What do you think about the McClatchy article? Do you think Stone and Gordon are making this up? Do you think their sources are misleading them? Are you still almost certain that Michael Cohen has never been to Prague? Has this article had any effect on your level of certainty?
I’m going to give you one analogy that would help you understand the logic, in the event that this interests you.
January 7, National Enquirer: UFO Invasion, Aliens Touch Down in Colorado.
Lance Turbo: Aliens have landed! We’re all doomed!!!
Me: This report is extremely unlikely to be true.
June 26, CNN: Sources report that there is some evidence that aliens did land in Colorado.
Lance Turbo: Ha!!! Your earlier claim “didn’t age well”.
Me: I’m still skeptical.
Lance: Yeah, but you’re not quite as skeptical as you were earlier. That proves that your earlier claim “didn’t age well”.
[I don’t think you can prove things from analogies, but they can be helpful in illustrating things to the extent that people are genuinely looking to understand. I don’t know if that’s the case here, but I’m willing to give it this one shot.]
UFOs are not a reasonable comparison. Pick an event that is in line with plausibility in terms of human events and behavior.
Although, to be fair, the time to mock FP’s skepticism will be when/if it’s proven that he’s wrong, not just more likely.
I have a high degree of trust in McClatchy. Among other things, they come up as ‘least biased’ and with ‘High’ factual reporting on MediaBiasFactCheck.com Part of that trust is the belief that they protect their reputation by not recklessly publishing things in a rush to get ahead of a story (especially with something as volatile as this). I assume, therefore, that the authors, editors and publishers are all convinced that the claim passed a high bar of veracity.
But…
But from what I understand, the Mueller team has been notoriously leak-proof. If my understanding is correct, than this is suspiciously anomalous. The suspicion is furthered by it only getting out to McClatchy, not leaked to the wider media (or even just one or two other outlets). This isn’t a distrust of McClatcy per se, but a belief that there are many ways that this could be nothing. I wouldn’t even be all that surprised if it turns out to be a Project Verias-like set-up to sow distrust in McClatcy, but there are a lot of less insidious ways this could be incorrect.
So I’m holding my breath on this one. Cohen’s lie plus the implied affirmation of a critical element of the dossier could be the first ‘smoking gun’-level revelation — but there are a lot of ‘ifs’ to overcome first, from if they are correct that Mueller has such evidence to if they have evidence strong enough to convince FP that Cohen did indeed visit Prague (or thereabouts).
If it does fizzle out, I am going to march back and forth outside my office with a placard saying “I WAS REASONABLY EQUIVOCAL UNTIL STRONGER EVIDENCE CAME OUT.” If it does turn out to be a bombshell, the sigh will read “I WAS TOO PEDANTIC AND WISH-WASHY TO JUMP ON THE BANDWAGON.”
When did we kill hundreds or Russian citizens on Trumps orders? I must have missed something. As for Trumps new found “hard line” against Russia, it appears he was dragged to it kicking and screaming.
To know what you’ll do if the story is true. That’s why I asked. Twice.
I strongly suspect that you will not actually do any of those things, nor that you seriously intend to.
You’re also still not actually answering a fairly simply question.
He also skipped over some fairly straightforward questions about the McClatchy article.
OK, then the question is why do you think that the possibility of Cohen meeting in Prague is as unlikely as Aliens landing in Colorado.
Why is it so hard to believe? Is there some reason that the story is totally implausible or is it just, as it appears, that you reject it because it happens to shred your argument in this thread?
Also what would convince you not to be skeptical. If we have a photograph of Cohen sitting in front of the Grandior Hotel reading a Czech Newspaper with the date August 13th 2016, would that be enough? or would you hold onto your skepticism, like a climate change denier standing hip deep in water at glacier national park.
I don’t, and that was not the point of the analogy. Rather, to illustrate the logic (see post #4184 from iiandyiiii).
Mostly for reasoning outlined here.
(In glancing around google a bit, I’ve seen claims that these particular McClatchy reporters have a history of this type of reporting which fails to be confirmed by other news agencies or anyone else, but I have no idea if that’s correct or not, and at any rate was unaware of this alleged history when I wrote my prior posts.)
They are so anxious to discredit the dossier as complete fiction that they will lie about everything, even when it doesn’t serve them. It’s stupid.
Like Trump’s claim that the hooker incident couldn’t have happened because he didn’t stay in that Moscow hotel room. Now we have credible testimony from someone on Trump’s side ( Keith Schiller ) that Schiller turned down an offer to send 5 hookers to Trump’s room, he and Trump had a little laugh about it and then Trump entered his room and stayed there alone all night.
Now, I find this believable. If this story is true then the dossier was right up to a point. Even though the prime allegation is false, there is enough “there” there that I can see how an agent like Steele might have gotten it wrong.
But Trump is so eager to discredit the entire dossier that he is lying about what is probably an easily probable fact - that he spent the night in that room. And it is THIS that makes me think he is lying about everything. Or that in some twist of the truth, he’s technically not lying but still guilty( maybe they gave him another room to sleep in because the bed was wet).
But if he’s innocent I really don’t get why he doesn’t just back Schillers story instead of fighting it.
The dossier says Trump is an American real estate developer. I half expect him to deny that just so he can claim EVERYTHING in it is false.
Link. TLDR: Russian mercenaries were advancing on an American position in Syria. US airstrikes beat the shit out of those troops. I think it’s pretty clearly a case of acting in self-defense, in which a President would be horribly, horribly derelict not to allow such defensive action.
Moreover, closer to your point, I’m not sure that the President had anything to do with the situation, at least in terms of issuing orders for the troops that they could defend themselves.
There are reports that the President gets mad whenever something bad happens to Russia. I generally find those reports plausible, since they fit in with the President’s demeanor towards Putin.
ETA: this just occurred to me, are you making one of those “an honest politician is one that stays bought” type of comments? And so you’re arguing that Trump has not stayed bought? I’m not sure what your point is.
“Take their money, drink their liquor, vote against them anyway.”
I’d probably be OK with accepting, ah, “support” for things I would do anyway. Trouble is, people who’s agenda I favor don’t have enough money to bribe with.
There has been an independent investigation of the dossier for some time now. According to a report from Foreign Policy magazine, DailyBeast hired a firm led by former FBI investgators as part of their defense against lawsuits from Cohen and others.
If they have confirmed the Prague connection they might have shared with McClatchy (and hopefully with Mueller).
Mueller speaks!
He says that the media is reporting untruths:
No indication about what was or wasn’t true, though it seems likely to be connected to last week’s reporting.
Granted, it could just as easily be his office telling the newspapers lies, to get the Trump people to act in certain ways. But, more likely, it means that Prague isn’t currently in the cards (or they want us to believe otherwise).
You know those Russian sanctions that were announced that totally proved Trump isn’t compromised? Yeah, he reversed them.
Trump has no opinions on any policy except this one for some reason.
Knowing how the office would respond to this query, the WT asked them a question which got the standard response.
The rest is all spin.
Hm… You may be right. I’ll revoke the statement.
Trump hired Rudy Giuliani. His first comment was a noun, a verb and 9/11.
Too soon!