While I can completely believe that Trump had his adversaries audited by the IRS, because it is one of the things that he personally fears most, so thinks it’s a nice weapon to unleash on others, comma, I wish people would stop placing Comey in the “Trump Adversary” category. That fucking prick Comey had more to do with getting Trump elected in the first place than even Putin did.
Statistics and projection-bingo all in one post brought a tear of joy to this weary soul.
How about “Trump patsy”?
One thing which may matter in these calculations is that Comey and Mccabe had the same job: Director of the FBI. Would that change the odds at all?
Here is a current (July 7) article in New York Times discussion the statistical chances of this, in some mathematical detail:
As several of the comments on that article point out, the article implicitly assumes that there aren’t any other Trump enemies who “just happened” to get an invasive audit. To do a proper analysis requires a cross-check of an enemies list (admittedly fuzzy around the edges, but constrained by the criterion “people who annoyed Trumpelthinskin sufficiently that he remembers who they are”) against the invasive audit list.
EDIT: One possible way to objectively make an enemies list is to comb his late lamentable Twitter account for personal denunciations.
I have no doubt at all that Trump himself is entirely capable of ordering the IRS to target somebody for his own retaliatory purposes and that he’d be very happy to do so.
I have reservations, though, which revolve around uncertainty in how, exactly, this would be accomplished. How does he issue the order? To whom? And then how does that person relay the command? What is the exact line of communication? Are there procedural rules to prevent this kind of abuse? How would those rules be circumvented? Would doing so leave any kind of a records trail, whether explicit or implicit? And so on, and so on.
Alternatively, is this more of a “troublesome priest” situation where a mid-level apparatchik takes it upon himself to impose the audits, without explicit direction, with the plan of reaching out later to the White House and claiming this as a bona fide of loyalty in a request for reward or promotion?
Basically, I’m not prepared to accept this as anything more than a rumor without more concrete corroboration of the logistical details.
I don’t see how that works, unless you don’t believe that 1)the audits actually occurred and/or 2)it is highly improbable that two people who both happen to be on Cheato’s shit list would both be selected for a one-in-tens-of-thousands audit.
What I mean is, I am withholding any belief that the audits were a result of Trump’s direct intervention, for the reasons I laid out. As I mentioned, a “troublesome priest” kind of scenario feels more plausible, unless and until somebody can explain exactly how a president can exert influence over on-the-ground IRS activity without tripping the flags that are intended to prevent such interference.
That’s possible. Not very smart, given that his go-to solution to any problem is to throw somebody under the bus, but not being very smart is hardly a disqualification for MAGA acolytes or wannabes.
Unless it was one of his twitter spasms, that’s not how Oranganus was raised. He have someone else order the audits. He could dodge the direct association while still delivering the message. Your basic Mob Boss move.
Yes, but then it gets extemely complicated, because you would have to define, the level of connection. Like in the example I gave both Hunter Biden and Vindman were associated with the Ukraine impeachment, is that the same level of closeness? Ideally what you want it the set of pairs of people that are high enough on Trumps enemies list and connected close enough that having them audited in this way would be suspicious enough to make it on to the national news. This set is very ill defined.
Very much this.
“Hey, the a-holes are talking about releasing my tax returns while I’m under audit. Wonder how that so-and-so Comey would like getting audited. Now where’s that bronzer”
The commentary in this article is a ripping good thrashing of this man and those other complicit justices. Fucker Carlson will be outraged. Perhaps we should be above the fray, show some decorum, try to find common ground. Nah, the Reich-wingers won’t, they’ll lie and cheat and bellow “we’re victims”. Brass knuckles.
Definitely includes the two people in question, though. Don’t forget Trump took away McCabe’s pension!
Definitely chuckled at the ‘so he aborted his dinner via a back ally connection’ line.
You touched on something I was wondering about, seeing as it’s been years since I’ve messed with combinations.
From just some back of the envelope calculations, if Trump’s enemies list has 100 names, then picking two off of that list would have odds of about 1/90,000. If a third person turns up, however, the odds jump to about 1/28,000,000 (assuming a 1/30,000 chance of being audited).
(100/30,000 times 99/30,000 (times 98/30,000)). Do I have this correct?
I wonder if anyone else is going to be revealed.
Roy Moore, Trump Enabler, loses like a loser to Sacha Baron Cohen in court.
“For far too long the American people have been subjected to the antics of Sasha Baron Cohen. His pusillanimous and fraudulent conduct must be stopped. We will appeal,” the couple said in a statement texted to The Associated Press."
Yes, but he might be in trouble if paedophiles sue him for associating them with Roy Moore.
What they really mean is “for far too long Americans have been subjected to the consequences of the First Amendment and to the high standards that public figures must meet to prove defamation, especially when they are actual pedophiles and sexual predators, and twice removed from the bench for judicial misconduct.”
Not sure what Moore thinks he’s going to appeal or on what grounds. This is already an appeals court judgment upholding a lower court decision siding with Sacha Baron Cohen.