Donald Trump Presidency discussion thread II

Peregrinus

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=96%25+of+journalists+donated+to+Hillary

I know how to do a google search, Hank.

Would that you did. You do realise that the Google search that you set up does not yield a cite that supports the claim that you made?

Hank Scorpio

Peregrinus wrote: »

I know how to do a google search, Hank.

Would that you did. You do realise that the Google search that you set up does not yield a cite that supports the claim that you made?

With all the scary italics I feared you might be rignt.

https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/10/17/20330/journalists-shower-hillary-clinton-campaign-cash

"In all, people identified in federal campaign finance filings as journalists, reporters, news editors or television news anchors — as well as other donors known to be working in journalism — have combined to give more than $396,000 to the presidential campaigns of Clinton and Trump, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis.

Nearly all of that money — more than 96 percent — has benefited Clinton: About 430 people who work in journalism have, through August, combined to give about $382,000 to the Democratic nominee, the Center for Public Integrity’s analysis indicates."

Billy86

The nearly 8 month old election is being brought up again, what a surprise! Only 40-odd more months of desperately clinging onto it to go.

Oh look, the It's an hilarious assertion considering Fox & co's paymasters have put hundreds upon hundreds of millions on Republican campaigning over the last few years. Here's just one of them (well, two since they're brothers) chipping in at over $1bn over the space of about three years...

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/trump-koch-brothers-231863

Charles and David Koch over the past decade mobilized some of the biggest donors on the right to finance what amounts to a privatized political party — a network of donors and advocacy groups that became a leading employer of conservative operatives and policy professionals independent of the official GOP during a period when Republicans were mostly out of power in Washington.

The 1,200-employee network, which claims it will have spent about $750 million in the run-up to the 2016 election, would have been a logical pool from which any incoming Republican administration might have drawn as it endeavored to fill thousands of jobs.

http://fortune.com/2017/01/29/koch-political-network-spending/

The conservative Koch network plans to spend between $300 million and $400 million to influence politics and public policy over the next two years, intensifying its nationwide efforts in the initial years of Donald Trump's presidency.

Peregrinus

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

With all the scary italics I feared you might be rignt.

https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/10/17/20330/journalists-shower-hillary-clinton-campaign-cash

"In all, people identified in federal campaign finance filings as journalists, reporters, news editors or television news anchors — as well as other donors known to be working in journalism — have combined to give more than $396,000 to the presidential campaigns of Clinton and Trump, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis.

Nearly all of that money — more than 96 percent — has benefited Clinton: About 430 people who work in journalism have, through August, combined to give about $382,000 to the Democratic nominee, the Center for Public Integrity’s analysis indicates."

So your claims that "only 4% of journalists donated to Trump" and that "96% of media donations" were to "one side" are flat-out false, then. What your cite establishes is that, of journalists who donated to either Clinton or Trump up to August 2016, 96% donated to Clinton and 4% donated to Trump.

You omit all the journalists who donated to any other candidate seeking either the Republican or the Democratic nomination, and you omit all the journalists who donated to no candidate at all. Plus, you omit to mention the August 2016 cut-off, so journalists who donated to the either the Republican campaign or the Democratic campaign after the conventions aren't being counted as donations to Trump or Hillary.

You're measuring donations paid during the primaries phase of the campaign, and balancing donations to Hilary who was one of two contenders for the Democratic nomination, with donations to Trump who was one of 12 contenders for the Republican campaign, and moreover was the one who for most of the period was boasting that he was so wealthy that his campaign was self-funded so he didn't need to seek donations.

During this period Trump wasn't competing with Hiilary for donations. At first he wasn't competing with anybody but, when he did start to solicit donations, he was competing with the other Republican contenders.

So this comparison doesn't tell us anything about media bias (or even the balance of media support) as between Clinton and Trump, Hank. But the selective way in which the information was presented to us may tell us something about bias in the person who made the decision to omit the details I have pointed to.

Igotadose

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

With all the scary italics I feared you might be rignt.

https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/10/17/20330/journalists-shower-hillary-clinton-campaign-cash

Is this bad? Journalists have always had opinions - they're human. Or, is this some whataboutery that Trump is actually a good guy doing great things that aren't getting covered because of evil biased journalists and here's your proof? Timely article on Politico about this very subject today: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/06/26/goodbye-nonpartisan-journalism-and-good-riddance-215305

Nice quote from the article: "When it comes to coverage of the Trump administration by mainstream American journalism organizations, the conclusion that there often is no credible response to the charges is becoming par for the course." Because, yinno, Trump lies.

Hank Scorpio

Peregrinus wrote: »

So this comparison doesn't tell us anything about media bias (or even the balance of media support) as between Clinton and Trump, Hank.

Lol. Tell you what instead of writing long winded posts that say nothing, find data of Sept and Oct that contradicts what's below.

There's a good lad.

Christy42

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Trump has lied there's no disputing that and I don't think it's crazy to hold him a negative light. What I do think is crazy, is to not hold others including the previous administration to the same standard and realize that if the media at least tried to act somewhat objectively, things would be in a better place.

You talk about facts, but the biggest fact of all is that there's no damning evidence of Russian collusion, and yet it's all CNN and other networks have talked about for 6 months, which was based on a now discredited New York times story. Chuck Todd had Sanders on yesterday and ignored his bank fraud investigation completely. Trump holds a rally a few days ago and for all their obsession with him the only network that aired it live was Fox afaik, CNN and MSNBC definitely didn't. CNN and others ignored the Manchester attack in favour of pushing Russia for over an hour. Then there's the Loretta Lynch investigation, again it gets zero airtime.

I think a huge double standard exists and because of that the negatively is multiplied tenfold. Anything that sways the narrative is off limits.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/06/26/mainstream-media-coverage-trump-russia-investigation-vs-loretta-lynch-probe

This was not your initial complaint. Your initial complaint was the 90%+ stories about Trump being negative. This is an entirely different claim.

Hank Scorpio

Igotadose wrote: »

Nice quote from the article: "When it comes to coverage of the Trump administration by mainstream American journalism organizations, the conclusion that there often is no credible response to the charges is becoming par for the course." Because, yinno, Trump lies.

Yup, all Trump.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/us/politics/russia-intelligence-communications-trump.html

Leroy42

Hank, these amounts are nothing in terms of politics in the US. I assume you are suggesting that by giving money that journalist therefore is biased?

I fully agree with you on the core assertion. I wonder how any journalist can, in any professional sense, give a donation to a political party.

However, these numbers look very small and I wonder as to the actual numbers of journalists that are involved. And what type of journalist are they. For example, if Acosta is giving money to HC then that of course raises questions, but if it a sports journalist? Or the weatherman?

Lets take the journalists that are regularly in the press pack at the white house. How many of them gave donations (based on the 96% number we can assume that any donations were for HC).

What value have you placed on the blanket coverage given by Fox News?

Hank Scorpio

Christy42 wrote: »

This was not your initial complaint. Your initial complaint was the 90%+ stories about Trump being negative. This is an entirely different claim.

What % of those negative stores would you say are related to false reports like the NYT's story I posted above?

Hank Scorpio

Leroy42 wrote: »

What value have you placed on the blanket coverage given by Fox News?

Fox news is no means all in for Trump. The morning show, the five and Hannity are strongly pro Trump, the rest is fairly balanced.

Peregrinus

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Lol. Tell you what instead of writing long winded posts that say nothing, find data of Sept and Oct that contradicts what's below.

There's a good lad.

I'll consider doing that when you have done two things. First, adjust your chart so that it only covers a period when Trump and Clinton were both seeking donations. Secondly, complete your chart to show money donated to all the other contenders, of both parties, over the period concerned.

Christy42

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

What % of those negative stores would you say are related to false reports like the NYT's story I posted above?

I don't know. You are the one attempting to construct the case here not me.

I take it you are suggesting a high number without needing to back it up? I would say very few. The vast majority I have seen are on the numerous scandals Trump has had from infighting in the whitehouse to the travel ban to the wall. Even the Russian stories have focused more on the ongoing investigations or members the hat did lie about the hate contact the Hathern had with Russia such as Flynn or been on opinions about where the case may go.

Hank Scorpio

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'll consider doing that when you have done two things. First, adjust your chart so that it only covers a period when Trump and Clinton were both seeking donations. Secondly, complete your chart to show money donated to all the other contenders, of both parties, over the period concerned.

Look it up if you care, I don't.

http://observer.com/2016/11/mainstream-media-recap-who-colluded-with-the-clinton-campaign/

Leroy42

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Fox news is no means all in for Trump. The morning show, the five and Hannity are strongly pro Trump, the rest is fairly balanced.

Right so none then. Fair enough. But the morning show, the five and Hannity (and before that O'Reilly) are the most watched shows on the network and thus cannot be simply equalled in terms of their reach. What % of their viewing numbers would watch the morning show, the five and Hannity over a week in terms of total minutes and eyeballs as against the same for the non-pro Trump segments. I have no actual data, my own view would be that Fox is heavily biased towards Trump and the GOP.

How about the more substantive questions I asked. How many journalists gave money, what type of journalists are they? SImply throwing about 96% means nothing. What if it was 50 sports journalists? so 48 Sports journalists gave money to HC, 2 to Trump. So what? That would have zero effect (I am not saying this is what happened, just an extreme example). For your assertion to have any validity you need to give more detail as to what it actually relates to rather than just throwing a meaningless number.

Hank Scorpio

Christy42 wrote: »

I don't know. You are the one attempting to construct the case here not me.

I take it you are suggesting a high number without needing to back it up? I would say very few. The vast majority I have seen are on the numerous scandals Trump has had from infighting in the whitehouse to the travel ban to the wall. Even the Russian stories have focused more on the ongoing investigations or members the hat did lie about the hate contact the Hathern had with Russia such as Flynn or been on opinions about where the case may go.

We won't agree so let's just agree to disagree. I think the negative coverage, while earned, has been grossly manipulative and exaggerated. I still think back to the morning of the election on CNN when Eric Trump was asked if they were going to withdraw themselves early to avoid embarrassment.

Christy42

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

We won't agree so let's just agree to disagree. I think the negative coverage, while earned, has been grossly manipulative and exaggerated. I still think back to the morning of the election on CNN when Eric Trump was asked if they were going to withdraw themselves early to avoid embarrassment.

We can agree to disagree. I feel CNN's question may have ended up being far more prophetic than CNN realised at the time:p.

BabyCheeses

It turns out that yes, project veritas are pervayors of fake news. For some reason the crusaders against fake news don't keep such high standards they hold to others.

Hank Scorpio

Leroy42 wrote: »

Right so none then. Fair enough. But the morning show, the five and Hannity (and before that O'Reilly) are the most watched shows on the network and thus cannot be simply equalled in terms of their reach. What % of their viewing numbers would watch the morning show, the five and Hannity over a week in terms of total minutes and eyeballs as against the same for the non-pro Trump segments. I have no actual data, my own view would be that Fox is heavily biased towards Trump and the GOP.

Maddow has the most watched prime time show now and most watched from the 24-45 range, or something around that age bracket.

How about the more substantive questions I asked. How many journalists gave money, what type of journalists are they? SImply throwing about 96% means nothing. What if it was 50 sports journalists? so 48 Sports journalists gave money to HC, 2 to Trump. So what? That would have zero effect (I am not saying this is what happened, just an extreme example). For your assertion to have any validity you need to give more detail as to what it actually relates to rather than just throwing a meaningless number.

All it means is Trump doesn't have many friends in the media.

ellobee

I cant wait to hear what he says about the Google Fine.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jun/27/google-braces-for-record-breaking-1bn-fine-from-eu

Leroy42

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Maddow has the most watched prime time show now and most watched from the 24-45 range, or something around that age bracket.

What has Maddow got to do with Fox News? You stated that Fox news were balanced based on some programs being less than pro-Trump. I was merely asking you to quantify it based on the fact that the main programs are clearly pro-Trump. You don't have the backup, thats fine, but your opinion doesn't make it fact.

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

How about the more substantive questions I asked. How many journalists gave money, what type of journalists are they? SImply throwing about 96% means nothing. What if it was 50 sports journalists? so 48 Sports journalists gave money to HC, 2 to Trump. So what? That would have zero effect (I am not saying this is what happened, just an extreme example). For your assertion to have any validity you need to give more detail as to what it actually relates to rather than just throwing a meaningless number.

All it means is Trump doesn't have many friends in the media.

It doesn't so anything of the sort. Trump has many friends in the media, in fact the media is a large reason why Trump is POTUS today.

You claimed that 96% of journalists that gave political donations gave them to HC. I don't dispute that but rather I am asking for a context. What constitutes a journalist? What type of Journalist? What organisation do they work for.

If you don't know that is fine, either do I. But you should be careful to simply repeat a statistic you see that seems to back up your bias without first seeing exactly what it actually is saying.

Hank Scorpio

Leroy42 wrote: »

If you don't know that is fine, either do I. But you should be careful to simply repeat a statistic you see that seems to back up your bias without first seeing exactly what it actually is saying.

Wikileaks dumps back up my "bias".

Leroy42

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Wikileaks dumps back up my "bias".

How?

Hank Scorpio

Leroy42 wrote: »

How?

Several off the record private dinners with heads and editors of CNN, ABC, NBC, MSNBC, NYT, WAPO, Politico and so on with the stated goal of framing the race for Hillary along with hundreds of examples of collusion.

B0jangles

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Look it up if you care, I don't.

http://observer.com/2016/11/mainstream-media-recap-who-colluded-with-the-clinton-campaign/

I'm not advocating for dismissing a source outright, but I do think it bears repeating that this particular one is owned by Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

Hank Scorpio

B0jangles wrote: »

I'm not advocating for dismissing a source outright, but I do think it bears repeating that this particular one is owned by Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

Didn't know honestly, I thought it was part of the Guardian. Saves me linking to individual emails in any case.

Leroy42

But has the GOP and Trump not had any contact with media organisations? Clearly Fox news is biased, whether than it based on meetings or not.

The problem is trying to separate bias from proper reporting. Trump has many issues, many self-inflicted, and it would be wrong of the MSM not to cover them and ask questions. Trumps evasion and down right lies make asking for any input from their side as pointless. At what stage should the MSM continue to ask for KellyAnnes input when it is clear that truth is not her friend or even seemingly an acquaintance?

Plenty of coverage has been given to Trump Tweets, which invariably turn out to be, at best, an opinion. Trumps events are carried on Network news, his recent ME trip was extensively covered.

There is no doubt that large sections of the media are distrustful of Trump. But you need to question why? Why have the media suddenly decided to dump all pretence of professionalism to get Trump? It is not more likely that the media can see exactly what is going on, exactly what Trump is like, and know that this is bad for the US?

Certainly, to date, Trump has given little indication that they are wrong.

Hank Scorpio

Leroy42 wrote: »

But has the GOP and Trump not had any contact with media organisations? Clearly Fox news is biased, whether than it based on meetings or not.

The problem is trying to separate bias from proper reporting. Trump has many issues, many self-inflicted, and it would be wrong of the MSM not to cover them and ask questions. Trumps evasion and down right lies make asking for any input from their side as pointless. At what stage should the MSM continue to ask for KellyAnnes input when it is clear that truth is not her friend or even seemingly an acquaintance?

Plenty of coverage has been given to Trump Tweets, which invariably turn out to be, at best, an opinion. Trumps events are carried on Network news, his recent ME trip was extensively covered.

There is no doubt that large sections of the media are distrustful of Trump. But you need to question why? Why have the media suddenly decided to dump all pretence of professionalism to get Trump? It is not more likely that the media can see exactly what is going on, exactly what Trump is like, and know that this is bad for the US?

Certainly, to date, Trump has given little indication that they are wrong.

I don't disagree for the most part. I admit I do find the thing intriguing and have to wonder if he did have a bombshell to hide would he continue to viciously attack the media.

He just retweeted this...

https://twitter.com/JeffTutorials/status/879406107680276482

Christy42

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

I don't disagree for the most part. I admit I do find the thing intriguing and have to wonder if he did have a bombshell to hide would he continue to viciously attack the media.

He just retweeted this...

https://twitter.com/JeffTutorials/status/879406107680276482

I imagine a bombshell to hide would encourage him. The networks want to find out either way so discrediting them first would help him. I like the shouting in that tweet.

Hank Scorpio

Christy42 wrote: »

I imagine a bombshell to hide would encourage him. The networks want to find out either way so discrediting them first would help him. I like the shouting in that tweet.

Dunno it attracts more scrutiny and sets him up for a bigger fall

Water John

It's Trump's standard practice to attack any source that may have something negative on him. It can be a judge, lawyer, politician.
Yesterday it was the bipartisan CBO, WTF?

Zubeneschamali

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Dunno it attracts more scrutiny and sets him up for a bigger fall

It does indeed - it is going to be spectacular.

Leroy42

Oh I disagree on the idea Hank. The only reason I can see for Trump trying so openly and consistently to denouce and discredit the MSM is to reduce the effect of any bad news should it ever come out.

And he has done a wonderful job at it. People seemingly rather attack the news outlet rather than question the story itself. It all about shoot the messenger, which of course takes the light away from the message.

Trump has done this so well that, IMO, even if they found evidence of collusion (and I have an open mind on that, although leaning away from direct collusion) his core supporters would simply debunk it the basis of it comes from the WaPo, or NYT or CNN or whatever.

Look at the line they took with Comey. It is all about him being a leaker. They never actually face the fact that everything he said appears to be correct (certainly they haven't contradicted it).

The WH is also trying to discredit Mueller. Friends with Comey, worked with HC. It is already laying the groundwork for being able to discredit whatever it is that he may come out with.

Yes, it might attract more scrutiny, although every POTUS is under a pretty harsh media spotlight, but the gamble would be that if there is something to hide it will eventually get out so better to control the narrative when it does.

Hank Scorpio

I honestly think if it was there they'd have found and leaked it, it's been almost a year now.

PopePalpatine

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Some of those veritas reporters released teaser footage of CNN producers, bad publicity for them after they had to fire 3 reporters today.

https://streamable.com/4j78e

...aaaaaaaaaaand it's gone!

Maybe some context emerged since you posted that video, and Project Veritas took it down to save face.

Quin_Dub

Leroy42 wrote: »

Oh I disagree on the idea Hank. The only reason I can see for Trump trying so openly and consistently to denouce and discredit the MSM is to reduce the effect of any bad news should it ever come out.

And he has done a wonderful job at it. People seemingly rather attack the news outlet rather than question the story itself. It all about shoot the messenger, which of course takes the light away from the message.

Trump has done this so well that, IMO, even if they found evidence of collusion (and I have an open mind on that, although leaning away from direct collusion) his core supporters would simply debunk it the basis of it comes from the WaPo, or NYT or CNN or whatever.

Look at the line they took with Comey. It is all about him being a leaker. They never actually face the fact that everything he said appears to be correct (certainly they haven't contradicted it).

The WH is also trying to discredit Mueller. Friends with Comey, worked with HC. It is already laying the groundwork for being able to discredit whatever it is that he may come out with.

Yes, it might attract more scrutiny, although every POTUS is under a pretty harsh media spotlight, but the gamble would be that if there is something to hide it will eventually get out so better to control the narrative when it does.

Trump et al keep talking about Comey and "leaks" , they've never call him a liar.

If what he said in relation to Trump putting pressure on him to make the Flynn investigation go away isn't true , then Comey is a liar and should be heavily sanctioned for it.

But if what he's done is "leak" , then that means that what he said is largely true and that means there is a least a prima facie case for Trump to answer in court (whether or not he's ultimately guilty of obstruction or whatever doesn't matter at this stage , it's whether there's a case to answer).

By calling him a "leaker" and not a "liar" have they not made the potential case against them stronger???

mcmoustache

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

I honestly think if it was there they'd have found and leaked it, it's been almost a year now.

Yeah but since then we've moved from Trump supporters saying "Russia didn't meddle" to "OK they meddled but Obama and now on to " "Collusion with Russia isn't a crime".

aloyisious

I've been waiting for the big NYT story that was to break yesterday [advance notice by tweet-leak by friend of Comey] and haven't seen anything yet. It seems, according to the NYT, that 2 of the GOP Senators [Susan Collins and Rand Paul] are going the whole way in opposing the Don & GOP Health Care plan.... I'd imagine that the Congressional Budget Office and it's staff won't be taste of the month in the W/H or GOP leadership.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/us/politics/senate-health-care-bill-republican.html

Zubeneschamali

aloyisious wrote: »

2 of the GOP Senators [Susan Collins and Rand Paul] are going the whole way in opposing the Don & GOP Health Care plan..

There are two slots open for Rs to oppose the bill and still have it pass with Pence's tie-break, and the R senators are jockeying for those slots. They do not intend to defeat the bill, they just want to be seen to have opposed it to cushion the backlash.

Leroy42

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

I honestly think if it was there they'd have found and leaked it, it's been almost a year now.

I used to be of that persuasion, but seeing how Trump and the WH deal with any stories that have come up (Flynn lying, Kushner back channels, Comey firing etc) it is clear that it needs to be a knock-out punch to avoid it being lost in the noise generated by Fox News, Trump Tweets and WH obstruction.

I have no idea if they have anything, but if they do, then my bet is that they are holding off for the moment. Trump is doing most of the work for them anyway. His Tweets keep backing him further into a corner. He has basically admitted trying to influence the dropping of a federal investigation. The WH has admitted that Kushner tried to create back channels.

His administration as pretty much useless at this point so there is little benefit for jumping the gun. Let him continue to swing in the wind, keep daming himself and then when they have everything in place make the move (if they have anything that is).

Trump has clearly got a mastery of avoiding what, for any other politician, would be fatal (in terms of political career). I think this is being taken into account when running with a story.

I liken it to an investigation into the Church. If all you have if one witness and a few stories, it is easy enough for the story to be swept aside and things to move on. Only by continuing to dig, behind the scenes to avoid letting them know, is sufficient to bring the full story to the surface.

I certainly don't believe they have the smoking gun. Demfad etc has posted more than enough circumstantial evidence to cause severe harm normally, but it is too complicated for the majority of US voters who want a single soundbite

A Little Pony

So CNN has been caught out taking part in fake news. I guess Trump was right about them, they are fake news.

A Little Pony

Leroy42 wrote: »

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

I honestly think if it was there they'd have found and leaked it, it's been almost a year now.

I used to be of that persuasion, but seeing how Trump and the WH deal with any stories that have come up (Flynn lying, Kushner back channels, Comey firing etc) it is clear that it needs to be a knock-out punch to avoid it being lost in the noise generated by Fox News, Trump Tweets and WH obstruction.

I have no idea if they have anything, but if they do, then my bet is that they are holding off for the moment.  Trump is doing most of the work for them anyway.  His Tweets keep backing him further into a corner.  He has basically admitted trying to influence the dropping of a federal investigation.  The WH has admitted that Kushner tried to create back channels.

His administration as pretty much useless at this point so there is little benefit for jumping the gun.  Let him continue to swing in the wind, keep daming himself and then when they have everything in place make the move (if they have anything that is).

Trump has clearly got a mastery of avoiding what, for any other politician, would be fatal (in terms of political career).  I think this is being taken into account when running with a story.

I liken it to an investigation into the Church.  If all you have if one witness and a few stories, it is easy enough for the story to be swept aside and things to move on.  Only by continuing to dig, behind the scenes to avoid letting them know, is sufficient to bring the full story to the surface.

I certainly don't believe they have the smoking gun.  Demfad etc has posted more than enough circumstantial evidence to cause severe harm normally, but it is too complicated for the majority of US voters who want a single soundbite

Not a chance Trump is getting impeached because he didn't collude with the Russians to win the US election.

Water John

Pony, you don't get the irony that CNN acted immediately when the process of verification was not correctly carried out. CNN actually come out better because.
Let all the alt right sources apply the same criteria. It will then be a slack news day.

mcmoustache

Leroy42 wrote: »

I certainly don't believe they have the smoking gun. Demfad etc has posted more than enough circumstantial evidence to cause severe harm normally, but it is too complicated for the majority of US voters who want a single soundbite

That's the thing with circumstantial evidence. It's nowhere near as sexy as a tape of Donald Trump saying "Hey Putin, I'll get sanctions dropped if you help get me elected". Personally, I doubt such a thing could even exist because there must be a limit on Trump's stupidity.

There's a bit of a myth out there that circumstantial evidence is poor evidence. For example, the Smoking Gun of popular parlance is actually circumstantial evidence. Direct evidence would be a witness (flesh or electronic) testifying their recollection of an event.

For example:

If Alice, Bob and Charlie are in a hotel room and Bob shoots Charlie, Alice's testimony would be direct evidence.

Let's say Bob also shoots Alice. At this point there is simply no direct evidence (assuming no electronic surveillance or any other witnesses) other than Bob himself. Now let's imagine the following happens after Alice's shooting.

1. Eve, who works at the hotel peaks into the room. She sees Bob clearly with the smoking gun in his hand. This is circumstantial.

2. She sees Bob leg it out the window. Again, circumstantial.

3. A gun is found in a bin near the hotel and Bob's finger prints are on it. Circumstantial.

4. Clothes belonging to Bob are also found nearby. They contain traces of powder residue and his dna. Circumstantial.

5. Ballistics show that the rounds in Alice and Charlie came from that same gun. Circumstantial.

6. Bob is caught on camera entering the subway close to where the gun was found. Circumstantial.

7. A search of Bob's house reveals a letter showing that Alice and Charlie were blackmailing Bob. Circumstantial.

8. Bob flees to Mexico and goes into hiding. Circumstantial.

9. Years later, Bob writes and publishes a fictional story about a guy called Rob who murders two blackmailers in a hotel. The details perfectly line up with what investigators know about the case. Circumstantial.


I'm going to stop there but I hope you get the idea. Direct evidence is often missing entirely yet cases proceed with purely circumstantial evidence all the time.

In the examples I listed above, each one of them, including the smoking gun, would never be enough to convict on their own. None of these individual pieces of circumstantial evidence prove that Bob did it.

For example, in point 1, Bob could have picked up the gun thinking that another shooter was at large. In point 2, he could have legged it out the window to give chase to a one-armed man. In point 3, Bob could have gotten scared and dumped the gun.

As we go through each piece of circumstantial evidence, however, the excuses will start to get more implausible. Why hide the clothes? Why flee? How does Bob know details of the murder that only investigators know?

Even if there is an excuse for each piece of evidence, Bob's story will probably be implausible. On the other hand, all of his actions fit a narrative that he shot Alice and Bob when they tried to blackmail him after which he legged it to Mexico. All that evidence would be enough to have him hanged even though there is no proof that he did it.

TL;DR

Circumstantial evidence is good enough to convict and is often all there is.

Leroy42

A Little Pony wrote: »

Not a chance Trump is getting impeached because he didn't collude with the Russians to win the US election.

Where did I say impeached and where did I limit it to just Russia collusion?

CNN have been found to be running a false news story. They have held their hands up and admitted the error. And those that were involved have 'resigned'.

The person implicated in the story has accepted the apology and said it was time to move on.

It took Fox News how long to admit the Seth Rich conspiracy stories were false?
It took Trump how long to admit he had no evidence of Obama wiretapping him? Or of having no tapes on Comey?

What CNN did was wrong but for anyone to claim it paints them in any worse light than the others is not looking at the facts.

In a fast moving media world mistakes are going to be made. It is how they are dealt with that shows the character.

You seem to be implying that one news story found to be fake invalidates the entire organisation. So I assume that you discount anything Trump or the WH says, and Fox news, Alex Jones, Hannity etc are all off limits as well

Maximus Alexander

A Little Pony wrote: »

So CNN has been caught out taking part in fake news. I guess Trump was right about them, they are fake news.

Poor journalism is not the same as fake news. Fake news is fabricated, whereas this was poorly sourced. Fake news doesn't issue retractions. Even the besmirched individual is over it:

"@CNN did the right thing. Classy move. Apology accepted. Everyone makes mistakes. Moving on." - Anthony Scaramucci

Sofa Spud

"@CNN did the right thing. Classy move. Apology accepted. Everyone makes mistakes. Moving on." - Anthony Scaramucci

Did he ever do the Fandango?

Captain Obvious

A Little Pony wrote: »

So CNN has been caught out taking part in fake news. I guess Trump was right about them, they are fake news.

That's not fake news, that's a mistake. That's why it had a retraction and resignations. Fake news is stuff like Obama being a muslim.

A Little Pony wrote: »

Not a chance Trump is getting impeached because he didn't collude with the Russians to win the US election.

The collusion is irrelevent really. It's Trumps obstruction of the investigation that will be what he could face impeachment for.

mcmoustache

Leroy42 wrote: »

In a fast moving media world mistakes are going to be made. It is how they are dealt with that shows the character.

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

Poor journalism is not the same as fake news. Fake news is fabricated, whereas this was poorly sourced. Fake news doesn't issue retractions. Even the besmirched individual is over it:

"@CNN did the right thing. Classy move. Apology accepted. Everyone makes mistakes. Moving on." - Anthony Scaramucci

I think that people are trying really hard not to understand this. Journalists make mistakes. It's inevitable. When it happens, they retract and apologise. It's not perfect but it has served us pretty well.

Fake News is fabricated stories which are distributed as though they were news with an intent to deceive. News that is fake, if you will. It's not bias. It's not spin. It's not editorial decisions. It's actual fake news. The clue is in the name.

A Little Pony

Captain Obvious wrote: »

A Little Pony wrote: »

So CNN has been caught out taking part in fake news. I guess Trump was right about them, they are fake news.

That's not fake news, that's a mistake. That's why it had a retraction and resignations. Fake news is stuff like Obama being a muslim.

A Little Pony wrote: »

Not a chance Trump is getting impeached because he didn't collude with the Russians to win the US election.

The collusion is irrelevent really. It's Trumps obstruction of the investigation that will be what he could face impeachment for.

He won't get impeached for that either as it never happened. CNN knew the story was bollocks, pretty much like most of these stories. I know in a years time nothing will have changed as they don't have anything on him. You can't barrage the Donald.