Cont: All things Trump + Russia Part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Craig4 said:
Virginia is the only race with any predictive value. The Democrat in New Jersey was running with an incumbent Republican who was the least popular governor in the country. We don't know what would have happened in Alabama if the Republican hadn't been a child molester. The Red to Blue seats in the Virginia House of Delegates is the only real data point that means anything and it's one state, a swing state.
Click to expand...
Republicans might well be using the fear factor to rev up their donors, of course.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Now that is interesting. Because one of the pieces of evidence that suggests collusion between the Trump transition team and Russia is that they softened the promise of aid to Ukraine from "lethal defensive weapons" to "appropriate assistance". If that is the case and they're now walking that back, I wonder what that says about the current relationship between the two?
Click to expand...
Perhaps nobody told the DoS and Pentagon of the change of GOP policy?

"Signed off by the state department and the Pentagon earlier this year" could even refer to the final weeks of the Obama administration. I can't find the actual statement on the DoS site for clarification.
 
Craig4 said:
We don't know what would have happened in Alabama if the Republican hadn't been a child molester.
Click to expand...

Err... we pretty much do. The Republican would fairly certainly have won. That Doug Jones barely won despite having somewhat overwhelming advantages in pretty much everything other than base party affiliation is rather telling.
 
Aridas said:
Err... we pretty much do. The Republican would fairly certainly have won. That Doug Jones barely won despite having somewhat overwhelming advantages in pretty much everything other than base party affiliation is rather telling.
Click to expand...
You say "barely won", but he hasn't won at all until he actually takes his seat. It'll be very telling if he never does.
 
Of course there was Russian interference in the election. But it seems likely that for the Trump team the evidence for "collusion" may stop short and become a grey area of "contact". This I predict gives a result that enables the enquiry to justify the time and cost of the investigation but stopping short of a route to remove the President. Flynn is part of the scheme to bring about this result nothing more.

This will take until way into 2018 by which time we are back to letting the voters decide on Trump. Incidentally I think that is too early to see anything negative from the tax cuts.
 
Craig4 said:
Virginia is the only race with any predictive value. The Democrat in New Jersey was running with an incumbent Republican who was the least popular governor in the country. We don't know what would have happened in Alabama if the Republican hadn't been a child molester. The Red to Blue seats in the Virginia House of Delegates is the only real data point that means anything and it's one state, a swing state.
Click to expand...

I think it's worth noting that in Virginia, Democratic Party votes by far outnumbered Republican votes and if it weren't for gerrymandering the Democrats would control their statehouse.

Slate: The Democrats won by a landslide in Virginia. The Republicans’ gerrymandered map still stood strong.

I don't think the Democrats are going to put up with this much longer. We might be stuck with the Electoral College for the foreseeable future making rural votes count more than urban votes. But gerrymandering to this degree has to go.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I think it's worth noting that in Virginia, Democratic Party votes by far outnumbered Republican votes and if it weren't for gerrymandering the Democrats would control their statehouse.

Slate: The Democrats won by a landslide in Virginia. The Republicans’ gerrymandered map still stood strong.

I don't think the Democrats are going to put up with this much longer. We might be stuck with the Electoral College for the foreseeable future making rural votes count more than urban votes. But gerrymandering to this degree has to go.
Click to expand...

A non gerrymandered map favors republicans. Democrats naturally cluster into small areas.

The electoral college works fine if you continue expanding Congress.
 
Zambo said:
Of course there was Russian interference in the election. But it seems likely that for the Trump team the evidence for "collusion" may stop short and become a grey area of "contact". ....
Click to expand...
Hi new member with the same old conclusion we keep hearing that is drawn before we have all the facts.

Why do you think the Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee interviewed two key witnesses in NY when the vote for the tax bill was being taken thereby preventing any Democratic legislators on the committee from being able to question those two key witnesses? Think they might be trying to hide something?

WA Po House interview with longtime Trump aide fuels tension on intelligence panel
Committee staff members are expected to interview Rhona Graff, Trump’s longtime gatekeeper, on Dec. 22, according to multiple people familiar with the plans. In addition, they have tentatively scheduled an interview in New York this month with longtime Trump business associate Felix Sater.

The rare out-of-state interviews are the latest of several factors prompting Democrats to accuse Republicans of trying to wrap up the probe early in response to pressure from party leaders.
Click to expand...

What do you think Flynn traded for his lenient plea bargain?

Think Trump might indeed have been up to his eyeballs in money-laundering Russian Oligarch money?

If there is no there there, what the hell is all this crap about?
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
Hi new member with the same old conclusion we keep hearing that is drawn before we have all the facts.

Why do you think the Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee interviewed two key witnesses in NY when the vote for the tax bill was being taken thereby preventing any Democratic legislators on the committee from being able to question those two key witnesses? Think they might be trying to hide something?

WA Po House interview with longtime Trump aide fuels tension on intelligence panel

What do you think Flynn traded for his lenient plea bargain?

Think Trump might indeed have been up to his eyeballs in money-laundering Russian Oligarch money?

If there is no there there, what the hell is all this crap about?
Click to expand...

You don't know that Mueller pursued leniency. It could have been the plea bargain he thought appropriate.

You also don't know why republicans want to end it early.
 
BobTheCoward said:
A non gerrymandered map favors republicans. Democrats naturally cluster into small areas.

The electoral college works fine if you continue expanding Congress.
Click to expand...

Districts are set to have approximately equal numbers of people; density doesn't matter.

And NO, the electoral college doesn't work fine if the intent is a democratic result. I'm tired of campaigns focusing on "battle ground states," and I'm tired of people not bothering to vote because the outcome in their state is foregone conclusion.
 
WilliamSeger said:
Districts are set to have approximately equal numbers of people; density doesn't matter.

And NO, the electoral college doesn't work fine if the intent is a democratic result. I'm tired of campaigns focusing on "battle ground states," and I'm tired of people not bothering to vote because the outcome in their state is foregone conclusion.
Click to expand...

But Democrats pack themselves into a small area.

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

As to the electoral college, if an electoral vote was proportional to population like it was in the 1790s and early 1800s, it would create outcomes more likely to mirror a democratic result.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
So what evidence do you actually have of Mueller's intent regarding Flynn?
Click to expand...
Basic inference. If Flynn was the highest value target Mueller had, he would have charged him with everything to make as much stick as possible. That's just how the justice system works. Instead he pleads guilty to basically a slap on the wrist. The only reason that a skilled prosecutor would do that is if Flynn flipped, and was providing testimony on an even higher valued target, which in this case is Trump, Pence, or both.
 
Beelzebuddy said:
Basic inference. If Flynn was the highest value target Mueller had, he would have charged him with everything to make as much stick as possible. That's just how the justice system works. Instead he pleads guilty to basically a slap on the wrist. The only reason that a skilled prosecutor would do that is if Flynn flipped, and was providing testimony on an even higher valued target, which in this case is Trump, Pence, or both.
Click to expand...

I don't think that inference is sufficiently substantiated by the evidence.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Hi new member with the same old conclusion we keep hearing that is drawn before we have all the facts.

What do you think Flynn traded for his lenient plea bargain?

Think Trump might indeed have been up to his eyeballs in money-laundering Russian Oligarch money?

If there is no there there, what the hell is all this crap about?
Click to expand...

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

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

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

It's about Trump fired Comey which could be obstruction of justice. Then Comey was weakened by the "leaker" jabs and time. We are left with an investigation that I predict fizzles out and we are left with let the voters decide with a second term or not.
 
Zambo said:
My conclusion was there is Russian interference, the rest was prediction.

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

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

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

These two threads detail what evidence was in the public domain as of two weeks ago:

https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/941120497823215616
https://twitter.com/SethAbramson/status/941376110381731841

Since then there's been more evidence of obstruction re Comey, and a tweet yesterday that people much more au fait with the law than I am claim is straight-up witness tampering. And the removal of Baker should also be a tiny little additional weight in the evidence pile, as should the recent attacks on McCabe.

It'll also be worth keeping a watch on what happens to Jim Rybicki, David Bowditch, and Carl Ghattas, going forwards, given that they're the other three people that it's alleged Comey spoke to about Trump attempting to get him to drop the Russia investigation and, on a separate occasion, to go easy on Flynn. If we start seeing them being attacked and/or removed from their positions over the next few weeks or months, that may serve as a greater indication of something being afoot.
 
Zambo said:
I think Flynn has traded contact with the Russians, this provides a safety net for the investigation that there is something there, but perhaps not collusion.
Click to expand...


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

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

It may not be direct collusion, but it's definitely more than just contact.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Prove that is a strategy that prosecutors pursue and how often. Until you do, it is simply anecdote.
Click to expand...

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

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

A 2001 graduate of Harvard Law School, Seth worked for nearly a decade as a criminal defense attorney and criminal investigator, and is now a professor of Communication Arts & Sciences at University of New Hampshire. His several teaching areas include digital journalism, legal writing, and legal advocacy. Trained as a criminal investigator at Georgetown University (1996) and then the Harvard Criminal Justice Institute (2000-2001), Seth is a current member in good standing of the New Hampshire Bar and the Federal Bar for the District of New Hampshire. He has worked for three public defenders—two state, one federal—representing over 2,000 criminal defendants over that time in cases ranging from juvenile delinquency to first-degree murder.
Click to expand...
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Well, he keeps being brought up in these threads because he's covering aspects of this case that nobody else is and in a way that nobody else is, and he's been doing it long enough that months after he's predicted things they have come to pass, so here's Seth Abramson again. From the day the news about Flynn broke and from a couple of weeks later.

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

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

Not to mention, criminal investigators do not use the appropriate skeptical and scientific methods. They employ crime scene investigation technology with no basis in science.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
All that leads me to think he has no clue how frequently prosecutors pursue which strategy. Human beings are notoriously bad at understanding the percentages of their activity. For example, doctors are unable to accurately assess their own c section rates.
Click to expand...

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

My conclusion was there is Russian interference, the rest was prediction.
Click to expand...
Be sure to claim your Told You So points if you're right, you won't be credited automatically.

I think Flynn has traded contact with the Russians, this provides a safety net for the investigation that there is something there, but perhaps not collusion.
Click to expand...
You say that as if the purpose of the investigation is to justify itself. It isn't. Its purpose - and Mueller's remit - is to find out what went on. Flynn has a lot to offer in that regard and will have been expertly squeezed for it.

Let's speculate that the Russian Oligarchs bought 100 × USD3 million condo units at a premium of 20%. Is it money laundering or an investment and is that amount enough to bring the President down?
Click to expand...
It certainly ought to be. Who pays a premium on a poperty investment? Or do you mean a less substantial kind of investment, such as having something on Trump he wouldn't want known about?

It's about Trump fired Comey which could be obstruction of justice. Then Comey was weakened by the "leaker" jabs and time. We are left with an investigation that I predict fizzles out and we are left with let the voters decide with a second term or not.
Click to expand...
If Trump fired Comey to obstruct the investigation it was obstruction of justice. The case for that isn't "weakened" by Trump's twitter jibes.

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

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


* (I find the Quote button doesn't work on some posts and never have worked out why not)
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Are you seriously saying that his expertise in these matters is what makes him ignorant of these matters? Presumably people without expertise in these matters wouldn't be an acceptable source because they don't have expertise in these matters. What would you consider a good source?
Click to expand...

Peer reviewed research.

An expert without research is no expert at all.
 
BobTheCoward said:
But Democrats pack themselves into a small area.

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

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

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

720px-DifferingApportionment.svg.png


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

Again, nope, not unless you drop the two extra electoral votes each state gets. That's the source of the unequal representation.
 
WilliamSeger said:
Again, nope, not unless you drop the two extra electoral votes each state gets. That's the source of the unequal representation.
Click to expand...

You can set the size of the house such that the electoral college is proportional with those two specific ones factored in. It is a variant of the Wyoming rule.
 
CapelDodger said:
* (I find the Quote button doesn't work on some posts and never have worked out why not)
Click to expand...

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

And do you know of any?

An expert without research is no expert at all.
Click to expand...

This is equivocation. Abramson has, of course, done research. He's researched the subject by learning about it at Harvard, participating in it for over a decade, and now teaching it. If you think that the law department of Harvard doesn't teach its students what the standard procedure for prosecuting a case is, then you're dreaming. What do you think they do teach them?
 
WilliamSeger said:
I have that problem with Firefox but not Chrome, IE, or Edge. Firefox also seems to have other Javascript and plugin issues, and after the last release where most of my favorite plugins aren't supported, I'm about ready to abandon Firefox. It was nice back when IE was a clunker, but times have changed.
Click to expand...

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

Anyway, that seems like a discussion for another thread, so I won't derail this one further.
 
BobTheCoward said:
You can set the size of the house such that the electoral college is proportional with those two specific ones factored in. It is a variant of the Wyoming rule.
Click to expand...

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


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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is Trump getting "twitchy"?
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
And do you know of any?



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

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

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

This is stupid.

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

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

It doesn't become a non-ridiculous thing to say because we're talking about the law rather than driving a car.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Even better, have state legislatures choose the electors.
Click to expand...

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

So?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom