I have come to believe that Dr. Sagan nailed it:
One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.
― Carl Sagan
I don’t know that it would have been useful to give a more ambiguous example to demonstrate the difference between the two words at question. I was discussing grammar not Hunter Biden, to the largest extent possible. The definitions of the words shouldn’t change from when we’re discussing the Trump family or the Biden family. And we should use the most easily imagined and least confusing to explain what the words mean.
If we’re talking Biden and impeachment then, sure, a better analogy might be a police officer trying to get a warrant, and submitting various evidence to show probable cause. Among that evidence might be things like “a witness said that the subject had brown hair and Bob has brown hair” or “another witness said that Bob yelled ‘Fuck the police!’” These are both really far from being conclusive, smoking gun evidence of Bob’s guilt. There are reasonable reasons to conclude that they aren’t, alone, proof of his guilt. But that doesn’t stop them from being admissible evidence, to submit to the judge, to make a request. There should be more than that, if you want to get the judge to sign off, but those elements could be in the package of evidence. They aren’t “lies” that need to be restricted from the discussion and trying to play like they are is just playing swan games.
In the case of the Bidens and the IRS agents, the “Big Guy” matter is pretty flimsy. It’s not 100% clear that Joe Biden is “the big guy” - though it would need to be some influential person in Hunter Biden’s vicinity, so it’s reasonable to think that Joe is a contender. If he is “the big guy”, it’s not clear that he was ever actually a part of the deal, or just that someone assumed that they were buying access to Joe when, in fact, that wasn’t in the running. And, most importantly, we know that the Big Guy was never included in the deal in the end. Ultimately, there’s no probable cause because there was never a payment.
And, with the China case, even if there had been a payment or some quid-pro-quo, it doesn’t matter because Joe Biden was a free citizen with every right to do business in China. From a criminal standpoint, there’s no issue.
In terms of a foreign influence issue, for evaluating Joe Biden for the Presidency, we don’t know whether Hunter was really speaking for his father or just playing pretend; whether the commitment that “Joe” asked the Chinese businessman for, was for something personal to himself (e.g. versus the businessman doing something for the Federal government); whether the commitment was for something financial (e.g. bribes) or something personal (e.g. arranging a tour of Shanghai for Joe’s granddaughter who would be traveling through China); and we don’t know whether Joe was being serious or making a joke.
In the interests of national security, it doesn’t hurt to ask these questions and an honest and reasonable House of Representatives might do so without animosity. But for the same people that voted against taking any actions against Trump to vote that the evidence here is as concerning as we had for Trump or more extreme than we had against Trump is nonsensical.
All that being said, the testimony of the IRS agents is real, on the record evidence. It pushes Joe Biden towards guilt of foreign influence more than if there was no such thing. But, likewise, having brown hair might push Bob more towards being the arsonist than a blond guy, but it doesn’t have any large weight. It’s not a lie, it is evidence, but it’s not deeply meaningful on its own.
Honey Badger here is like my wife; she loves to berate and criticize people that are already subjected to the scrutiny she claims that wasn’t there. Or doing what authorities told them to do already.
But I think that still misses my point. The witness who said Bob yelled “Fuck the police!” offers a detail possibly related to a crime—arson. Someone in the analogy did, in fact, torch a police station.
To say that the details Sam shared are evidence—even if we stipulate for the moment that they’re verifiably true—must be only to the extent that they’re evidence of…something, yes?
What criminal act occurred, or is likely to have occurred, by virtue of Joe briefly discussing the weather with one of Hunter’s business associates? That’s ass backwards. Don’t we start with a crime, or at least a likely crime, then look for evidence?
To go back to your first analogy, it would be as if we called Bob an arson suspect before we knew it was arson. Even worse, it would be suspecting Bob of committing some crime against the police, something yet discovered, based on the fact that someone heard him shout, “Fuck the police!”
Sorry if I’m missing your point.
I would urge caution here, too.
Shapley and Ziegler’s testimony is basically about what they thought or felt was happening. It’s largely uncorroborated.
Also (I noted the quotes, but could find the source if asked):
Ziegler said Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney for Delaware, David Weiss, told him he agreed with certain felony charges, but there was resistance from other officials inside the Department of Justice who thought a jury may be sympathetic to Hunter Biden’s drug addiction and the death of his brother, Beau Biden.
David said to us…‘I’m getting some concern from the Department of Justice Tax Division, the evidence that might come in related to his substance abuse and the death of his brother, Beau Biden, those might affect the jury’s opinion’,’ Ziegler said.
This is what one of the GOP’s whistleblowers says happened. In other words, Weiss was told that the DoJ didn’t want to take a case that might not support their ~93% conviction rate. That’s a choice prosecutors make day in and day out.
There’s precedent here:
No, they keep accusing you of lying. If you stopped doing that, people would be much more amenable to hearing your opinions.
Lying about his lying is a common Sam thing, alas.
When a president or anyone in a high security position is concerned you look for a possibility of a crime. In the vast number of cases only a short glance would usually clear things up but good intentions should never be assumed.
It seems as if the GOP-led House of Representatives has been doing nothing but investigating the entire Biden family.
Isn’t that enough for you?
ETA: If Hunter and Joe Biden were really so corrupt, do you think that Trump would have needed to threaten to withhold $300,000,000 of US taxpayer money (military aid to prevent further Russian aggression – something that turned out to be pretty important, don’t you think?) if Ukraine wouldn’t fabricate incriminating evidence against the Bidens?
And do you think that Trump would tell Zelenskyy to work with Rudy Giuliani instead of Trump’s consigliere, Bill Barr, then Attorney General?
And do you think that a good faith Trump would ask for ANY critical information from a country that HE (Trump) swore was corrupt to its core?
Really??
Huh? Um, no you don’t. If a crime occurred, or was likely to have occurred, you investigate. “Who knows? Somebody might have done something” is not a predicate for a criminal investigation.
Wait, I’ve rethought this. We should open an investigation into Biden committing an unsolved murder that occurred recently in D.C. It’s certainly possible. He was in D.C. when it happened.
In the Ukraine case, I don’t think it’s reasonable to assume that when they talk about “my guy” or “my guy’s travel plans” that they are talking about Joe Biden, because if you read the full e-mails you will see things like “Our guy needs to set himself up as the anti-Victor Pinchuk (coal and steel oligarch)”. This seems to be a good argument that “their guy” is a Ukrainian national, possibly Myron Zlochevsky.
I also recall seeing (although I can’t find it at the moment) a Ukrainian “big guy” e-mail that stated that the 2014 Ukrainian election was going to be the pivotal event in the life and career of the “big guy”, which argues against it being Joe Biden.
The implication that “their guy” is Joe Biden, even though their own evidence says otherwise, is proof of their general dishonesty.
And, with the China case, the thing I find interesting is how the e-mails were cherry-picked and what we DON’T see.
We see the e-mail that says 10% for the “Big Guy”, but the published portion of the e-mail chain ends there. If there were any replies, the NY Post decided not to publish them. All we know is that a few days later the deal was cut and Joe Biden was not included.
My supposition is that the responses behind that contain further suggestions as to the identity of the Big Guy, and it’s not Joe Biden. Given their propensity to refer to the foreign nationals that they are doing business with as “their guy”, my guess is that if the reporting were honest, it will turn out that the “Big Guy” is a Chinese national.
ETA because I don’t want to do a new post.
An LLC is like a car. A car can be used to commit crimes. However, since cars are very common and the vast majority of them are not used to commit crimes, the fact that someone owns one, or even several, cars is not evidence that they are criminals.
Yep, that describes the current inquiry very well.
My version – great minds …
“Shell corporations are legitimate, legal entities that do not possess actual assets or run business operations. They function as transactional vehicles for a variety of firms and for a myriad of purposes. Generally, they are used to obtain financing, maintain control over a conglomerate company, allow firms more favorable tax treatment, and occasionally facilitate money laundering as well as other illegal activities.”
If you search my home, it is theoretically possible that you may find firearms. Firearms are frequently used in crimes. That does NOT mean that I committed a crime with the theoretical firearms in my house.
It’s hard to imagine making it any clearer, but – to reinforce the basic problem – it falls on deaf ears.
It’s Sam-ception. It’s lies all the way down. Maybe Sam can provide a cite of this for us.
Just an addition …
From shortly after Trump’s “perfect call” with Volodomyr Zelenskyy:
In a “60 Minutes” interview that aired Sunday, Scott Pelley asked House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy about the phone call between Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that now sits at the center of Democrats’ impeachment inquiry into the President. And then this happened:
Pelley: What do you make of this exchange? President Zelensky says, “We are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes.” And President Trump replies, “I would like you to do us a favor though.”
McCarthy: You just added another word.
Pelley: No, it’s in the transcript.
McCarthy: He said - “I’d like you to do a favor though?”
Pelley: Yes, it’s in the White House transcript.
The implication is obvious: It’s Kevin McCarthy’s belief that – if Trump had said, “I’d like you to do a favor, though,” that Trump would clearly have been trying to extort Zelenskyy into “digging up” (ie, fabricating) damning evidence on Joe Biden, Trump’s likely political opponent. McCarthy tried to side with Trump, implying that there was no way Trump would have said that.
But – of course – it’s exactly what Trump said.
Good grief. Every time I’ve heard that quote I’ve heard the “though.” Ad infinitum. It’s been played over and over.
And McCarthy thought it wasn’t there???
I guess he is as stupid as people say.
Well, actually we don’t have evidence that a murder has been commited, but there could have been.
Exactly. Better safe than sorry. We should lock him up as a flight risk in the meantime. Who knows what crimes we haven’t discovered that he committed?
If we take it as true that a person who wants a job dealing with deeply sensitive information should be completely free of foreign entanglement then “foreign entanglement” is our “crime”.
Likewise, it may be legal to perform in adult movies. But, if you’re looking for a job as a teacher, having that in your career history will make you ineligible and any hint that you could have worked in the adult industry would be something that the hiring agents could reasonably investigate. In the realm of teaching, having any connection to the sex industry is a “crime”.