# logical flaw in Impeachment Articles **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [December 30, 2019, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-flaw-in-impeachment-articles/845614 "2019-12-30T19:42:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2019, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-flaw-in-impeachment-articles/845614/81 "2019-12-31T14:39:36Z")
> [@EasyPhil](#): > > Great analysis! You should have been on Clinton’s campaign staff so that her billions could have been spent more wisely. So no response of substance. Just a snipe at Clinton. You should be on the Trump re-election campaign. Oh, wait. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2019, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-flaw-in-impeachment-articles/845614/82 "2019-12-31T14:42:31Z")
> [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > I would consider the President to be remiss if he failed to ask Ukraine to investigate Ukranian interference in the 2016 election after a Ukranian court declared there was, despite doubts some have about the Ukranian court system. The Democrats have done the opposite, and to the extreme: they say it is an impeachable offense to request such investigations. But that isn’t what he asked of Ukraine, was it? No matter how much you wish it was. ---
**Author:** ![Jim\_Peebles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Jim\_Peebles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jim_Peebles)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2019, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-flaw-in-impeachment-articles/845614/83 "2019-12-31T14:49:53Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > [This is patently untrue](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-press-gaggle-aboard-air-force-one-en-route-hanoi-vietnam/), and you should apologize for saying something so untrue without researching first. > > The conversation had gone on extensively before that, but it was always in the context of election meddling. Here’s some more of it: > > You’re just plain wrong here, and it’s a test of your posting habits whether you can, confronted with the evidence from [whitehouse.gov](http://whitehouse.gov), admit error and change your mind. No, I think he was talking about the hacking when he said Putin denied it in a conversation. The President is not going to ask Putin about Russia buying Facebook ads. It is clear from the other quote I explained, that Trump has no doubt Russia bought Facebook ads, and it would be silly to ask a world leader about Facebook ads on top of that. Trump is not a careful speaker, but here he is being analyzed as if he wrote what he said in a legal document. The Impeachment Articles though, which should be one of the most carefully prepared legal documents in history, contains a false “exclusive or”: Ukraine XOR Russia. But logically it could be an “inclusive or”, and a Ukrainian court declared Ukraine can be included: Ukraine AND Russia. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2019, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-flaw-in-impeachment-articles/845614/84 "2019-12-31T14:51:19Z")
> [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > No, I think he was talking about the hacking when he said Putin denied it in a conversation. It was a test, and I think the score you earned on it’s pretty plain to see. If you can’t admit error in such an unambiguous case, what’s the point in further discussion? ---
**Author:** ![EasyPhil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e47c2d/32.png) [@EasyPhil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EasyPhil)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2019, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-flaw-in-impeachment-articles/845614/85 "2019-12-31T14:51:40Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > So no response of substance. Just a snipe at Clinton. You should be on the Trump re-election campaign. Oh, wait. No not a snipe, just an illustration of how ludicrous it is to think that the small amount of money spent on facebook ads that didn’t specifically say “vote for Trump!” were more effective than the billions that the Clinton Campaign spent on media. Russians did buy facebook ads, but Mueller did not provide evidence that the ads from IRA were at the direction of the Russian Government. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2019, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-flaw-in-impeachment-articles/845614/86 "2019-12-31T14:55:38Z")
“Billions”? With a “B”? ---
**Author:** ![Jim\_Peebles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Jim\_Peebles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jim_Peebles)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2019, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-flaw-in-impeachment-articles/845614/87 "2019-12-31T14:57:17Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > But that isn’t what he asked of Ukraine, was it? No matter how much you wish it was. Read the first paragraph on page 3 of the Trump Zelinsky call transcript. He is asking Ukraine to investigate the 2016 election interference. ---
**Author:** ![EasyPhil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e47c2d/32.png) [@EasyPhil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/EasyPhil)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2019, 2:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-flaw-in-impeachment-articles/845614/88 "2019-12-31T14:57:27Z")
> [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > No, I think he was talking about the hacking when he said Putin denied it in a conversation. The President is not going to ask Putin about Russia buying Facebook ads. It is clear from the other quote I explained, that Trump has no doubt Russia bought Facebook ads, and it would be silly to ask a world leader about Facebook ads on top of that. Trump is not a careful speaker, but here he is being analyzed as if he wrote what he said in a legal document. The Impeachment Articles though, which should be one of the most carefully prepared legal documents in history, contains a false “exclusive or”: Ukraine XOR Russia. But logically it could be an “inclusive or”, and a Ukrainian court declared Ukraine can be included: Ukraine AND Russia. Some background on the facebook ads: > [@](#): > > On May 28, U.S. District Court Judge Dabney Friedrich called attorneys prosecuting the case into her courtroom for a closed hearing. Although no reporters were allowed inside, it is now known that Friedrich agreed with one defendant’s claims that Mueller had overstated the evidence when he implied in his report to Congress that the trolls were controlled by the Russian government and that the social media operations they conducted during the 2016 presidential campaign were directed by Moscow. News organizations had seized on the highly suggestive wording in his report to report they were part of a Kremlin-run operation. > > Concerned that Mueller’s words could prejudice a jury and jeopardize the defendants’ right to a fair trial, Friedrich ordered the special prosecutor to stop making such claims and “to minimize the prejudice moving forward” — or face sanction. [Mueller Tied to Double Deception: First in Court, Then Before Congress](https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/08/06/mueller_suspected_of_compound_deception_of_judge_congress_in_overstating_kremlin_role_119854.html) ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2019, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-flaw-in-impeachment-articles/845614/89 "2019-12-31T15:06:19Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > So, election interference only depends on the margin of victory? If the same exact things happened in 1984 on behalf of Reagan but he wins 59-41 then nothing to see here, no crime? > > I think the prior poster’s point is well taken. A scary sounding term like “interfering in the election” implies far more than a few stupid memes. I mean, not that I like foreign countries having any say in selecting our representatives, but with the global nature of the internet, such mild influences cannot be stopped, in either direction. I was going to say short of war, but even with war you couldn’t stop it. I’ve not read any definitive analysis that shows the extent of influence on the 2016 election due to Russian interference. Because it was done mostly through social media and various (mostly unsuccessful, it seems) hacking attacks, it’s a difficult value to quantify. Which is not to say it didn’t happen or had no effect at all. As I stated, the effects were marginal but sometimes marginal is enough. What the 2016 election shows is the vulnerability of not just the American election system, but of American society in general. Russian interference did not divide American society, it exploited the existing divisions. I suspect that no one was mores surprised than Russia at how effective their interference campaign was. I’m sure they could not believe their dumb luck at having Trump be the GOP nominee. For that I blame the GOP. And while Russian interference helped around the margins, I blame the ~60M voters who thought electing Trump was a good idea. I can ascribe various motives to those who voted for him, but none of them would be complimentary and we’ve done this before so no need to repeat them again. Finally, HRC shares some of the blame for inspiring apathy in non-Trump voters. 2016 was the perfect storm, in some sense. But it has been an insightful look at American society and I hope we can learn some lessons from it. I think, “A Republic, if you can keep it”, being the most important take away. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2019, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-flaw-in-impeachment-articles/845614/90 "2019-12-31T15:08:35Z")
> [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > There are some where he says he doesn’t believe Russia hacked the DNC servers, but that has not been considered proven by US Intelligence. The latest quote I can find on it says “high confidence”: > [https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/us/politics/spy-agency-consensus-grows-that-russia-hacked-dnc.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/27/us/politics/spy-agency-consensus-grows-that-russia-hacked-dnc.html) which falls short of “absolute certainty”. As a factual matter, you are inventing a term that is never used by the intelligence community, and then criticizing them for not meeting that term that they never use. The highest level of confidence used by intelligence agencies is “high confidence.” In essence, let’s say the highest grade that can be awarded to a student is an A. That student has a paper graded as an A. You then swoop in, and say that an A doesn’t mean anything because it isn’t an A++++superawesome++imgonnagiveyouaBJ. I’m sure you can admit that this is a bullshit criticism of the student’s work. [https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Intelligence\_Community\_Assessment\_-\_Assessing\_Russian\_Activities\_and\_Intentions\_in\_Recent\_US\_Elections.pdf/23](https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Intelligence_Community_Assessment_-_Assessing_Russian_Activities_and_Intentions_in_Recent_US_Elections.pdf/23) ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2019, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-flaw-in-impeachment-articles/845614/91 "2019-12-31T15:12:04Z")
> [@EasyPhil](#): > > No not a snipe, just an illustration of how ludicrous it is to think that the small amount of money spent on facebook ads that didn’t specifically say “vote for Trump!” were more effective than the billions that the Clinton Campaign spent on media. Again, it didn’t need to be a large amount of money. It just needed to be effective at exploiting the existing divisions. The fact that people freely shared the propaganda without understanding what they were sharing was the brilliance of the entire interference effort. Credit where credit is due. It was masterful in how well it worked for a relatively small investment. > [@EasyPhil](#): > > Russians did buy facebook ads, but Mueller did not provide evidence that the ads from IRA were at the direction of the Russian Government. I have a bridge for you in Leningrad. Low mileage. Good condition. One owner. Interested? ---
**Author:** ![Jim\_Peebles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Jim\_Peebles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jim_Peebles)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2019, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-flaw-in-impeachment-articles/845614/92 "2019-12-31T15:19:39Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > As a factual matter, you are inventing a term that is never used by the intelligence community, and then criticizing them for not meeting that term that they never use. > > The highest level of confidence used by intelligence agencies is “high confidence.” > > In essence, let’s say the highest grade that can be awarded to a student is an A. That student has a paper graded as an A. You then swoop in, and say that an A doesn’t mean anything because it isn’t an A++++superawesome++imgonnagiveyouaBJ. I’m sure you can admit that this is a bullshit criticism of the student’s work. > > [Page:Intelligence Community Assessment - Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections.pdf/23 - Wikisource, the free online library](https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Intelligence_Community_Assessment_-_Assessing_Russian_Activities_and_Intentions_in_Recent_US_Elections.pdf/23) Great, so the inelligence agencies never stamp anything as “absolutely certain”. Thus, unless we enter the Kangaroo Court Zone, I can rest assured that no President will be removed from office for disagreeing with the intelligence agencies. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2019, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-flaw-in-impeachment-articles/845614/93 "2019-12-31T15:25:01Z")
> [@EasyPhil](#): > > Some background on the facebook ads: > > [Mueller Tied to Double Deception: First in Court, Then Before Congress](https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/08/06/mueller_suspected_of_compound_deception_of_judge_congress_in_overstating_kremlin_role_119854.html) Now I see where you get your information - [Media Bias Check of RealClearInvestigations](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/real-clear-investigations/): > [@](#): > > In review, RealClearInvestigations frequently uses emotionally loaded headlines such as this: “2016 Trump Tower Meeting Looks Increasingly Like a Setup by Russian and Clinton Operatives” and “Mueller Still Relying on Discredited Steele Dossier.” > > Generally, story selection moderately favors the Right and RealClearInvestigations takes a Pro-Trump stance. RealClearInvestigations typically sources their information to credible sources such as the The Hill, Wall Street Journal, NBC News and the Washington Examiner, however they also source factually mixed sources such as Fox News. For example this snippet from the article: “Investigation worked with employees of Fusion GPS, a Washington-based research firm reportedly paid $1 million (Fox News link) by Clinton operatives to dig up dirt on the Trump campaign.” RealClearInvestigations sourced Fox News who in turn sourced the same information from another factually mixed source the Daily Caller, owned by conservative political commentator Tucker Carlson. > > A factual search reveals they have not failed a fact check, however some of the sources they utilize have failed fact checks such as the conspiracy website, Zerohedge. I doubt further discussion will prove fruitful as I don’t have the inclination to fact check your every post. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2019, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-flaw-in-impeachment-articles/845614/94 "2019-12-31T15:25:32Z")
> [@EasyPhil](#): > > Some background on the facebook ads: > > [Mueller Tied to Double Deception: First in Court, Then Before Congress](https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2019/08/06/mueller_suspected_of_compound_deception_of_judge_congress_in_overstating_kremlin_role_119854.html) If I recall correctly, you have stated that you are not a Republican and that you are not a Trump supporter. Is this correct? ---
**Author:** ![Jim\_Peebles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Jim\_Peebles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jim_Peebles)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2019, 3:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-flaw-in-impeachment-articles/845614/95 "2019-12-31T15:41:01Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > Now I see where you get your information - [Media Bias Check of RealClearInvestigations](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/real-clear-investigations/): > > I doubt further discussion will prove fruitful as I don’t have the inclination to fact check your every post. That’s not a fact check, it’s a bias check. What purported facts in the article EasyPhil cited are false? News flash: mainstream media outlets are highly biased against Trump, and there is often complete mainstream media silence on factual news that helps him or goes against his opponents. So if you want the truth, you will have to read sources others call “too biased in favor of Trump to even consider”. And posters here that I debate who are anti-Trump often report having such “news blinders” on. They should take off those blinders. But even if they don’t, I am still optimistic, because truth is a force of nature. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2019, 4:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-flaw-in-impeachment-articles/845614/96 "2019-12-31T16:09:35Z")
> [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > That’s not a fact check, it’s a bias check. What purported facts in the article EasyPhil cited are false? News flash: mainstream media outlets are highly biased against Trump, and there is often complete mainstream media silence on factual news that helps him or goes against his opponents. So if you want the truth, you will have to read sources others call “too biased in favor of Trump to even consider”. And posters here that I debate who are anti-Trump often report having such “news blinders” on. They should take off those blinders. But even if they don’t, I am still optimistic, because truth is a force of nature. Newsflash back at you: Pointing out liars and the lies they tell is not a bias check. I’m not holding my breath but I too think that truth matters. So if you can convince me, or anyone, that Trump is not a corrupt, incompetent, pathological liar and that media that exposes him for what he is is in fact “fake”, then I’m open to such “alternative facts”. Until then, I’m going to continue to fact check bullshit cites and posts like the one you’re responding about. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2019, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-flaw-in-impeachment-articles/845614/97 "2019-12-31T16:15:26Z")
> [@EasyPhil](#): > > What are the odds that the DNC wasn’t hacked but the emails were obtained by WikiLeaks via a leak? Meaning someone inside the DNC provided the emails to WikiLeaks. Perhaps a Bernie supporter dissatisfied about how the DNC was operating with respect to the primary system. Small probability of that, right? On the same day that Russia stopped hacking? Yes, I’d put that as relatively small likelihood. And we would expect such a person to go to Mother Jones or some other American news agency, since they would be aware that WikiLeaks is a Russian front and, as an American, has reason to keep our political secrets from them. You will note that the majority of leaks that you see go to American news agencies. Let’s also note that: a) We’re discussing a single footnote in a summary document, where there is more in the summary document, and even more in the actual indictment, and you’re already having to invent whole people who don’t exist, when we have evidence of motive, opportunity, timing, and modus operandi for a particular suspect again, in just a single footnote. Do you think the case will become better or worse if we include more than one sentences worth of evidence in the discussion? b) The indictment was issued against Russia by Rod Rosenstein - a Trump appointment. The indictment is still active, and being kept in place by Bill Barr and Rosenstein’s replacement, Jeffrey Rosen - both Trump appointments. So we seem to have a least four persons who all agree that the Russians did it, three of whom were hand selected by Donald Trump. ---
**Author:** ![Translucent\_Daydream](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/translucent_daydream/32/16170_2.png) [@Translucent\_Daydream](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Translucent_Daydream)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2019, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-flaw-in-impeachment-articles/845614/98 "2019-12-31T16:22:36Z")
I think we are all being shined on in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2019, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-flaw-in-impeachment-articles/845614/99 "2019-12-31T16:24:42Z")
> [@Jim\_Peebles](#): > > Go ahead, quote him then. How many you want? > ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [December 31, 2019, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-flaw-in-impeachment-articles/845614/100 "2019-12-31T16:27:54Z")
> [@Translucent\_Daydream](#): > > I think we are all being shined on in this thread. Well, when all you’ve got is shinola, you put your best shine on it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-flaw-in-impeachment-articles/845614.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/logical-flaw-in-impeachment-articles/845614.md?page=6)