WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 16, 2023
Cites passage which doesn't make sense: When tribes refuse to interact—refuse to confront each other's perceptions and claims—that tends to make each tribe even dumber.
So it was at the start of last evening's Last Word as Lawrence O'Donnell gushed about Fani Willis' new indictment of Donald J. Trump.
In fact, Willis has indicted Donald J. Trump and eighteen alleged co-conspirators. Right at the start of his program's hour, Lawrence offered this:
O'DONNELL (8/15/23): This is the [document] that historians will use to tell the story of Donald Trump's conspiracy to overturn the 2020 presidential election. This is the one that screenwriters and perhaps playwrights will use to tell that story.
If you read only one indictment of Donald Trump, it really should be this indictment. It tells the story the way a well-written history book would tell the story, in clear, simple chronological order, beginning with Donald Trump's lying speech at 2 A.M. on election night, quote "falsely declaring victory in the 2020 election."
It may well be that historians and screenwriters will work from the Willis indictment. But in his very first specific citation from that document, O'Donnell cited a passage which, on its face, doesn't quite seem to make sense.
The passage deals with Trump's 2 a.m. speech on election night. In that passage, Willis describes that 2 a.m. speech as Trump's "first overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy" with which he now stands charged.
After gushing about Willis' text, Lawrence cited that specific passage from page 20 of the indictment. We're sorry but, at least as written, the passage doesn't quite seem to make sense:
Act 1.
On or about the 4th day of November 2020, DONALD JOHN TRUMP made a nationally televised speech falsely declaring victory in the 2020 presidential election. Approximately four days earlier, on or about October 31, 2020, DONALD JOHN TRUMP discussed a draft speech with unindicted co-conspirator Individual 1, whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, that falsely declared victory and falsely claimed voter fraud. The speech was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
That is Willis' account of Trump's first act in furtherance of the conspiracy. As you can see, the passage, at least as written and quoted by Lawrence, doesn't seem to make obvious sense.
It's true that Trump's 2 a.m. speech did turn out to be false. As it turned out, Trump didn't win the 2020 election. As such, his early declaration that he had won turned out to be false.
(You'll note that Willis' text doesn't say that Trump was "lying" that night. She simply says that his declaration was "false." As we've often noted, Lawrence loves the claim that others are lying more than he loves life itself.)
Trump's declaration that night turned out to be false. From that point on, it's hard to make sense of that passage from the indictment.
According to the Willis indictment, Trump had also "discussed a draft speech...that falsely declared victory and falsely claimed voter fraud" four days earlier, on October 31. As written, and as cited by Lawrence, it's hard to know what the point of that revelation is in this "well written" document.
Presumably, candidates fashion draft speeches on a regular basis. According to Willis, this draft speech included a declaration of victory. In that sense, it would have been a draft victory speech.
It's hard to know why Willis would say that this draft speech was falsely declaring victory. A draft speech of this type can't be true or false until the outcome of the election is known. Presumably, the speech wasn't true or false on October 31—it was simply a draft.
According to the indictment, the draft speech also included a claim of voter fraud. Since no (significant) voter fraud was ever found to have taken place, Trump's claim of fraud on election night also turned out to be false.
That said, the logic of this particular passage is almost wholly jumbled.
Willis may be implying that Trump had always planned to claim victory and declare fraud on election night, whatever the returns were showing. But her well-written text doesn't spell that accusation out. As it stands, the text doesn't quite seem to make sense.
Willis offered a jumbled passage. Instantly, Lawrence gushed about how well-written it was. This is what happens when cable stars of one given tribe spend years speaking only among themselves. The woods remain lovely, dark and deep, but mental acuity fades.
On its face, Willis' "Act 1" doesn't exactly seem to make sense. Over at Standard Tribal Storyline Central, Lawrence said, and presumably thought, that it was brilliantly well-written.
We humans! This is what happens when we split into tribes, accept no questions or challenges from Others, and inevitably come to believe the shape of our own twaddle.
It was the first point Lawrence cited last night. As you can see if you watch the tape, his first point didn't make sense!
Donald Trump has made it quite clear when when he was up for an Emmy award, in the 2016 Iowa Primary, in both Presidential elections, that any result other than a landslide victory for Trump was rigged. But, unlike Shane Moss or Willis, it’s OK with Bob in that he’s a white man. It just makes so much sense!
ReplyDeletePathetic.
Bob wrote, "Since no (significant) voter fraud was ever found to have taken place, Trump's claim of fraud on election night also turned out to be false."
ReplyDeleteNot exactly. Since no significant voter fraud was ever found, Trump's claim turned out to be unproved.
This is just a point of logic. It's not a partisan statement. The same goes for Stacy Abrams and other candidates who claimed that they lost their election due to fraud.
Bob's statement is an enthymeme -- A syllogism in which one of the premises or the conclusion is not stated explicitly.
In this case, Bob's unstated premise is, "If there were substantial fraud, it would have been found." But, where's the proof of that premise? "
For those who don't like formal logic, a snappier version says, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
We all know: the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence; there're unknown unknowns, etc. This is poppycock. You didn't have the same take on the 2016 election? 2012? 2008? 2004? 2000? Should I continue? By the way, we don't know that striped pinked unicorns exist either; we've just never seen one.
DeleteAbrams said she lost do to the State making g it hard for her supporters to vote. There is no evidence she attempted a coup after her loss.
Deletedue to
DeleteThis is rich coming from the guy that lies about having a cousin he doesn’t have.
DeleteIt’s not a point of logic, fraud was investigated, specifically in Georgia, three times, and none was found, therefore it is reasonable to say that Trump’s claim of fraud is false.
In the case of Stacey Abrams and all others, after pursuing what the law allows, those campaigns did no further action; however, in Trump’s case, he fraudulently conspired with others to overturn an election.
People do not reason according to formal logic. They reason probabilistically. What is the likelihood that a fraud big enough to change the election outcome would have gone undetected given the investigations, audits and recounts performed at Trump's insistence? What is the likelihood someone could have committed such a fraud given the procedures in place in elections?
DeleteAnd the burden of proof is on the person making an extraordinary claim (that Trump actually won), not the people who have the bulk of the evidence (counted votes) supporting their claimed result (e.g., that Biden won).
Trump has experience in this, of course, after formulating a committee in 2017 to uncover the fraud that he was convinced was involved in his failing to win the popular vote. The committee consisted of a dedicated group of republicans that had nothing better to do, as usual, and quietly disbanded a year later with no evidence of such. To date Trump has provided no credible evidence to back up his 2020 assertion, and although DIC thinks he has extracted a gotcha moment out of his copy of Formal Logic for Dummies, he has only further solidified his stature as a preposterous troll. In the meantime Trump's crack team appears to have gained access to voting equipment illegally, setting the stage for his allegations about fraudulent election activity to become, sadly, oh so true. So, DIC, you've finally got the data supporting Trump's allegations, provided by that bastian of democracy spearheaded by Rudy Giuliani and his ilk. You can wallow in that for awhile.
DeleteMr. Word-A-Day forgets this little nugget:
Delete(Wikipedia)
After the 2020 United States presidential election, the campaign for incumbent President Donald Trump and others filed and lost at least 63 lawsuits contesting election processes, vote counting, and the vote certification process in multiple states, including Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. Among the judges who dismissed the lawsuits were some appointed by Trump himself.
Nice.
DeleteMeanwhile, just yesterday the previous head of the counterintelligence FBI unit in NYC pleaded guilty to accepting payments from one of Putin's oligarch buddies. You know, the FBI office that Giuliani was buddied up to when he said agents had told him damaging info about Hillary Clinton days before Comey 's 11th hour announcement of reopening the Clinton investigation, based on data they found in a laptop(sound familiar?). That plus Giuliani's history of affiliating with a Russian agent named Derkach puts him knee deep in it.
DeleteSome say that Giuliani went after the Italian mob in order to eliminate competition for the Russian mob.
DeleteBob's unstated premise is, "If there were substantial fraud, it would have been found." But, where's the proof of that premise? "
DeleteYou know why it's unstated, David? Cause nobody thinks like that in the real world. We don't live in a world of 100 % absolute certainty.
In elections, there has to be what the SC in Bush v Gore termed finality.
Your logic is asinine, it has no application in the real world.
Dave, how many fourth graders have you raped and murdered this week? Last week it was 17, right? My absence of evidence certainly doesn’t prove it didn’t happen. Indeed, given often applied Republican “logic”, the fact there is no evidence really just shows how clever you are, and therefore it’s all the more likely to have happened.
ReplyDeleteIn your thirst to get Democrats, you have proposed an ulgy and stupid way for human beings to relate to each other. In a sense these are the stakes in the fight against Trump.
Today’s claim from Somerby is so ignorant, one hopes it is disingenuous, otherwise it demonstrates a mind in severe decline.
ReplyDeleteBob knows what's going on:
Delete"Willis may be implying that Trump had always planned to claim victory and declare fraud on election night, whatever the returns were showing."
He just seems to always be playing stupid when it comes to protecting Trump.
6:54,
Deletewhy do you say that? I thought Bob made a good point.
That draft letter is not in the charge. Only what Trump said in his speech is the act charged. It mentions the letter to show premeditation, that Trump didn't spontaneously speak intemperately out of emotion over his loss. The act concludes:
Delete"The speech was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy."
It doesn't say the draft letter was such an act. It says the speech was.
Somerby is distracting us with the mention of the draft, but the draft is not the criminal act, the overt act. The speech itself was, as Willis plainly states.
Somerby doesn't seem to understand why Willis would describe the draft speech as false in the document. That does not make sense to him apparently. He claims to think it could be just rehearsing for a victory speech I'm at the fall asleep claim is confusing and wrong.. And then he turns that into a criticism of O'Donnell who called the document "well written".
DeleteBob's point--a minor one but logically sound--is that it makes no sense to describe a victory speech as 'false' when it is writtten prior to the election. Prior to the election, it has no status as either true or false.
DeleteOne might even call it aspirational.
10:00 wrong, Somerby’s point is completely illogical when considering the context, which Somerby pointedly ignores in order to make his ignorant, and illogical, point.
Delete2:33,
Deletein what way did he ignore the context, pointedly or otherwise?
"When tribes refuse to interact—refuse to confront each other's perceptions and claims—that tends to make each tribe even dumber."
ReplyDeleteIf Somerby were to read his comments, he would see that the liberals here regularly interact with self-identified conservative commenters, often making topic-centered substantive replies, even to trolling. We are also engaging with Somerby, even when he doesn't engage back (he says he doesn't read his comments). So, he is talking the talk but not walking the walk on this suggestion about how to end the deep divide.
I do consider Somerby a member of the other tribe, since his remarks are not particularly representative of anything liberals are saying anywhere else. He has made himself a hypocrite with this complaint today.
Here Somerby, take a run at this "Other":
Delete"Hey you stupid slave" she allegedly said before referring [Judge] Chutkan using the n-word. "You are in our sights, we want to kill you ... If Trump doesn't get elected in 2024, we are coming to kill you. so tread lightly bi**h. You will be targeted personally, publicly, your family, all of it."
(Ryan Reilly, NBC News 08/16/2023)
At least try and persuade her to cut back on her Red Bull.
"It's hard to know why Willis would say that this draft speech was falsely declaring victory. A draft speech of this type can't be true or false until the outcome of the election is known. Presumably, the speech wasn't true or false on October 31—it was simply a draft."
ReplyDeleteThere are no Acts in the indictment against Trump or anyone else that refer to behavior before the election. None on Oct 31, for example. The only acts charged are those occurring after the election results were reported by news sources on Nov 4.
The Willis quote cited above refers specifically to Trump's action of giving a speech after the election had been declared for Biden, that falsely stated that he had won. The evidence is not the draft, but what Trump actually said on TV at 2 am on Nov 5.
"TRUMP discussed a draft speech with unindicted co-conspirator Individual 1, whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, that falsely declared victory and falsely claimed voter fraud. The speech was an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy."
The FACT that the speech referred to election fraud (which could not possibly have been known much less proven at the time of the draft being written before the election took place, nor at the time of that speech in the early morning following election day), is evidence in support of the charge. It is one piece of strongly suggestive evidence, not the whole case against Trump. One brick in the wall.
What does it prove? It shows that Trump's intention as of October 31 was to delcare victory and blame election fraud, should he lose the election. It is what he planned to do, as evidenced by the existence of such a draft, and it is exactly what he DID do when he gave his 2 am speech after Biden was declared the winner by news sources.
What candidate leaps immediately to such a claim without any chance for charges of fraud to emerge from the results themselves? Someone with the intention of fraudulently challenging the results. Why fraudulently? Because THEY HAD NO FUCKING EVIDENCE OF VOTING IRREGULARITIES SUFFICIENT TO QUESTION THE OUTCOME OF THE ELECTION.
Somerby seems to be hoping to generate some doubt about the strength of the indictment's charges, by claiming that Willis is saying Trump always planned to claim fraud, when that is not part of the charge at all.
ReplyDeleteThe charges in the indictment are about acts committed by those charged. That's why Willis is focused on what Trump said in his speech, not on that draft or on his thoughts on Oct 31. Trump falsely claimed fraud and he falsely claimed that he had won the election. He did that in order to overturn the election. Confusing people by suggesting that the draft could have been innocent (which is only possible to assume by ignoring ALL of the other evidence of Trump's behavior) is a Republican tactic to defend Trump. It is throwing shit (dirt) in order to distract readers and provide some hope that Trump is not the dirty dealer we all recognize in the Acts of the Indictment, taken as a whole.
What doesn't make sense is Trump and the morons who support him.
ReplyDeleteIn this instance, correlation does imply causation. Trump wrote a speech in which he claimed a false victory based on false evidence. He was anticipating giving this speech regardless of whether he won or lost. As is evidence of the fact that he did continue to claim that he won. Not just the speech, but the content of the speech itself were intended to obscure the truth of the election outcome. It was not simply a draft speech.
ReplyDelete