America hasn’t been this divided since 1861. We have the mainstream media to thank for that. -1440.com
Wait, what? Am I thanking the mainstream media for dividing us or for keeping us united?
This is a language problem. Of course, we can get to their point (and it is innocent, at that), but commonly the legacy media is manipulating language to manipulate you. Language is cherry-picked, miss-framed, and clipped to control your understanding. Sometimes it’s’ just sloppy. This example is vague, which also makes it funny (especially since they pitching there own clarity as a selling point).
In this instance, it can be understood in two different ways:
1. The mainstream media has divided us more than we’ve been divided since 1861.
2. The mainstream media has kept us from being as divided as we are since 1861.
You might not see the second one, but it’s there. It could be taken that, because of the mainstream media, we have not been divided for 163 years! Thank you media!!! So, here are some basic guidelines in trying to understand anything that’s written. There are more, but this is a good start.
What is The Context? Here’s the key to avoid getting manipulated with words, videos, or pictures. Ask one question — “WHAT IS THE CONTEXT?” Honestly, that’s what it takes to understand anything. If you look at the letter S, you can’t tell anything. If you look at the letter S in the context of the word SAFE, you can’t tell much more. “You’re Safe!” still tell you almost nothing. Is it safe from harm? Nope. It’s the full context: “The umpire looked at Johnny as he slid into home for his first ever score in middle-school baseball, declaring to Johnny, ‘You’re safe’ (with a smile).”
What does it say? Just look at the words and see what it says without trying to figure anything else out. America is divided, but more now than ever.
What did the author mean? Since it is an advertisement, we can tell that they are aiming to put-down the mainstream media. Thinking about what ‘they’ are getting at helps our understanding dramatically. This is why the ‘intent of the framers’ is so important in understanding the U.S. Constitution.
How would a regular/reasonable person understand it? This is a standard in law, but it helps with interpreting what we read. Jesus used this when he pointed out that if your son asks for a fish, you don’t give him a snake (Matt 7:9-11).
While this is an example of unclear meaning that isn’t a big deal, it’s the kind of thing we should all look for all the time. The insidious ones are worse, but it still is a language-understanding game. Postmodernism is trying to dump normal language use, so there’s that…for a different post.
Here’s one of the most common spins used by politicians and the media. Maybe it’s confirmation bias or maybe it’s cognitive dissonance, but it’s quite common in politics to clip and frame someone as saying something they clearly did not say (or mean) in context.
Quoting out of context (sometimes referred to as contextomy or quote mining) is an informal fallacy in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning.
JACK PROSOBIEC is quoted as saying he want’s, “…to end democracy.” CNN aired the clip and condemned him, even to the point of SE Culp to want to ‘light her hair on fire’ because of how horrible it is that Prosobiec wants to ‘end democracy’ (see: https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2024/02/23/jack-posobiec-cpac-remarks-democracy-cnc-vpx.cnn ) . Of course, in context there is general laughter in the crowd because they understood that Prosobiec is satirizing his opponents and defining the opposition’s ‘democracy’ as akin to what North Korea might claim as democracy (see: https://rumble.com/v4fb8p0-jack-posobiec-what-you-call-democracy-is-the-same-thing-that-north-korea-ca.html ).
DONALD TRUMP is still accused of saying that neo-Nazis are ‘fine people’ (known and labeled as the ‘Fine People Hoax’). As recent as February 2024 one writer alludes to it as proof of Trump’s racism (see: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/02/24/trump-black-voters-indicted-mug-shot/ ). However, the ‘Fine People On Both Sides’ hoax has been thoroughly debunked (see: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/03/21/trump_didnt_call_neo-nazis_fine_people_heres_proof_139815.html ). The full transcript of the discussion shows that within seconds Trump clearly stated, “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists because they should be condemned totally.”
JOE BIDEN was also taken out of context as merely claiming, “Antifa is an idea, not an organization.” His opponents were quick to emphasize his words as meaning he didn’t condemn Antifa as a group/organization. However, he clearly condemned Antifa as a group (see: https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN2712YI/ )
You can call it what you want, but Quote Mining (like Cherry-picking) is a good description. If you are a thinking person, you’ll instantly have a sense of ‘no way’ they said that. Chances are you’ll be right if you look to the context of the moment or the context of all the words surrounding the quote. Frankly, it looks like some people do this sort of thing accidentally because they are so motivated to think the ‘other side’ is pure evil. Yet, when it comes to the media, most likely they are lying and attempting to manipulate the public. They simply have too many sources and too many editors for someone along the way not to know the full story. Of course, they can later ‘retract’ what they said, but that’s inconsequential because the spin is out their in the wild.
Arguing both sides of an issue transcends mere intellectual exercise; it cultivates empathy and fosters a deeper understanding and better communication.
In the world of politics and decision-making, it’s important to understand different viewpoints. When people only listen to ideas they already agree with, it creates problems. It’s like living in a bubble that stops us from seeing the whole picture. To make good choices, we need to hear all sides of an issue and think carefully before deciding.
Thinking about both sides of a topic helps us see things from different perspectives. It teaches us to be understanding and think critically. By considering opposing views, we learn more about why people think the way they do. This helps us see that things are not just right or wrong but have many layers.
Challenging our own beliefs is crucial for personal growth and society’s progress. It helps us avoid becoming too stuck in our ways. However, there’s a psychological barrier called “splitting” that makes it hard to see the middle ground. Splitting pushes people to see things as all good or all bad, leaving no room for discussion or understanding. Splitting causes deep divisions in society and weakens democracy. When people refuse to listen to different opinions, it leads to conflicts and makes it hard to find common ground. Overcoming splitting requires us to be humble, open-minded, and willing to learn from others. Education also plays a vital role in teaching us how to think critically and navigate through the vast amount of information available.
In summary, considering both sides of an argument is crucial in politics. It helps us grow, understand others better, and think more critically. Yet, challenges like splitting make this difficult by polarizing opinions. To address this, we need to embrace humility, openness, and education to truly uphold democracy and tackle the complexities of our world wisely.
Unless you missed it, WEALTH is different than INCOME.
The goal here is not to wade into the debate about taxation, but to simply call attention to words and statistics. Even though Elizabeth Warren, President Biden, and others are promoting a wealth tax (clear enough), most Americans don’t seem to completely grasp the nuance.
Two BIG spins are in play below:
Words
Numbers
In both instances, a small tweak or reframe of the discussion can mislead one’s conclusions (oh so subtly).
Here are Sen. Warren’s words:
Let’s be clear where we stand on taxes. The 99% in America last year paid about 7.2% of their total wealth in taxes. That top one tenth of one percent where Elon Musk lives, they paid about 3.2%. That’s less than half as much. If Elon Musk were paying at the same rate as the rest of Americans on their wealth, then Elon Musk and his kind could be funding a huge part of what we need in America.” Sen. Warren: Elon Musk is riding on the backs of hard-working families (cnn.com)
It is important to notice that the word ‘wealth’ is distinct from the word ‘income’. Wealth is your totality of net assets (what you own less what you owe), while income in the money you’ve brought in during a year. A wealth tax taxes all you’ve got, while income tax taxes what you’ve added.
The spin here is based on the way the public has understood taxation for generations. When Sen. Warren says that the 1% are paying almost ½ of what the 99% is paying, she is attempting to spin our understanding of income tax into an outrage. It’s not that she’s necessarily wrong (but it would be nice to see her math), it’s that she is talking like the wealthy are cheating the tax code by not paying their taxes.
So, if the sentence is changed to ‘income’, then it would read like this: “Let’s be clear where we stand on taxes. The 99% in America last year paid about 7.2% of their total income in taxes.” Of course, that would be patently false as the following displays.
In actual income taxes paid, the heaviest contribution is made by the wealthiest income earners. In the math of taxes paid compared to income, the lower 50% only pays 3% of all taxes; which means the top 1% is paying of 700% more then the poorest families and a significantly greater percentage than any other group (assuming the math is correct).
There’s more to the spin, but the key lesson is to realize that numbers can often be twisted to say what you want, and even more readily when the words are switch to play against the common understanding.
A wealth tax is different than an income tax, and in principle simply asks us to consider how much we want the federal government to slow our own accumulation of wealth and redistribute it in the a variety of causes (Warren is concerned with multiple universal solutions like universal healthcare, education, etc.
Now you know. Probably smart to keep the following quotes in mind:
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
-Lewis Carroll: Through the Looking-Glass
There are three kinds of falsehoods, lies, damned lies and statistics.
SPIN: Urban Dictionary: To present an incident in a particularly slanted or biased manner.
CNN has fact-checked Chip Roy’s claim that “President Biden and his administration and Democrats are trying to institute a vaccine passport.” The fact-check concludes,
CNN Vaccine Passport Facts First: This is misleading and needs context. Only New York City has announced a vaccine passport requirement and the White House has said repeatedly there won’t be a federally mandated vaccine passport.
CNN Spin Summary: Chip Roy makes a claim that (1) Biden, (2) his administration, and (3) Democrats are trying to institute a vaccine passport. CNN makes a claim that this is false because the White House says it won’t happen and CNN can find no evidence.
1. The spin here is that a claim (Chip Roy) is defeated by another claim (The White House). Claims don’t prove other claims wrong. Why does the White House’s denial of something serve as ‘proof’ that those who disagree are wrong? Claims don’t conquer claims, they are ‘she-said / he-said’ situations. We could as easily say, “The White House says repeatedly that there won’t be a federally mandated vaccine passport, but Congressman Roy insists that the White House is working with Democrats to make it happen, therefore the White House is misleading.”
2. The spin here is that while Roy mentioned a vaccine passport, CNN changed the term to ‘federally mandated’ passport. The states and local governments could individually require a passport, which seems to be realized by CNN, since it notes New Your City has one.
3. The spin here is that Congressman Roy mentioned that Democrats and Biden are trying to institute a vaccine passport as a setup for a joke. The point was to tell the young conservative group that they were in the right state if they get stuck saying, “But the good news is, “Roy added, “if they do so while you’re here — since each and every one of you are freedom lovers– you’ll get stuck in Texas. You get to stay here instead of having to use a vaccine passport.” Roy was using a common point of discussion and contention to simply make a group of young adults feel welcomed to Texas.
4. The spin here is that “Amid confusion over mask mandates, booster shots, and new guidance for those vaccinated… Republicans have thrown fuel on the fire.” The argument is that since there is already a debate going on about a number of covid issues, the Republicans are bad guys to add anything else to the discussion. Of course, what is true is at issue, not whether or not it adds fuel to the fire.
5. The spin here is that Roy’s ‘fuel on the fire’ is an opinion about an implication, but without evidence. CNN says, “But Roy’s comments implied that Biden was working on a way to limit someone’s ability to freely move around the US and CNN has seen no evidence to back up that assertion.” When you take an implication and argue against it, you are inventing a straw man. For example, one could say, “Biden’s support of New York City implies he is for ‘passports’, therefore Biden is lying when he says he is not for them.”
6. The spin here is that Chip Roy’s entrance into the debate is a new development and Roy is an addon contributor to the discussion. CNN said, “Last week the Republican National Committee falsely claimed the Surgeon General recommended people wear masks while at home with their kids. Now, Rep. Chip Roy from Texas is claiming that President Joe Biden is working to institute a vaccine passport across the country.” First, there is a guilt-by-association spin; Republicans where wrong last week about one thing, so a Republican is wrong this week about another thing. Second, there is not a “Now, Rep. Chip Roy…”, but an ongoing debate. In fact, Roy is a co-sponsor of the April 2021 No Vaccine Passport Act (Biggs) https://biggs.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-biggs-introduces-no-vaccine-passport-act
7. The spin here is that Biden supports New York City’s vaccination requirement (functional localized passport) while denying working on a federally mandated vaccine passport. Asking a discrepancy question exposes this, “Mr. President, given that you support New York City’s requirement of proof of vaccination, why are you not working on a federally mandated vaccine passport?
Of course, the vaccine passport discussion has been in the air for some time, and will continue. US News said Biden was working on a vaccine passport initiative back in March of 2021.
Chip Roy made a claim as the setup to a joke. CNN spun it as misleading and without evidence, proved by the White House denial.
Anecdotal Evidence: “The Mitigation Worked to Save Lives”
During the Coronavirus Crisis of 2020, there has been a lot of bantering about concerning various treatments and protocols; never mind the full reversals, like don’t wear a mask and do wear a mask. The argument from anecdote is thrown around like baking soda on a grease fire. Arguments like these are often really about spin; when the anecdotes (stories) serve you, you use them. When they hurt you, you diss them.
HYDROXYCHLORAQUINE
President Trump specifically stated that he hoped hydroxychloroquine would be a game changer. Critics attacked Trump as relying on anecdotal evidence for his ‘highly ‘touted’ cure. They further went on to attack hydroxychloroquine as dangerous, based on nothing less than their own anecdotal evidence of what they’ve heard from some doctors. In an article about the lack of hard evidence, the authors do accurately quote Trump:
“I may take it,” Trump said on Saturday, referring to hydroxychloroquine, though he has twice tested negative for coronavirus, according to the White House. “We’re just hearing really positive stories, and we’re continuing to collect the data.” https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/04/trumps-lies-about-coronavirus/608647/ While this is called a ‘lie’, it really is simply a common way humans discuss and discover the truth of things. Some studies have indicated that hydroxy doesn’t work against the virus, but those are focused on hospital admissions. We would need studies that show an early prescription at the onset of symptoms (with zinc and azithromycin) doesn’t work.
While this is called a ‘lie’, it really is simply a common way humans discuss and discover the truth of things.
Trump’s comment has both anecdote and data in it. He is saying we are hearing positive stories, but that we need to keep collecting data. There is nothing wrong with anecdotes, but they neither prove nor disprove anything. There is no lie in anecdotal proof, since it could turn out to be true. In a hard-scientific world, we really think of anecdotes as hints or hypotheses, and you’ll see it again if the virus gets to a truly manageable level.
However, that too is speculative. It makes sense, as does anecdotal evidence. However, we can’t know without a real comparative study. We would have to have the ‘curve’ studied with partial mitigation and no mitigation. Sweden is the curious example that seems to have a similar curve to the rest of the countries, but without the level of lockdown commonly employed. This kind of spin shadows a logical fallacy called post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore resulting from it: used to indicate that a causal relationship has erroneously been assumed from a merely sequential one). We mitigated, so lives were saved. Well, yes, maybe, but were they saved short-term or long-term? The simple fact is that we do not know. We do not currently have the scientific data to prove it. So, when unvalidated anecdotal evidence doesn’t serve, it’s bad. When other unvalidated evidence serves, it’s good. When trends on a chart serve, they are good. When trends don’t serve, they are bad.
Karl Popper gave us a better standard with his principle of falsifiability (if you can’t prove it’s wrong, you can’t prove it’s right) https://youtu.be/wf-sGqBsWv4
In the world of news and crisis, however, all you need to know is that everyone is talking about hope and predictions…which get’s tangled in the web of spin.When they say that anecdotal evidence suggest something, you can simply say, “Maybe.” When the ‘experts’ come out and insist that the mitigation worked, you can also simply say, “Maybe.” Definitive proof is another question entirely.Hope and hypotheses are not lies, but they also aren’t conclusive. Don’t get tricked, always spin-check.
Spin-check is about preparing readers to discern the truth, which isn’t easy in a spin-happy world. PRESIDENT TRUMP ALWAYS LIES. Accusing people of lying is the quickest spin of all that groups embrace, and it misdirects us from seeing the truth of things.
Plenty of people out there think it’s true that President Trump always lies, but clearly this is suspicious unless they change the meaning of the words ‘lie’ or ‘always’. The energy to overreact seems to be without boundaries. Here’s a recent example:
Well, this looks obvious! He says he signed the CHOICE Act, but we know he really didn’t. Ha! Liar! A few comments that immediately follow this post found at #trumplies show the instant conclusion:
The Trump tweet is explained by considering Trump a deliberate liar on one extreme, and a self-deceived (delusional?) liar at the other extreme. Apparently, “We know Trump is lying, we just don’t know exactly why!”
But is he lying? The simplest thing to do to avoid getting sucked into this spin-cycle is to begin with the assumption the other person might not be lying, that something else may be in play. This mindset will lead you to FIRST UNDERSTAND…and, of course, you can still condemn the sorry liar later.
We always try to ask, “Would Trump (or ________) really knowingly make such an outlandish statement that is blatantly false?” The answer is always, “Not likely.” So, we need to look at what the President actually said and compare it to what is claimed he said.
They say he said:
I signed the Choice Act, not Obama.
He said:
Last year I signed legislation that gives our Veterans CHOICE, through private providers, and at urgent care facilities! Today we fully funded this $10 billion a year effort that gets our brave Veterans care quickly, and close to home.
Now, first we can notice that he did not say he signed the Choice Act, but rather he signed ‘legislation’. From here we’d simple ask, “Did he sign legislation that does this?” With a little googling we can find that he did sign legislation:
So, he did sign legislation (referring to either story above?). He extended the Choice Act (and improved it, apparently). Is he taking credit for something he didn’t do? Is he misleading everyone? Is he a jerk anyway? Well, all of these are clearly important questions. And, of course, congress passed the law, so they can get credit too.
One might still want to call the President a liar anyway, but the legitimacy of the claim in this case needs some explaining…or…perhaps an admission that it’s just not true in this rabid instance. The overreaction to whatever Trump says makes both spinning and looking stupid rather easy.
As we like to note, if Trump were Shakespeare and said, “But soft, what light through yonder window breaks? It is the east, and Juliet is the sun,” wouldn’t he be open to the accusation of being a liar? Juliet is not the sun; it’s a gaseous ball of explosions about 93 million miles from earth; Shakespeare/Trump is a liar.
Of course, always make sure you get the actual quote which is declared the ‘lie’. Next, to avoid getting caught up in group-spins like these, simply ask, “What did they mean?” and “Is it true?” In this way you’ll be fair-minded and call a liar a liar with accuracy, rather than getting egg on your face like those who buy spin in Costco-sized containers.
The story is simple. The Dems are saying the US Prez pressured the Ukraine Prez to do what he (US) wanted or else he (Ukraine) would lose out on aide (get punished). Sound right?
There is confusion and complexity in the details which may (or may not) get sorted out in the weeks ahead. What we do know is that there is widespread disagreement among those who could be legitimate witnesses to what happened. That aside, the propaganda lesson here is that this argument can easily be used again and again on any US president. There are two big points to ponder.
1. All presidents can be accused of an implied quid pro quo in every conversation
This is a framework the anyone can use on any President. Think about it; isn’t there an implication in any phone call with the most powerful leader in the world that, “if you don’t behave there will be repercussions?” Does he really have to say anything quid-ish?No president can escape that accusation; no matter what the situation, true? We need to appreciate this reality, because it shines light on the fictional finger-pointing we are enjoying as a nation today. So, wait, what is quid pro quo? It’s Latin for ‘this for that’ and largely a relates to contracts, and is aligned with consideration; or an exchange of value. This value can be as little as a dollar (real estate assignments often use this standard), but value must be exchanged for the contract event to happen.
In the case of the President, was there an exchange of value? Even the always-against Judge Napolitano admits there was no exchange:”The Ukrainian president didn’t ever feel pressured, and he got his money. Do we know if he turned over anything about Biden to the president?” Earhardt asked. When Napolitano said he didn’t, Earhardt remarked, “That’s not quid pro quo. “The delay is the quid pro quo,” Napolitano answered back. “The delay of 55 days, knowing that the Russians are at the border.”” https://www.newsweek.com/fox-news-judge-trump-delay-ukraine-aid-quid-pro-quo-1471758
Huh? Ignoring the fact that there is no evidence the Ukraine president knew about such a delay, there still was no actual exchange of either information (Ukraine) or a delay (US). One might try to spin it into a threat; but again, what conversation could anyone have with any US president that opponents couldn’t claim an implied threat? Every president from the past or the future can be accused of the same thing.
2. Everything any president does can be framed as ‘personal political gain’
Every photo-op, every trade deal, and every military threat can be seen as advancing a president’s standing politically, especially if they are up for reelection. The curious case of Hunter Biden (and Joe) is that the story suggests that if it had been a John Doe (and Joe) that were under the president’s concerned eye, then there would have been no ‘crime’ at all in play. Common sense says if something is wrong, then it is wrong. Changing the characters shouldn’t change anything. Oh, but it does, doesn’t it?
When either party has a biased desire to take down an opponent, then looking for a scandal will always be easy work…if the attack is about implied consequences of crossing the US president, and if it helps his personal political cause. There is no way out of this spin except to see what is motivating those who are questioning others’ motives. CNN’s notion of ‘facts first’ is a good one if followed, which the Democrats have ignored. In the law-and-order world this is highlighted with, “I have the criminal, now I just need a crime.” The same reversal is seen in the preaching world too, “I have a message, now I just need a Bible verse.”Keep spin-checking!
In a 17 June 2019 article in USA Today titled, “Supreme Court upholds ‘double jeopardy’ standard that could blunt impact of potential Trump pardons,” the Mueller Mandate is redefined with the the phrase, “Russian Interference.”
A FEW JUST DEFINITIONS
1. Red Herring[from the practice of drawing a red herring across a trail to confuse hunting dogs] : something that distracts attention from the real issue].
2. Russian InterferenceA computer hacking conspiracy involving gaining unauthorized access into the computers of U.S. persons and entities involved in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, stealing documents from those computers, and staging releases of the stolen documents to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
3. Mueller Mandate(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBIDirector James 8. Comey in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee onIntelligence on March 20, 2017, including:
(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).
THE ISSUESo, the red herring of ‘Russian Interference’ is being drug across the trail of ‘Russian Collusion’ in this USA Today article (and via other media outlets):
The case had gained attention largely because of the possibility that Trump could pardon one or more of his former associates convicted in federal court by special counsel Robert Mueller as part of the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
In other words, Russian Interference in the 2016 election was an issue dating back to the Obama administration, but it was not about whether the Trump Campaign had colluded (secret conspiracy with the intent to defraud) with the Russians. Mueller was charged to specifically determine if there was coordination between Trump Campaign officials and the Russian government.
SIMPLIFY
1. If there had been no Russian Interference in the 2016 election, it could still have been possible that the Trump (or Clinton) campaign could have conspired with the Russian government.2. But if Donald Trump had lost the presidency to Hillary Clinton, then there * WOULD NOT BE a Special Counsel or Mueller Report * WOULD STILL BE Russian Interference3. So, Russian Interference is not the same as Russian Collusion
THE SPIN
The spin here is that USA Today is dragging a red herring across the trail to confuse (or conflate) the issues. Without discussing the ‘obstruction’ question, the Mueller Report and it’s confirmation by the Attorney General, the investigation was about whether or not members of the Trump campaign had conspired with the Russian government; which has been thoroughly investigated and established that there was no collusion. It is safe to assume (unless there is unintentional incompetence in play) that in order to keep the issue in the news, USA Today (et al) have muddled and conflated the Russian Investigation with the Trump-Collusion Investigation. It’s a red herring which continues to ‘mislead or distract from a relevant or important question’— which in this case is, “Did any members of the Trump campaign collude with Russian?” The Mueller Report ended the question with a specific, “No.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring
Watch for this common tactic called a red herring — whether it’s intentional or not, it’s a spin to check.
The simple fact is that Mueller did not find sufficient evidence to charge or accuse President Trump of any wrong doing.
SPIN FIRST
Mueller’s key words from his May 29, 2019 public statement were,
And as set forth in the report, after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so. We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.
If we were sure the president didn’t commit a crime, we would have told you.
We did not determine the president committed a crime.
The convoluted wording alone should make us wonder about spin. Clearly Mueller did not have a legal case against the president (or he would have stated such), but spin allows him to make a political accusation; by suggestion.
We can’t say the president didn’t commit a crime; suggesting that maybe he did
We can’t say the president did commit a crime; suggesting that maybe he didn’t
All of this leaves a cloud of suspicion, but rightly viewed, Mueller is an agnostic rather than a true atheist.
Agnostic: I don’t know if there is a God or not; suggesting not enough proof or evidence either way
Atheist: I know there is no God; suggesting evidence and proof exists to show ‘no God’
By posturing himself as an agnostic, he leaves room for speculation on the part of all the rest of us. To bend Robert Frost’s words,
We dance in a ring and suppose, Mueller sits in the middle and knows.
To Un-Spin this matter, we simply need to know if Mueller thinks he had a case to indict Trump if he were not the president. If that were so, his language would be something like, “While I know a sitting president can’t be indicted, I believe there is sufficient evidence to prove he committed a crime.” That would be provable and explosive if true. Indicting the president is one thing, accusing him of committing a crime is another.
Of course, he says nothing close to an accusation since he flatly states, “We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime.”
Mueller’s spin is to nuance the difference between these two statements:
We determined a crime was not committed
We did not determine a crime was committed
In either statement, there is nothing for the legal system to do. If there was no crime or if no conclusion is reached that there was a crime, it doesn’t matter legally; THERE IS NO CASE.
MUELLER’S PROBLEM
Mueller’s entire problem is one of INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE. He states this in the same public statement when he says,
[Volume One of the report] includes a discussion of the Trump campaign’s response to this activity, as well as our conclusion that there was insufficient evidence to charge a broader conspiracy.
In the legal world, insufficient evidence mean you don’t have a case, especially during a trial. When there is not enough evidence, then charges are dropped and the person under investigation is cleared and freed.
n. a finding (decision) by a trial judge or an appeals court that the prosecution in a criminal case or a plaintiff in a lawsuit has not proved the case because the attorney did not present enough convincing evidence. Insufficient evidence usually results in dismissal of the case after the prosecution or the plaintiff has completed his/her introduction of evidence or, if on appeal, reversal of the judgment by the trial court.
Of course, if a prosecutor concludes that there would be such a ruling or probability, then there would be no charges to begin with, which is what we commonly mean by not having a ‘prosecutable case’.
Mueller spins his position to leave room for ‘maybe’, but let’s face a couple of facts beyond the spin:
Around 35 million dollars was spent trying to especially prove the president committed a crime
Mueller did not find that the president committed a crime
Mueller actually clears the president with his report and statement. Congress, on the other hand, is not a legal system, but a political one. DANGER: SPIN AHEAD.
Recent Comments