Correlation does not imply causation. — NOS4A2

The Brookings Institute cited causal evidence as well. Time for you to irrationally dismiss it. In fact, the Brookings Institute predicted your dismissal:

"However, there is also causal evidence to point to. In experiments, being exposed to Trump’s rhetoric actually increases expressions of prejudice. In a 2017 survey, researchers randomly exposed some respondents to racist comments by the president, such as:

“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re sending people that have lots of problems… They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

Other respondents were exposed to a statement by Hillary Clinton condemning prejudiced Trump supporters. Later in the study, the respondents were asked their opinion of various groups, including Mexican people, black people, and young people. Those who had read Trump’s words were more likely to write derogatory things not only about Mexican people, but also about other groups as well. By contrast, those who were exposed to Clinton’s words were less likely to express offensive views towards Muslims. Words do matter, and data prove it.

Unfortunately, there is little reason to expect this research to have much impact on public attitudes..."

http://www.ashford.zone/images/2018/09/followtheracist_v2.pdf
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2019/08/14/trump-and-racism-what-do-the-data-say/

Kenneth's history lesson...well, 22 hours to go. :yawn:

Kenneth's history lesson...well, 22 hours to go. :yawn:

At least the last presidential impeachment had the added bonus of sordid details and sexual deviancy.

Again I don’t look to politicians for truth. In fact I think it would be idiotic and naive to do so. What I want is leadership and results. — NOS4A2

I expect politicians to spin facts to make events seem less or more favorable to therm.

But -- Call me naive but I expect politicians to avoid telling factually verifiable lies on a daily basis.

I expect politicians to spin facts to make events seem less or more favorable to therm.

But -- Call me naive but I expect politicians to avoid telling factually verifiable lies on a daily basis.

The term “lies” implies an intention to deceive. But given that knowledge of those intentions are completely absent from our knowledge, the use of the term “lies” is itself a mistruth or falsity. Add on that the claim that the “lie” is “factually verifiable”, implying you do know the intention as a matter of fact, we have two mistruths and falsities in your use of the phrase “factually verifiable lies”.

I could be equally as critical of you as Trump’s critics are of his bluster, hyperbole and falsities, but then again I don’t really care to hold others to inhuman standards.

The term “lies” implies an intention to deceive. But given that knowledge of those intentions are completely absent from our knowledge, the use of the term “lies” is itself a mistruth or falsity. Add on that the claim that the “lie” is “factually verifiable”, implying you do know the intention as a matter of fact, we have two mistruths and falsities in your use of the phrase “factually verifiable lies”. — NOS4A2

A ridiculous statement.

By this definition, a statement can be a lie only when the liar has confessed to lying.

Ridiculous.

He doesn't yet realise that sometimes people know or should know. Even his favoured cop out on the absence of mens rea for Trump has this problem. It's not necessary that you tell lies for a specific result or even that you must be aware you're being dishonest. A defrauder is not excused merely because he thought that what he did was legal.

Another test at times is what a reasonable person is expected to know. Stupidity is not a defence either.

As such what Trump thought and said isn't always relevant to the law.

Stupidity is not a defence either. — Benkei

Funny you should mention that, because some Republican Senators have argued that Trump's (stupid) belief in the Crowdstrike Conspiracy Theory constitutes justifiable reason for him to ask Ukraine to investigate it.

Perhaps Trump doesn't remember telling Bolton he was tying release of the funds to the Biden investigation, so he's' not lying. That's certainly an example where it doesn't matter.

He does seem to have a poor memory, since he doesn't remember meeting Lev Parnas. It's interesting that he decided to fire Marie Yovanovitch simply after hearing Parnas (the guy he doesn't know) tell him she'd been bad-mouthing him.

By this definition, a statement can be a lie only when the liar has confessed to lying.

That’s a blatant mischaracterization of what I said. But I wouldn’t accuse you of lying for doing so. Sure, you could be lying, acting in bad faith and harbor malicious intent for your sophistry, but for all I know you might have misread or simply do not understand the premise. This is because only you know your motives, only you know whether you are intending to deceive others, and I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt rather than resort to pretending that I can be sure of your motives.

Republicans struggle to get on message after Bolton rocks trial:


“We’re going to have some new stuff coming out every day. That doesn’t really change anything,” said Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.).

Odd. It contradicts what Trump's defense has stated explicity. It doesn't change anything for those who already believed Trump was guilty, but it forces Trump defenders to come up with another excuse.

Barrasso, the No. 3 Senate Republican, had a similar response. “I think there’s going to be something new coming out every day,” Barrasso said told reporters. “New information, old information told in a different way, to inflame emotions and influence the outcome.”
Isn't that the job of a prosecutor - to infuence the outcome of a trial?


But in the same press conference, Barrasso seemed to undercut his own argument: “To me the facts of the case remain the same. There is nothing new here to what the House managers have been saying.”
Right - it's consistent with, and adds support for, the charges brought by the House.

At least the last presidential impeachment had the added bonus of sordid details and sexual deviancy. — NOS4A2

And they took a blood example from Bill Clinton.

Clinton was extremely angry about this "encroachment of his personal privacy" that Kenn Star's team did. Actually I liked the fact that the sitting US president's personal privacy was enchroached by the Republicans. Funny.

(Last time around...)

I agree with Clinton on this one. His personal sex life should not have been aired in public. Privacy is important, even for the most public of figures.

Funny you should mention that, because some Republican Senators have argued that Trump's (stupid) belief in the Crowdstrike Conspiracy Theory constitutes justifiable reason for him to ask Ukraine to investigate it.

Perhaps Trump doesn't remember telling Bolton he was tying release of the funds to the Biden investigation, so he's' not lying. That's certainly an example where it doesn't matter.

He does seem to have a poor memory, since he doesn't remember meeting Lev Parnas. It's interesting that he decided to fire Marie Yovanovitch simply after hearing Parnas (the guy he doesn't know) tell him she'd been bad-mouthing him.

The idea that Trump should remember every conversation and every name with everyone he meets is a little silly. Maybe you can remember every name and every conversation you had wit people in 2018, but I wager Trump has had many more conversations and with many more people than you have. Yovanovitch was fired over a year after the Parnas conversation. During this time many allegations against Yovanovitch, whether true or false, were raised by former Ukrainian prosecutors.

That’s a blatant mischaracterization of what I said. — NOS4A2

Opining with no explanation or support.

Me:

The term “lies” implies an intention to deceive.

You:

A ridiculous statement.

By this definition, a statement can be a lie only when the liar has confessed to lying.

Ridiculous.

Merriam-Webster:

lie noun (2)
\ ˈlī \
Definition of lie (Entry 4 of 6)
1a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker or writer to be untrue with intent to deceive
He told a lie to avoid punishment.
b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker or writer
the lies we tell ourselves to feel better
historical records containing numerous lies
2 : something that misleads or deceives

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lie

Let me fix that for you.

Me:

The term “lies” implies an intention to deceive. But given that knowledge of those intentions are completely absent from our knowledge, the use of the term “lies” is itself a mistruth or falsity.
You:

A ridiculous statement.

By this definition, a statement can be a lie only when the liar has confessed to lying.

Ridiculous.

Merriam-Webster:

lie noun (2)
\ ˈlī \
Definition of lie (Entry 4 of 6)
1a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker or writer to be untrue with intent to deceive
He told a lie to avoid punishment.
b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker or writer
the lies we tell ourselves to feel better
historical records containing numerous lies
2 : something that misleads or deceives

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lie — NOS4A2

By this definition, a statement can be a lie only when the liar has confessed to lying.

The idea that Trump should remember every conversation and every name with everyone he meets is a little silly. — NOS4A2

Parnas isn't just anybody. Still, it's certainly possible Trump doesn't remember meeting him, but it's also possible he is lying about it. In support of this being a lie: he's met Parnas at least 11 times; Parnas had a give and take with Trump about Ukraine (it's wasn't merely a photo op); sinceTrump was asking him questions he had to have some expectation that he could answer; Parna's claim about Yovanovitch was sufficient to induce Trump to say "get rid of her."

In support of it being the truth: Trump's word. I know you don't care about the number of untruths that come out of the guy, but surely you realize that it has an impact on his credibility. This certainly doesn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he's lying, but Trump looks bad either way. Why would he take a stranger's claim about Yovanovitch seriously?

It's certainly possible Trump doesn't remember meeting Parnas, but it's also possible he is lying about it. In support of this being a lie: he's met Parnas at least 11 times; Parnas had a give and take with Trump about Ukraine (it's wasn't merely a photo op); sinceTrump was asking him questions he had to have some expectation that he could answer; Parna's claim about Yovanovitch was sufficient to induce Trump to say "get rid of her."

In support of it being the truth: Trump's word. I know you don't care about the number of untruths that come out of the guy, but surely you realize that it has an impact on his credibility. This certainly doesn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he's lying, but Trump looks bad either way. Why would he take a stranger's claim about Yovanovitch seriously?

That’s fair. Trump could definitely be lying. But given that she wasn’t fired for over a year later until after allegations from Ukrainian prosecutors, it appears he didn’t take it serious at all.

That’s fair. Trump could definitely be lying. But given that she wasn’t fired for over a year later until after allegations from Ukrainian prosecutors, it appears he didn’t take it serious at all — NOS4A2

He took it seriously enough to react as he did ("get rid of her"). That doesn't seem like a reasonable reaction to a comment made by a casual acquaintance.

He took it seriously enough to react as he did ("get rid of her"). That doesn't seem like a reasonable reaction to a comment made by a casual acquaintance.

I’m not convinced. The context, the joking and laughter about her comments, suggests to me he was largely kidding around and playing it up for those he was having dinner with.

Pam Bondi is now laying out the case against the Bidens in front of the senate. This is getting good.

The context, the joking and laughter about her comments, suggests to me he was largely kidding around and playing it up for those he was having dinner with. — NOS4A2

When it suits your lights it's fine to speculate about intention.

Check your bias.

Pam Bondi is now laying out the case against the Bidens in front of the senate. — NOS4A2

Like I predicted: extended whataboutism.

When it suits your lights it's fine to speculate about intention.

Check your bias.

I’m clearly speculating and not pretending otherwise.

I’m clearly speculating and not pretending otherwise. — NOS4A2

Your speculation is modeled on a biased framework.

Your speculation is modeled on a biased framework.

It’s a shame I don’t respect your opinions. I suspect them.

According to documents presented to the senate Burisma payed Hunter Biden $83,333 a month without experience in natural gas, the energy sector, and without being able to speak Ukrainian.

Fact Check on the Bidens in Ukraine

factcheck.org

President Donald Trump once again twisted the facts to claim that Joe Biden, as vice president, threatened to withhold “billions of dollars to Ukraine” unless it removed the prosecutor general who “was prosecuting” Biden’s son, Hunter.

“Hunter Biden did not violate any Ukrainian laws — at least as of now, we do not see any wrongdoing,” Yuriy Lutsenko, Ukraine’s then-prosecutor general, told Bloomberg News. Lutsenko, who resigned in August, said a corruption investigation into leaders of Ukrainian gas companies concerned a potential money-laundering transaction that had occurred before Hunter Biden joined the board.

Trump said Biden threatened to withhold U.S. assistance to Ukraine unless it fired Shokin, which is true, but then implied without proof that it was done to protect Hunter Biden from prosecution.

But the U.S. was not alone in pressuring Ukraine to fire Shokin.

In February 2016, International Monetary Fund Managing Director Christine Lagarde threatened to withhold $40 billion unless Ukraine undertook “a substantial new effort” to fight corruption after the country’s economic minister and his team resigned to protest government corruption. That same month, a “reform-minded deputy prosecutor resigned, complaining that his efforts to address government corruption had been consistently stymied by his own prosecutor general, Viktor Shokin,” according to a Jan. 3, 2017, Congressional Research Services report.

Shokin remained in power after Yanukovych’s ouster, but he failed “to indict any major figures from the Yanukovych administration for corruption,” according to testimony John E. Herbst, a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine under President George W. Bush, gave in March 2016 to a subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

“By late fall of 2015, the EU and the United States joined the chorus of those seeking Mr. Shokin’s removal as the start of an overall reform of the Procurator General’s Office,” Herbst testified. “U.S. Vice President Joe Biden spoke publicly about this before and during his December visit to Kyiv; but Mr. Shokin remained in place.”

In early 2016, Deputy General Prosecutor Vitaliy Kasko resigned in protest of corruption within Shokin’s office. In a televised statement, Kasko said: “Today, the General Prosecutor’s office is a brake on the reform of criminal justice, a hotbed of corruption, an instrument of political pressure, one of the key obstacles to the arrival of foreign investment in Ukraine.”

In reporting on Kasko’s resignation, Reuters noted that Ukraine’s “failure to tackle endemic corruption” threatened the IMF’s $40 billion aid program for Ukraine. At the time, the IMF put a hold on $1.7 billion in aid that had been due to be released to Ukraine four months earlier.

“After President Poroshenko complained that Shokin was taking too long to clean up corruption even within the PGO itself, he asked for Shokin’s resignation,” the CRS report said. Shokin submitted his resignation in February 2016 and was removed a month later.

However, there is no evidence that Hunter Biden was ever under investigation or that his father pressured Ukraine to fire Shokin on his behalf.

In May, Lutsenko, then-Ukraine’s prosecutor general, told Bloomberg News: “Hunter Biden did not violate any Ukrainian laws — at least as of now, we do not see any wrongdoing.”

Lutsenko told Bloomberg that the prosecutor general’s office in 2014 — before Shokin took office — opened a corruption investigation against Zlochevsky and numerous others. He said the probe’s focus was Serghi Kurchenko, who owned a number of gas companies, and a transaction that occurred in November 2013, months before Biden joined Burisma.

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/09/trump-twists-facts-on-biden-and-ukraine/

Fact Check on Bidens in Ukraine
Snopes.com

"[Joe] Biden was representing the official position of the U.S. government, a position that was also supported by other Western governments and many in Ukraine, who accused Shokin of being soft on corruption.

In a Fox News interview on May 19, Trump claimed [Shokin] the former Ukrainian prosecutor “was after” Joe Biden’s son and that was why the former vice president demanded he be fired. There is no evidence of this."