|
Post by millring on Sept 28, 2019 12:05:03 GMT -5
“The transcript does NOT imply what Woodruff insisted that it does. I know it doesn't because I read it and did not come to the same conclusion.” I have read the transcript and have come to the opposite conclusion. Mike exactly.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Sept 28, 2019 12:21:54 GMT -5
“The transcript does NOT imply what Woodruff insisted that it does. I know it doesn't because I read it and did not come to the same conclusion.” I have read the transcript and have come to the opposite conclusion. Mike You too? In July, 2018 Trump told us he took Putin’s word that Russia had not meddled in the 2016 election. Last night we learned that, in 2017, not only did Trump acknowledge Russia meddled in the 2016 election, he told the Russians in the Oval Office he wasn’t concerned. He's still at it, trying to get foreign powers to ratfuck the next election. (Read the damn "transcript" that he released.) So much for protecting us from "all enemies, foreign and domestic." The calls are coming from inside the house. Claiming "fake news" is the last refuge of a dying cult. It's every bit as bad as it looks and probably worse. I did read the damn transcript. And the whistleblower report. And you're still wrong. What are the odds of that?
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Sept 28, 2019 12:34:03 GMT -5
Many people have read the transcript and believe that it implies clearly that Trump was using the influence of office to get a foreign leader to investigate a political opponent, not for national security purposes but solely to help himself win re-election.
Others don't read it that way. Fine. But what should a reporter do when offered a chance to interview Trump's spokesperson? Just say, "Well, what do you think about all this stuff?" or raise the question that is in the wind.
Woodruff did her job: [in my reading and reading of many] this transcript implies that Trump did X,Y,Z.
Conway did her job: No it does not. The inferences many are drawing don't hold water because of A,B,C.
If you watch that interview from the perspective of a fan, from either side, you will view it with eyes and ears of a fan.
It struck me as a good interview. Woodruff attacked the issue head on. Conway disputed the charge... and turned it aside quite well, I thought, by introducing ambiguity... what was claimed was not said or done, the claims are based on circumstantial evidence and interpretations that desired not proven.
It is a public trial, and all that is needed for the defense is for some of their scattered seeds of doubt to sprout in the minds of those caught between the warring tribes.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Sept 28, 2019 12:39:43 GMT -5
I hesitate to reply "Nonsense" to John, but I really do know what I'm talking about here. The transcript does NOT imply what Woodruff insisted that it does. I know it doesn't because I read it and did not come to the same conclusion. Again: Inference-drawing--seeing an implication--is inside the mind of the inference-drawer. The text or evidence-set (in this case, the transcript) triggers a response in that mind. Other minds will not be triggered or will see different implications. John doesn't see the implications that Woodruff does. That is the nature of implication: it depends on what is not explicit and will vary according to interpretations of what is present. An inference is a constructed entity, an interpretation, a conclusion based (strangely enough) on what is not said as well as what is. That is why there will inevitably be disagreements. Whether I agree with Woodruff or Conway is not the point--in fact, since I have not read the transcript, I am not about to take a position on what it implies--what inference I draw. And if John is upset that Woodruff is emphatic in her assertion of the implications she sees in the transcript, well, so is Conway in hers. So: is the real issue that John disapproves of Woodruff expressing, on-air and in her capacity as a journalist, an opinion (which is what seeing an implication amounts to)? That's what it looks like to me. Or is it that Woodruff stood by her her reading of the evidence of the transcript in the face of Conway's counter-arguments? Which suggests that the statements of a professional PR flack should be immune to questioning, lest the interviewer be seen as not-objective. How exactly should a journalist deal with an interviewee whose job it is to defend a client?
|
|
|
Post by millring on Sept 28, 2019 12:40:38 GMT -5
Woodruff did her job: [in my reading and reading of many] this transcript implies that Trump did X,Y,Z. But that's not what Woodruff did. That's my point exactly. In fact, if she had included your parenthetical, I wouldn't have a point. But she didn't include that parenthetical. Hers was a declarative sentence. "It implies this". But that's begging the question because the very issue on the table is how the transcript is to be interpreted.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Sept 28, 2019 12:44:13 GMT -5
So: is the real issue that John disapproves of Woodruff expressing, on-air and in her capacity as a journalist, an opinion (which is what seeing an implication amounts to)? No, that's 160 o backwards. If she HAD said that it was her opinion, then I wouldn't have an issue. That's the very thing. She didn't say "I infer this." She declared "This what it implies." The problem for Woodruff is that she expects, as most national journalists do, that she is allowed to have it both ways. She gets to be an objective journalist AND express her opinion. And, again, if everything is above board, even that is okay. There is no such thing as objective journalism, and the way things stand today prove that fact every day.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Sept 28, 2019 12:48:03 GMT -5
And if John is upset that Woodruff is emphatic in her assertion of the implications she sees in the transcript, well, so is Conway in hers. But it isn't a conversation. It isn't symmetrical.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Sept 28, 2019 13:01:12 GMT -5
"It is a trial, and all that is needed for the defense if for some of these scattered seeds of doubt to sprout in the minds of those caught between the warring tribes."
If I understand you, epaul, and I may not, I disagree. Thirty years back, a governor here was impeached. I was involved in the matter as a lawyer and I got an education in impeachment proceedings. We were dealing with state law but we also looked at federal law for guidance. I've also dealt with some of these issues throughout my career in other contexts. It's possible that something has changed without my knowledge and my understanding is no longer entirely correct, but I'm pretty sure it's substantially correct.
Impeachment is centrally a political proceeding. It is not like a criminal trial. The constitutional protections that criminal defendants get are not enjoyed by a public officer. The due process clauses provide that the government can't deprive someone of life, liberty or property without due process of law. There's no right to due process absent a threatened deprivation of one of those things. Many public employees are entitled to some due process before losing their jobs because the courts have held that an employee has a property interest in his or her job. The courts have also held, however, that a public officer does not have a property interest in the office. A public officer is someone to whom some portion of the people's sovereign power has been delegated. It's a fiduciary position--one of public trust--and the sovereign people can remove a public officer in accordance with law for any reason they find sufficient. An officeholder doesn't own the position.
There is no presumption of innocence in impeachment. There is no "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. Unless there is some recent rule change that I'm unaware of, the Senate would not have to follow the rules of evidence. The Senate could acquit or convict for any reasons a majority found adequate.
PS: My last sentence should be qualified. The Senate has to find a high crime or misdemeanor, but that doesn't necessarily mean criminal conduct. In practice the Senate gets to decide what that means.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Sept 28, 2019 13:43:22 GMT -5
I agree with all you said about the impeachment process (and I would be a fool not to).
I was not referring to the impeachment process when I wrote of "the trial". In my mind, THE TRIAL will be held in the court of public opinion and the judgement will be rendered Nov. 2. I suspect that this trial is the only trial of import that will come out of this mess.
(a dark horse candidate would be if this business somehow leads to an "Executive Privilege" case being ruled on by the Supreme Court... that would be a biggie)
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Sept 28, 2019 13:48:44 GMT -5
Sorry I misunderstood you. I thought I might be misinterpreting your comment.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Sept 28, 2019 13:58:48 GMT -5
No problem. It happens so often I'm almost begining to think I might be partially responsible. (this partial admission does not get back to my wife )
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Sept 28, 2019 14:03:44 GMT -5
Hey, your secrets are safe on the internet.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Sept 28, 2019 14:14:34 GMT -5
John, again: There is absolutely no logical or linguistic reason for Woodruff to qualify a sentence such as "This document implies x." Every assertion of implication is an interpretation, and there is no need to add an "in my opinion," except, perhaps, to soften the assertion.
So what you are insisting on is more like a decorum rule--"you should mark 'imply" with an 'in my opinion' qualifier." And maybe in some social contexts, that would be desirable, in order to keep the exchange at a low level of disagreement. Myself, if I were addressing Conway, I wouldn't soften anything--you're right, it's not a conversation, it's an interview with an explicitly and energetically partisan employee of the person whose behavior is the issue. (I would add that she coined the phrase "alternate facts." She's really good at her job--she reminds me of a phrase from Philip Jose Farmer: "He was so crooked, he was admirable.")
You're right--an interview isn't a conversation, and it's not "symmetrical," and when dealing with a PR flack, the gloves ought to come off. As they should in any interview with a politician. I would certainly have asked Schiff what he hoped to accomplish with his Trump-as-mobster bit and whether a less-freighted account of his way of doing our business might be more appropriate. (Though I have to say that Schiff isn't the first person to see that angle--I've been using "Piranha brothers" comparison for a long time now. I'm waiting for Trump to nail some unsatisfactory underling's head to a coffee table.)
|
|
|
Post by millring on Sept 28, 2019 14:26:44 GMT -5
The segment was produced so that Schiff could make his accusations without being challenged by Woodruff, and Woodruff, in turn, then debated Schiff's assertions with Conway.
"ALternate facts" was something that could also be discussed. There often are conflicting sources of information. It doesn't mean that truth isn't biased. It is. But it's also quite often the unknown -- the very thing being debated. When Conway first uttered "alternate facts" she was referring to something specific that may or may not have been proven correct at a later point. But "Alternate facts" became a "thing" -- a useful political weapon to make sure that we talk past each other for all eternity. If you believed in eternity. Which might be one of those debatable topics. Or not. Depending on your implication of what I was saying or what I was inferring to you.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Sept 28, 2019 14:32:34 GMT -5
Fair question. If you have an out of control POTUS saying things to the Russians like "No problem," we mess with others' elections all the time." If you have a POTUS who asks foreign leaders to dig up dirt on his likely opponents in the next election. And you have people surrounding him who act as if his crazy ass corruption is all good. Whose job is it to do something about it? Hypothetically, of course. Since you can't prove any of that horseshit, I guess it comes down to trying to beat him at the ballot box. Good luck with that. Regarding talking with foreign leaders about digging up dirt on his likely opponent? That horseshit is in the transcript that Trump released.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Sept 28, 2019 14:54:24 GMT -5
Since you can't prove any of that horseshit, I guess it comes down to trying to beat him at the ballot box. Good luck with that. Regarding talking with foreign leaders about digging up dirt on his likely opponent? That horseshit is in the transcript that Trump released. I didn't see it.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Sept 28, 2019 15:12:03 GMT -5
The distinction between fact and opinion is a first-year-English-course perennial, and the crucial difference is that a fact stands outside the subjective realm--though evidence can be manufactured or altered or manipulated or surpressed or misinterpreted, or absent, which is why the legal system has elaborate protocols for handling evidence and establishing "facts."
But Conway's original "alternative facts" usage was an attempt to support a series of non-factual statements made by Sean Spicer as he tried to justify the Trump administration's claims about the size of the inauguration turnout. When Conway first put a modifier in front of "fact" in order to defend Spicer, she was quite properly mocked--Spicer's claims and the evidence--the "facts"--he depended on were not incomplete, they were false. She then proceeded to redefine the notion as "additional facts and alternative information," which are different creatures altogether. It's classic back-pedaling in the face of a failure to pay attention to actual facts (aerial photos, subway ridership figures, historical data). That kind of back-pedaling has become standard: Did I say there was a massacre in Bowling Green? Oh, I meant "terrorists"--or "masterminds." Yeah, that's it, "masterminds." Sounds just like "massacre."
What Conway seems to mean by "alternative facts" is "things I can say that will justify my claims, if you squint just right or accept my excuse that I used the wrong word. Three times. Until you called me on it."
|
|
|
Post by millring on Sept 28, 2019 16:56:28 GMT -5
It's that kind of parsing that's going to win the White House for Trump in '20.
Dar used to get nearly red-faced angry at motorists who purposely veered toward her as she ran on our country roads. It prompted her to assert her pedestrian rights and edge out even further into the road. We discussed it. She was right. She had the right of way. If a car had hit her, it would have been a pretty clear case of vehicular manslaughter. The driver would have ended up in jail. But Dar would have ended up dead. She was right, though, dammit.
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Sept 28, 2019 17:38:47 GMT -5
If only walter cronkite was still around... And if this does get going, I wonder if certain recipes will take on more significance?
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Sept 28, 2019 18:10:24 GMT -5
Woodruff did her job: [in my reading and reading of many] this transcript implies that Trump did X,Y,Z. But that's not what Woodruff did. That's my point exactly. In fact, if she had included your parenthetical, I wouldn't have a point. But she didn't include that parenthetical. Hers was a declarative sentence. "It implies this". But that's begging the question because the very issue on the table is how the transcript is to be interpreted. Gold medal for proper use of idiom, "begging the question." (I have a closet full of these medals still in their presentation boxes because I so rarely get to give them out.)
|
|