Trump: guilty till proven innocent…
…and of course there is no way he is innocent no matter what proof might be offered.
Here’s Andrew C. McCarthy on the subject:
Byron York’s Washington Examiner column takes up the question of whether, where Donald Trump is concerned, the “generally accepted standard of justice has been turned on its head.” The matter at issue is the so-called Steele dossier, the Clinton-campaign-sponsored compilation of opposition-research memos that the author, former British spy Christopher Steele, masqueraded as intelligence reports. Byron collects commentary from left-leaning political, academic, and media doyens, all arguing that the dossier’s sensational allegations carry a degree of credibility because, though unverified, they have not been proven untrue.
It is a depressing fact that most people who hate and fear Donald Trump would see nothing wrong with that sort of argument. After all, they want to “cut down every law” to “get after the Devil.” And Trump is the Devil.
McCarthy again, on the Steele dossier’s allegations and their credibility:
The dossier did not drop out of the sky five minutes ago. Many media outlets had it long before it was finally published 17 months ago, refusing to run with it because they well knew that doing so would be irresponsible. The FBI has had Steele’s reports for nearly two years. As former deputy director Andrew McCabe told the House Intelligence Committee, the bureau made elaborate efforts to corroborate it. What’s more, the FBI and Justice Department have come in for fierce criticism for failing to verify dossier allegations that were included in the surveillance applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court). They have great incentive to show corroboration if it exists, but they haven’t.
The provenance of the document (about which the FISA Court was kept in the dark) strongly counsel against crediting its assertions. It is partisan opposition research generated for the purposes of a heated, acrimonious election campaign. Its allegations were leaked to the media for partisan purposes, and journalists, notwithstanding their unabashed anti-Trump biases, have not been able to corroborate it, either. We know that Steele, who is banned from entering Russia, relied on third- and fourth-hand hearsay from Russian sources who, for the most part, have not even been identified. And (as I’ve recounted here), Steele himself does not stand behind what he has written. In court proceedings, he has taken the position that the dossier is a collection of bits of “raw intelligence” that are “unverified” and “warranted further investigation” before anyone should have publicized or relied on them.
So the proponent of uncorroborated assertions, upon being sued for libel, has not just declined to defend them but has undercut their reliability. How could fair-minded people, then, repeat these allegations as if they had standing?
The president’s opposition has clearly decided there is no duty to be fair-minded in matters Trumpian. When I ask about this, there’s not so much a defense as a deflection: Well, is Trump’s commentary fair-minded? No, it’s often wrong and way over the top. But I’m not making Trump’s behavior the standard by which I measure mine, so it’s odd to me that people who detest him do so.
McCarthy is a very smart—even brilliant—lawyer. But it’s not the least bit “odd” that people who detest Trump use this sort of rhetorical ploy when they have no other way to counter McCarthy’s arguments. Because there is no valid way to counter his arguments. The force of logic, tradition, and law is behind them.
But the Devil must be cut down.
We have become a manichaean society.
A large part of the reason for that, it seems to me, is the ubiquity of social media, and how it tends to appeal to people’s worst instincts.
Madison’s fear of “factions” was, he believed, neutralized by the fact that information traveled so slowly; hence large groups of like-minded people could not, because the information was not instantly available, organize as separate—and powerful—interest groups.
Well no more; the stout defensive walls of time and distance, so crucial for Madison’s argument, have evaporated.
Factionalism is tearing society apart…because information (including misinformation, disinformation and flat out lies and rumors) are instantly available.
And too often believed.
Not sure what the solution is, if there is one.
But it seems clear that the only way to prop up those battered defenses is for a wave of decency to sweep the nation.
There are, to be sure, some very fine people out there. The effort to withstand the alienation and enmity will be intense.
Time to band together so that people can encourage one another to express “the better angels of their natures”…
“they want to “cut down every law” to “get after the Devil.” And Trump is the Devil.
the Devil must be cut down…” neo
Anyone who disagrees with them is seen as a devil. They’ve been cutting down all the laws for a long time. By demonizing disagreement as support for evil, they rationalize that the ends justify the means.
So now, prosecutors can raid your lawyer’s files and use them to force your lawyer to testify against you. They’ve ended a critical component of justice and replaced it with tyranny.
They make a pretense of respecting the law only when it suits them, relying upon our reluctance to face the brutal truth; half of America are supporting sedition and treason.
This isn’t going to stop with Trump, their Utopian ‘vision’ demands that they neutralize anyone who refuses to drink the Kool-aid.
“all arguing that the dossier’s sensational allegations carry a degree of credibility because, though unverified, they have not been proven untrue.”
* * *
Someone I read recently called it “Schroedinger’s Dossier,” existing in the never-land of true/untrue until the box is opened.
This is another rampant case of double-standards, because of the frequent rejoinder of the Left whenever Hillary’s email felonies — verified despite the corrupt and incomplete investigation, and unquestionably true — were brought up (which I heard from my own mother-in-law): But she hasn’t been indicted, so she must not have done anything wrong.
Never mind that “not indicted” does NOT equal “innocent.”
Therefore, they reason, Trump must be indicted by Mueller so that we can agree that the charges against him are true.
Never mind that “indicted” does NOT equal “guilty.”
Thanks, James Comey.
* *
This isn’t where I read it, but may be the primal source, as it is the only hit on Google.
https://www.quora.com/Have-any-major-components-of-the-Trump-Russia-dossier-been-proven-false
“George Karpel, Enjoying retirement – Hobby photographer – Digital type.
Answered Apr 18, 2018 · Author has 418 answers and 95.9k answer views
There’s a very fine line between something that “has not been verified”, and something that has been “proven false”.
It’s a Schrodinger’s Cat situation. Being both dead and alive at the same time.
Each one can be true or false: UNTIL their claim can be thoroughly checked.
IF (and that’s a big IF!) they can be validated by a second party or piece of evidence, that would indicate, to the examiner, that it would probably be true.
So far – nothing has been proven false.
But not every single item in the dossier has been examined or investigated by any outside agency.
What’s a little harder to do is the opposite.
If a claim by Steele cannot be substantiated by any other means, it can only be labelled as “not verified”. It’s only a claim by the person who wrote it.
That means : at the current time, the item can be either “not true” …
while also being “not false” – like the cat in the sealed box.
The implication of “not verified” should mean that no further comments, insinuations, or conclusions should be made about that specific item.
.. but we all know that some media organizations just love to jump on any raw meat that gets thrown its way … even before that steak is cooked.”
Call me old school, but if the allegations are uncorroborated then they are unproven and so not true. So it will be until such time as they are corroborated.
This does not matter to the By Any Means Necessary crowd. Look at how they drove Johnson to withdraw himself from the nomination for the job of running the VA. Allegation of impropriety, none of which even have a named accuser.
By definition this crowd does not believe in the rule of law. In and of itself that should discredit them.
The salami slicing coup is unmaking itself, so the slicing must accelerate or die.
Has Obama ever proven to us that he has never murdered anyone in the past? everyone is a probable murderer under the same standards
Fox has new reveals on the Comey memos and the Strzok-Page texts, although that last one doesn’t have much more than a “hold this thought” message.
I read earlier this week about Fitzgerald being hired last year as Comey’s attorney, without any media fanfare; the second article casts more light on that connection.
The first one is the real bomb-shell.
What reason did Comey have for not revealing the Professor’s job at the FBI in the first Congressional interview about the memos, and thereafter?
If he now thinks that that job relationship changes the legal nature of his leaking official FBI work-products outside the Bureau, why not bring it up from the start?
I suggest that he thought hiding the relationship made him look “purer” by implying that the Professor wasn’t involved in the Trump-Hillary cases, a theory now torpedoed because of this information:
“While Richman’s portfolio included the use of encrypted communications by terror suspects, the sources said Richman also was sent talking points about the FBI’s handling of the Hillary Clinton email investigation. Those talking points attempted to compare and contrast Clinton’s use of an unsecured personal server exclusively for government business with the case of retired Gen. David Petraeus, who shared classified information with his biographer and mistress Paula Broadwell, as well as the case brought against the late Sandy Berger. ”
Was he just hoping no one would find out?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/04/24/comeys-memo-leak-contact-had-special-government-employee-status-at-fbi.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/04/25/comey-memos-likely-shared-with-former-us-attorney-patrick-fitzgerald-sources-say.html
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/04/26/recovered-strzok-page-text-messages-delivered-to-congressional-committees.html
The Fox is chasing the Weasel.
Politico reported on Fitzgerald here, approvingly.
No wonder the Left dumped on Trump for pardoning Libby.
It’s an implicit slap at Comey’s legal teammate.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/04/25/patrick-fitzgerald-comey-legal-team-550176
This is another development on the Email front.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2018/04/25/judicial-watch-finds-emails-confirming-collusion-between-state-department-and-clinton-foundation-n2474447
“Out of 281 pages of new emails, ten contain classified information and “appear to be among those that Clinton had attempted to delete or had otherwise failed to disclose.”
…
“It is shameful that Hillary Clinton attempted to delete or hide classified information and that Obama appointees James Comey and Lorretta Lynch refused to prosecute her,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said about the finding.”
* * *
Keeping up with the news these days is like trying to buy all of the comic books in a multi-character multi-issue story-line, like the ones Marvel & DC published to gin up sales, which finally drove me out of the reading public because of the hassle and expense.
My guess is that the argument “nothing in the dossier has been proven untrue” is a response to various assertions, from Trump and his supporters, that much of it has.
Some of it has been proven correct. Some of it has not. None of it has been proven false.
Demanding the accused demonstrate the last point shifts the burden of proof in a manner that is indeed tyranny. But its unclear if that’s what is going on here.
AesopFan:
I bought a DVD collection of all the issues of uncanny x-men up to around year 2006 then found out the hard way that most story arcs in the DVD were incomplete because the concluding issues of many arcs were in different series not included in the collection such as new mutants, x-factor or x-force.
So I took a look at the Feinstein quote:
The context here is the criminal referral of Christopher Steele by 2 Republican Senators. They are accusing him of lying to the FBI.
The burden of proof is on the accuser. So, by pointing out that nothing in the dossier has been refuted, Feinstein is ironically doing exactly what McCarthy advocates.
Steele’s accusers must demonstrate that he is lying. Arguing that they haven’t is not tyranny.
McCarthy should have verified Byron York’s quotes before using them as evidence of a phenomena that may not even exist.
Welcome to 1933 Germany..
When all the good Germans wanting to do good, did their scapegoats in by believing the stories and points put forth by both the socialist fascists and the communist and then found out they were tricked… [but the joke was on them, either side was a losing side to pick!! think on that for a minute… there was never to be a third choice that would halt the idea of fulfilling the Magyar struggle[
in fact, let me know which such movement didn’t trick its people
especially the vanguard that is dying out and losing power and is no longer the future of anything…
Steele, what an impeccable source! And I shiver in anticipation of every word from Diane Feinstein’s pie hole. Plus, Mueller and Comey are knights in shining armor leading us to Nights of Black Satin. It all must be true. I surrender and will begin to slit my 7 grandchildren’s throats to appease my oh so wise overlords.
AKA, #gimmeafuckingbreak. Playing with the ‘resistance’ is playing with fire.
These are long and complex but make some sense of how important it is for the Dems to prop up the dossier — unverified or unrefuted as it may be — the incestuous nature of Fusion GPS, Simpson, the MSM, and the DNC / Clintons is like the proverbial can of worms: once they are out, you can’t get them back in; it’s hard to disentangle them from each other; and they are all connected at the bottom. (link chain started by PLB)
I won’t quote from these, because they can’t be followed in excerpts, but if you missed them or don’t remember them, they are important to digest.
http://thefederalist.com/2017/10/10/u-s-media-help-russia-destabilize-united-states/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/devin-nunes-is-investigating-me-heres-the-truth/2018/02/08/cc621170-0cf4-11e8-8b0d-891602206fb7_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.62db2d6c4e91
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2018/04/25/test.html
Dave Says:
April 26th, 2018 at 6:58 pm
AesopFan:
I bought a DVD collection of all the issues of uncanny x-men up to around year 2006 then found out the hard way that most story arcs in the DVD were incomplete because the concluding issues of many arcs were in different series not included in the collection such as new mutants, x-factor or x-force.
* *
Once I could no longer follow a story in one titular series (and they were getting too long anyway), I totally gave up, which is too bad because I loved my comics and had been reading them for 20 years. Gave away my collection to a Boys’ Home and only bought an occasional issue for my kids after 1986, but I still mourn).
And don’t get me started on the remaking of: origin stories, past canons, new-and-improved versions of the characters, etc.
But Jean Grey was DEAD and should have stayed that way; they ruined a tremendous dramatic tragedy.
There’s a reason I’m a conservative.
Ah yes, Diane Feinstein. Just another one of those awesome gifts that keep on giving….
Steele may prove to be another:
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/20180129/106822/HMTG-115-IG00-20180129-SD001.pdf
Ah yes, Steele…
https://twitter.com/MZHemingway?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fmartinkramer.org%2F
https://twitter.com/ChuckRossDC/status/989655503050551296
(And give Comey an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor….)
manju if I said you peed on a bed how would you “prove” I was lying?
FOAF,
You say I peed on a bed. I file a criminal complaint against you for lying to the authorities.
In such a case the burden of proof would be on me.
That’s all Diane Feinstein was doing. York is pretending that she’s flipping the burden of proof to the accused. She isn’t. She’s doing the opposite.
McCarthy should’ve verified York’s evidence before making a stupid argument.
Manju:
You write: “I file a criminal complaint against you for lying to authorities.”
Private citizens don’t ordinarily file criminal complaints (they are allowed to in a few states only). They report crimes to the police; the police file the complaint.
“Lying to authorities” isn’t just saying something that is a lie. It’s saying something under oath to the FBI, or under oath in a courtroom. But it is not the private citizen that brings a perjury charge or a charge of lying to the FBI; it is the authorities.
Also, Feinstein was discussing a criminal referral by members of Congress, which is a request to open an investigation into possible criminal charges. It doesn’t charge anyone with a crime.
In addition, I believe that in your hypothetical you are trying to talk about a defamation lawsuit, which is a civil complaint rather than a criminal one. Private citizens can certainly file civil complaints, but that’s very different than a criminal one. Defamation isn’t just lying about someone, it’s lying in a way that causes negative repercussions of certain types. And yes, in a defamation case the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, but it is a lower standard of proof than in a criminal case, because it’s a civil case.
York’s column is not just about Feinstein. But since you insist on focusing on Feinstein, her discussion of the truth or falsehood of the dossier isn’t really important to the basis of the criminal referral against Steele for lying to the FBI. This is from Feinstein [emphasis mine]:
But as I already state, this is not about Feinstein’s comments taken in isolation. It’s about a pattern of talk among many Trump-opponents. Such as (from York’s article):
That’s the m.o. Those are the talking points. Didn’t you get the memo too?
Jordan Peterson evidently made the point on the Bill Maher show that there has been a rise of opposition parties trying to get rid of elected presidents by legal means and posed the question of how if they succeed in getting rid of Trump how they are going to manage to get along with the other half of the country. He noted that the Republicans had a go at Clinton. Well, fair enough, but it did start with Watergate followed by trying to get Reagan with Iran Contra. So Ken Starr went all out to get Clinton but it was more sexual farce than high crimes and the country didn’t buy it. But nobody really learned their lesson. The Fitzgerald inquiry was a fizog and didn’t even involve Bush. Obama was untouchable as the first Black president, but that didn’t stop the Republicans from perseverating about his birth certificate. Now the Dems are trying to get Trump on what appears to be a fabrication in which they have been exposed as the fabricators. Lawfare rules and that is not a good thing.
Surely Manju knows that the criminal referral is in reference Steele’s apparent lie to the FBI that he didn’t distribute to other parties (like the press).
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/01/christopher-steele-criminal-referral-appropriate/
“…more sexual farce than high crimes…”
Actually it was “more” lying under oath; but hey, no big deal… (since, I guess, boys will be boys…).
As for Jordan Peterson, Lindsey Shepherd (of U. of Waterloo fame) is back in the news.
At that institution of so-called higher learning, what really should be (very) amusing (e.g., http://babylonbee.com/news/breaking-hazmat-scene-college-student-may-exposed-opposing-worldview/ ) is, in reality, a nightmare for Shepherd and others of similar viewpoints, which, for the greater good, must be stamped down and quarantined lest others become infected:
http://dailycaller.com/2018/04/26/canada-university-waterloo-faith-goldy/
(And it’s all legal, of course….)
Fine. So when she writes; “Not a single revelation in the Steele dossier has been refuted” she is not in any way saying Trump is guilty until proven innocent.
She is in fact saying Christopher Steele is innocent until proven guilty.
York should retract. McCarthy should vet the other quotes in order to determine if he should do a full retraction or a partial one.
So I took a look at the Nicole Wallace quote too. York is full of it.
Wallace is discussing the FISA warrant on Carter Page.
“The standard for receiving a fisa warrant it probable cause;” she argues. Probable cause is not a high bar, we all should know by now.
In this context, she states that; “the standard was probable cause. The dossier has not been proven false. A third of it has been proven true…”
She is not in any way suggesting that Trump needs to prove the dossier false. She’s saying the fact that the dossier has not been discredited, that parts have been proven true, and that there is other evidence, means that probable cause on the Page warrant was met.
That 2. At this point, McCarthy should retract.
(Getting the full transcript is a little funky, but you can find it here)
Trump is a fetus or offspring. Confess!
Manju:
Here is a fairly lengthy discussion of the level of proof needed to get a FISA warrant. It was written in early 2017, long before the facts came out about what this particular FISA application entailed, but it sets out the general rules.
When someone is trying to say that a document (in this case the dossier) met the standards of probable cause at the time a warrant was issued, it is irrelevant whether it was later proved false. The only relevant fact is whether it seemed to be a bona fide piece of evidence at the time the application for the warrant was filed.
There is an excellent case to be made that the Steele dossier was garbage, and known to be garbage, at the time the FISA warrant was requested. But let’s put that aside for the moment. Let’s say the FBI really thought it was true, and that it constituted sufficient probable cause to request a warrant, and the FISA court agreed.
Even if those things are the case (and I do not agree they are), whether the dossier has ever been proven to be false since then has no relevance to whether it was thought to constitute probable cause back then. The only reason to bring it up in that way is to slyly suggest that it (meaning the salacious accusations in it) really ARE true, and that until they are PROVEN to be false then we can assume they are true.
As for the claim that 1/3 of the dossier is true, is that true? And which third is it? People’s names, or other obvious and/or unimportant information? See this from Politico:
The article goes on to list problems with the dossier.
And here’s Vox on the subject (Vox, which is not known for it’s pro-Trump stance):
It goes on to list them. Then this:
Ok manju what if I say you are a child molester. You are saying anyone can make any kind of accusation of criminality and the burden of proof is on the accused. This typical Stalinist jujitsu.
Who is paying you to comment here manju?
FOAF:
I think Manju is just here for love of it.
If they are paying him or her, they should be getting more for their money.
Manju:
I will repeat what I wrote earlier about Feinstein. Maybe you’ll actually get the point the second time around.
Got it? (Feinstein throws in that word “baseless” although there’s plenty of evidence that the allegation is not really “baseless,” but that’s not relevant to our discussion right now.) Whether the dossier was thought to be true at the time of the application, whether it was not thought to be true at the time of the application, whether it was subsequently proven to be true, whether it was subsequently proven to be false, whether parts of it were proven true or false, whether none of it was proven true or false, is irrelevant to the request to open a criminal investigation. It is that request that Feinstein was supposedly addressing . Feinstein’s saying that the dossier had not been proven false was thrown in there to indicate it might be true, and the obvious conclusion listeners could draw from that is that Trump might indeed be guilty of the accusations in the dossier.
And, as I wrote earlier, this is something that has been said (and Trump’s possible guilt implied) over and over and over by Trump-opponents in many different contexts. The point is to imply that Trump may indeed be guilty of these accusations. If you don’t understand that then you don’t understand the way people operate.
By the way, York is not using the “guilty until proven innocent” phrase in a strictly legal way. He does not mean that people are suggesting that, in a court of law, Trump would have to meet that standard of proof. They are talking about the court of public opinion.
I love this story about how the US intelligence community concluded the Russians intervened in the US election to support Trump. I can just see it:
Mikhail Fradkov, head of the SVR, enters Putin’s office:
“Mr. President, our cyberattack force has the ability to interfere with the American election.”
“Wonderful! Who should we support?”
“Well, sir, on the one hand we have Hillary Clinton, who we know to be a fool and a pushover — remember that ridiculous “Reset” button?”
“Who could forget?” (Laughter)
“Plus, we have her in our pocket for taking a $140 million bribe to let us buy Uranium One! On the other hand, we have Donald Trump, who we don’t really no much about, except that he is known as a hardass, wants to build up the US military, which will interfere with our activities in Ukraine and elsewhere, and increase US oil and gas production, which will hurt our economy and reduce our ability to influence Europe. Which one shall we support?”
“Based on what you have said, Fradkov, we have no alternative but to support Trump!”
Assuming the analysts really did come up with that conclusion — as opposed to it having been made up by Clapper, Brennan, and Comey — I would place that in the same category as their analyses of the possibility of the collapse of the Soviet Union, the possibility of an attack on the US by Al-Qaeda, and other memorable successes.
Neo, it is more likely than you may think that manju and other persistent trolls at right-wing blogs are paid or at least tasked operatives. HRC had an operation called “Correct the Record” or “Barrier Breakers” whose goal was to “push back” against criticism of Hillary. No doubt Soros also with his billions, already funding Media Matters would do the same. As for the value of manju I’m sure he can be bought quite cheaply. You can probably purchase a brigade of manjus for less than the cost of a 10-second TV ad.
FOAF:
Oh, I’m well aware that there are paid trolls. I’ve encountered plenty of what I think are paid trolls.
I just don’t think that’s Manju, although it’s certainly possible.
In re Feinstein’s involvment in the case: looks like collusion to me.
http://thefederalist.com/2018/04/27/confirmed-former-feinstein-staffer-hired-fusion-gps-christopher-steele/
Here are a lot of examples of “conclusion first, investigation after”
http://thefederalist.com/2018/04/19/revealed-robert-muellers-fbi-repeatedly-abused-prosecutorial-discretion/
If you can go to jail for lying to the FBI, why not for lying to Congress?
http://thefederalist.com/2018/04/27/house-intel-report-james-clapper-lied-dossier-leaks-cnn/
Leftists are child molestors. Or did people here not realize that yet?
If you can go to jail for lying to the FBI, why not for lying to Congress?
How many death squads does Congress employ compared to the ATF/FBI? One can look up Waco 1 massacre for a comparison.
but that didn’t stop the Republicans from perseverating about his birth certificate.
I do believe it was Donald Trum and Hillary that did more pushing the birth certificate angle.
It’s relevant to the renewals.
To be fair Nicole Wallace doesn’t specify if she is talking about the original warrant or the subsequent renewals. But one thing is clear. When she said;”The dossier has not been proven false. A third of it has been proven true…” she was not in any way suggesting that Trump should be considered guilty until proven innocent, be it in a court of law or otherwise.
Seen in contest, she was simply arguing that the dossier is credible.
New steps along the garden path:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/04/comey-confirms-in-clinton-emails-caper-the-fix-was-in/
Yuri Bezmenov did tell us decades ago that the fix was in.
Back in 2016, people told me Trum needed power to clear out DC. I was like “mmmmm, I don’t think you realize what you are dealing with here”. A Capital of Evil as old as District of Columbia, is under the Watchers. It’s not something humans can do much about.