss their views) bodes well for our republic.

  981. With regard to Dems concentrating more power to the government I can think of some exceptions. They mainly include law enforcement against any individual or group that generally identifies left, undocumented, drug users, prisoners in general and Dem candidates running for office. Some large corporation execs are hoping it includes woke capitalists.

  982. > every solution the Dems have involves concentrating more power to government,

    I remember a TV ad for National Review, voiced by Bill Buckley, where he would describe an issue, have multiple choice answers for solutions, then describe his answer as the choice was circled, before going to the next issue. On every issue, one of the choices was 'special taxes'.

  983. "Wow. I was an active catholic as a kid. Never occurred to me somebody might be denied communion."
    .
    We had a divorced woman at my church, she attended but didn't get communion. Looking back I have to admire her commitment to the the church. During communion people get up pew by pew and she had to remain seated by herself in an empty row while the rest got communion, an obvious public shaming. Of course this prompted kids to ask what was going on. Under some circumstances a marriage can be annulled by the church to pretend it never happened. The Catholics are right up there with the best of them in the guilt/shame tactics.

  984. lucia (Comment #177095): "The reason *I* don't think he has "uncanny abilities" *in general* is that he makes a lot of mistakes and blunders. I think he COULD have gotten more done by changing tack at some points and so on. But perhaps his supporters think I'm wrong about how much he could have done if he did things differently. If so, they would be justified in thinking differently from me."

    We have grown accustomed to politicians who never utter a word until their talking points have been carefully crafted by speechwriters, vetted by any number of advisors, and tested with focus groups. Compared to that sanitized "communication", Trump is indeed a shock to the system. But I think it is a big part of why his supporters trust him.

    Trump tweets to please his base, troll his opponents, and to test how ideas are received. He does so boldly. So of course there are mistakes and blunders in comparison with the sanitized politics to which we have become accustomed. What is remarkable is that they are such a small fraction of the total.

    It is nice to fantasize about the perfect politician. For all his flaws, I can not think of any real person who I would want in the White House instead of Trump. Business-as-usual has failed.

  985. The concept of unfulfilled promises is a distraction, rationally the broken promises must be compared not against the absolute score keeping system but against the alternate reality of what might have occurred if the other side won, or would win.
    .
    Which choice will most likely better fulfill one's ideological preferences knowing that most promises face large headwinds?
    .
    For example, it wasn't a contest between building a 12 foot (R) or 10 foot (D) wall, it was a contest between building a wall (R) and (now) decriminalizing border crossing (D). Screaming "there's no wall, you should vote Democrat!" is incomprehensibly obtuse.
    .
    Joshua has been engaging in a 20,000 word novella that might as well be titled "Don't you see how awful Trump is? Don't you see! Don't you see!!!!". He is not alone here of course, this fills the pages of countless media outlets on slow news days.
    .
    Your side is evidently flawed, therefore the only logical conclusion is to join my side. The response being: Yes my side is admittedly flawed but your conclusion is irrational for obvious reasons. Alternately if people stated their ideological preferences and there was a compelling argument that the other side better fulfilled those preference then the conversation would be interesting.
    .
    As it is Trump novellas are boring, repetitive, and a sign of insincere partisan talking points ahead. There is some value in team building for your own side and just the emotional fulfillment of a good old fashioned rant, but don't confuse that with engagement with the other side. We all live in glass houses here.

  986. Tom Scharf (Comment #177106)
    October 16th, 2019 at 11:01 am
    "Wow. I was an active catholic as a kid. Never occurred to me somebody might be denied communion."
    _________

    I was an active Southern Baptist as a kid, and was taught Catholics were misguided and going to hell. I had never heard of communion, but about once a year we drank grape juice from silver cups and ate saltine crackers in some kind of ceremony.

    Catholics were a small minority (about 5%) in the town where I grew up, and were regarded with suspicion and disapproval by Southern Baptist, who were a large majority. I recall the minister of my church making disparaging remarks about Catholicism in his sermons. I learned Catholics do bad things like drinking wine and praying to Mary instead of Jesus and God, and their priests talk mumbo jumbo and are no better than witch doctors.

    Little good those teachings did. I started drinking and married a Catholic woman.

  987. Tom,
    ————–
    During communion people get up pew by pew and she had to remain seated by herself in an empty row while the rest got communion, an obvious public shaming.
    —————
    Jesus, I *did* see that. It absolutely never crossed my mind that they might be sitting because they were *refused* communion. Rebellious kid that I was, I figured they just didn't *wan't* communion. There were times I was sort of jealous that they had (or so I thought) the option and I did not have the option to opt out (cause of being a kid).
    Huh. Thanks.

  988. "I started drinking and married a Catholic woman."
    LOL, remind me not to say that when asked how I met my wife.
    .
    As a non-Catholic with often occasions to attend church, I have sat on the lonely bench while the row files past, it never occurred to me either that I would (or could) be refused communion. I don't live in a small rural town where I'm sure that could happen. But I still wonder if the woman Lucia saw was being shunned or self-imposing it for her regrets or even shame.
    .
    I'm 99% certain that the priests in my church would say nothing if I, or any other unqualified Catholic, marched up for a snack to be put in my hand. (They don't hand-feed you anymore since disease.) But in a rural town it could be different. Perhaps it explains a lot about culture and morality. In a large town you can stop going to church (or temple) and nobody notices. You eventually find substitutes for what religion used serve. My religion became science at about fourth grade.

  989. Tom, I agree with your last comment. Joshua gets his image of conservatives from internet comment sections and not from smart and articulate ones like Andrew Klavan or Ben Shapiro. No wonder he's ill informed on conservatives and shows them such disrespect. The consolation is that he is typical of most of the left with the result that they are unable to devise winning strategies or arguments

  991. OK_Max
    **I learned Catholics do bad things like drinking wine and praying to Mary instead of Jesus and God, and their priests talk mumbo jumbo and are no better than witch doctors.**

    Mumbo jumbo? Sounds pre-Vatican council II. You must be old…
    (OK… the mumbo jumbo only stopped after I was a kid. But. Still.)

  992. Still unpacking Joshua's concluding remarks.
    " I'm of the viewpoint that candidates have a responsibility for utilizing responsible rhetoric, and that they should be held accountable for rhetoric that wasn't responsible – rather than be allowed to just claim victimhood at the hands of a political reality that was easily foreseeable. But many times supporters are quite content to just sign on for the victimhood defense. And they certainly have that right."
    .
    I think most can agree with you, Joshua. If only more Demz felt the way you do about unrealistic promises… However, Trump's call out: "Who is going to pay for the wall?" was a bit of fun hyperbole at rallys, as was "Lock her up."
    .
    You see, most US citizens how have followed issues know that Mexico has been a not-so-helpful neighbor since about the time we drew our border for them. They also know that if Hillary were anyone else she would have been prosecuted. Somebody might have told Trump that we could tax Mexican remittances to fund the wall and that justice might catch up with Hillary naturally. But, those are just thin excuses for not accepting the reality that most are resigned to admit. Speaking of thin excuses for not accepting reality, the Dems last night repeated claims Trump's win was not legitimate, and did so without challenge. Talk about some fun hyperbole, Hillary jokes: "Why wouldn't they bring me in? I would beat him again."
    .
    Joshua, only the Dems had a filibuster-poof majority in the senate while controlling the house. That's how we lost our plans and doctors, remember?

  993. "Who is going to pay for the wall?" was a bit of fun hyperbole at rallys

    No it wasn't. I saw Trump on Hannity during the campaign saying he wouldn't ask Mexico for a check, as that would be humiliating. Instead, America would get the money back in other ways, like remittances, tariffs, and savings from not having to spend on illegal immigrants.

  994. I am shocked (SHOCKED!) Joshua thinks Trump is a terrible person ans his supporters mostly engaged in motivated reasoning, which totally blinds them to the evil that is Trump; save for that, they would see the errors of their ways and vote for someone (anyone!) else.
    .
    Of course, Joshua would never be engaged in motivated reasoning, in spite of being told on this thread by multiple supporters of Trump that they are fully aware of his many faults, but support him in spite of those faults, *because he supports most policies they want, and opposes most policies they oppose*. Any Judge Hillary would have appointed to the SC would have worked diligently to undermine the plain words and original meaning of the constitution. Any significant public policy Hillary would have proposed would reduce personal liberty, and increase the power of the Federal government to control people's lives. Like Obama, Hillary would simply refuse to enforce laws she disagreed with… oh say, like immigration laws. Trump was simply the lesser of evils.

    WRT fulfilling promises: an unprincipled slime bag like Sally Yeats refusing to either do her job or resign brought only applause from the left, while it horrified Trump's supporters. Federal judges (mostly appointed by Democrats, of course) have blocked Trumps executive orders, even when these only reversed Obama's executive orders. The left always applauds this asymmetry, while Trump's supporters are justifiably outraged. Most of Trump's policies have been actively blocked by filibuster in the Senate before January 2019, or blocked by the House since January 2019. The left applauds, Trump's supporters are outraged.
    .
    In the end, it all boils down to what policies you want to support. Trump is an unlikely champion, but far better than the alternatives… and that includes numbskulls like Elizabeth Warren.

  995. Yes Steve, We are in an unprecedented political soft civil war. The Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) have simply decided to declare the 2016 election illegitimate and have run a constant political campaign to find dirt on Trump, using every tool at their disposal including an unprecedented secret star chamber proceeding in the House (in which the minority cannot subpoena witnesses and there is no White House representation) and earlier an intelligence investigation using foreign governments to infiltrate the Trump campaign while its officials were oversees. What they will do is use selective leaks to their media scribes to try to tarnish Trump enough that he will lose in 2020.

    It's actually surprising that Trump continues to fight given the inherent unfairness of these probably illegal uses of government power using Resistors among his alleged subordinates. The level of dishonesty of Schiff is pretty breathtaking and I don't think there is any way their secret tribunal can ever get Republicans to come over to their side. Thus, not only is it probably illegal but its not even designed to do anything but further divide the country, exactly as Tulsi Gabbard said in the debate. Why is Tulsi even a Democrat? She is actually sane and honest.

  996. As a longtime denizen of the climate blogosphere during which I have dramatically increased my knowledge of fluid dynamics, I've clashed with Joshua quite a few times. I honestly don't know where he finds the time for his lengthy dissertations. I don't think he has any scientific expertise so he's certainly not learning science. He focuses on longwinded psychological analyses of climate skeptics and trying to tell Judith Curry to change her scientific opinion. His speciality is to use microscopic textual overanalysis to find inconsistencies in someone else's position or convict them of motivated reasoning. Since I've never met him, it is indeed odd that he thinks he knows this much about me. A classical case of someone with too much time on their hands.

  997. SteveF (Comment #177117): "multiple supporters of Trump that they are fully aware of his many faults, but support him in spite of those faults"
    .
    Indeed. And some of us were won over by Trump in spite of being aware of his faults and repelled by them.

    ———-
    David Young (Comment #177118): "It's actually surprising that Trump continues to fight given the inherent unfairness of these probably illegal uses of government power using Resistors among his alleged subordinates."
    .
    That is the main reason I am convinced that Trump is acting out of genuine patriotism, not mere ego or self-interest.
    ———
    David Young: "Why is Tulsi even a Democrat? She is actually sane and honest."

    Yes, but she is also very far left.

    Gabbard is a case study in what happens to polite politicians when they cross the establishment. CNN and the New York Times have set out on a campaign of character assassination, claiming that she is a traitor and Russian agent.

    I think that Trump's combativeness is both his nature and a necessity.

  998. "Why is Tulsi even a Democrat? She is actually sane and honest."
    .
    The left is now too crazy for Heraldo and Alan Dershowitz to join in the Trump smearing but not for George Will and Mitt Romney. This is why unlike Joshua I don't give a lot of weight to other opinions if I have all the same information. The left's mentality of any means necessary; that process doesn't matter, is a loser to most deep thinking people. I find Tulsi charming but I doubt she will ever understand the inherent flaws in left-wing ideology, neither will Romney.
    .
    I once saw famous NYT columnist Thomas Friedman give a talk on CSPAN about his visits to Afghanistan. He was asked (just after Obama took office) if there will be a beneficial result in the end for all of America's investment. Friedman paused for a moment and said, "I think I've come the realization over the last 10 years that America can intervene to stop bad people from doing bad. But we can't *make* people do good." I am positive to this day he doesn't realize that he cited the fundamental flaw of liberalism. Maybe just before his death it will dawn on him that good must be inspired and that ever more governmental forms, fees and fines have no such nurturing effect. People just hire experts to game the system and regulators. Appealing to civic duty, showing respect or honoring philanthropy achieves much more. On an individual level, giving someone the dignity of a job is a league apart from handing them a loaded debit card.

  1001. David,
    >>I don't think he has any scientific expertise so he's certainly not learning science. He focuses on longwinded psychological analyses…
    ———————-
    Sounds like me.

Comments are closed.