October Surprise #1

[Dr Exiled]

I'm going to go through this if I have the time. My first take: I don't know why Smith needs to redact the names, maybe to avoid some fact checks? Where is the Guardian???

Why do you think it is anomalous that that the names were redacted?

I wasn't paying attention to the case much and that was merely my first take. I have a visceral reaction to unnecessary redactions and in this case it seems the redactions don't mean much because the statements attached to them will probably allow sleuths to unmask them easily. Anyway, if I have time to go through it, I will give a more detailed response.

[Res Ipsa]

Why do you think it is anomalous that that the names were redacted?

I wasn't paying attention to the case much and that was merely my first take. I have a visceral reaction to unnecessary redactions and in this case it seems the redactions don't mean much because the statements attached to them will probably allow sleuths to unmask them easily. Anyway, if I have time to go through it, I will give a more detailed response.

Fair enough. At this stage, I don't think the issue is the strength of the evidence or the merits of the case. It's whether, assuming the truth of the prosecution's claims, Trump is immune from prosecution.

[Jersey Girl]

Did anyone catch how Pence provided 5 pages of hand written contemporaneous notes of his meetings with Trump etc.,? Just putting that here. I'll go back and read the posts now. (Sorry).

[Dr Exiled]

"Conspiracy theory" - allegations made by the "wrong" group against the "correct" thinking group. It tends to be narrative destroying and has been successful for years to squelch dissent. It's useful in defense of alleged criminals to call the allegations lodged these alleged criminals "conspiracy theory." It supplies those who want to be in the "correct" thinking group the fuel to deride, ridicule, and point the finger of distain at the "wrong" thinking group. It divides instead of aiding in actual fact finding.

Res, how do you decide what is a mere conspiracy as opposed to a "conspiracy theory?" It seems it's just a team concept as in "our" team needs to discredit our dirty laundry and so let's resort to name-calling.

Nonsense. A "conspiracy theory" involves the assumption of an undefined conspiracy as an explanation for alleged anomalous facts. A conspiracy theory is unfalsifiable because facts that contradict the theory are reinterpreted as evidence of the conspiracy. Conspiracy theories are not driven by the totality of evidence but by claims that there are factual anomalies in the evidenced. Rather than accepting that our knowledge of the totality of facts is certain to be incomplete in any given situation, the conspiracy theorist elevates what they think is an anomaly over the actual evidence.

An actual conspiracy is based on evidence that demonstrates the agreement among the conspirators to bring about an intended result. There is actual evidence of what the conspirators agreed to do, what they did, and how they did it. That evidence is what is painstakingly set out in the government's brief. That kind of direct evidence that shows who the conspirators are, what they agreed to do, and what they did is what is absent from a "conspiracy theory." The conspiracy theorist will always conveniently attribute the absence of evidence to a coverup by the conspiracy.

A good rule of thumb: if you find yourself making arguments in the form of "Oh yeah, how do you explain X," with X being some fact that you think is an anomaly, you're very likely caught up in a conspiracy theory. When you find yourself crying persecution and repression of dissent instead of providing evidence, you are almost certainly caught up in a conspiracy theory.

Naw. It's just name-calling, and glad to see you are convinced at the allegation stage. I guess there is no need to have a trial? Just declare Trumptard guilty and move to the penalty phase?

[Jersey Girl]

I'm going to go through this if I have the time. My first take: I don't know why Smith needs to redact the names, maybe to avoid some fact checks? Where is the Guardian???

It's protecting the identity of the witnesses. Protecting them from witness intimidation. It's possible that some of them may have made plea bargains already in exchange for their testimony. That needs to be protected. If I'm wrong, RI will drop the hammer on me.

[Dr Exiled]

I'm going to go through this if I have the time. My first take: I don't know why Smith needs to redact the names, maybe to avoid some fact checks? Where is the Guardian???

It's protecting the identity of the witnesses. Protecting them from witness intimidation. It's possible that some of them may have made plea bargains already in exchange for their testimony. That needs to be protected. If I'm wrong, RI will drop the hammer on me.

I hadn't been paying attention to the back and forth of the case. The witness intimidation argument was definitely made and Trumptard's so-called "lawyers" were against keeping the witnesses private. However, in an attempt to avoid having the recent Smith filing made public, Trumptard and his "lawyers" made an apparent about face asking to have the substance of the proposed testimony redacted. It didn't work, thankfully.

[Res Ipsa]

Nonsense. A "conspiracy theory" involves the assumption of an undefined conspiracy as an explanation for alleged anomalous facts. A conspiracy theory is unfalsifiable because facts that contradict the theory are reinterpreted as evidence of the conspiracy. Conspiracy theories are not driven by the totality of evidence but by claims that there are factual anomalies in the evidenced. Rather than accepting that our knowledge of the totality of facts is certain to be incomplete in any given situation, the conspiracy theorist elevates what they think is an anomaly over the actual evidence.

An actual conspiracy is based on evidence that demonstrates the agreement among the conspirators to bring about an intended result. There is actual evidence of what the conspirators agreed to do, what they did, and how they did it. That evidence is what is painstakingly set out in the government's brief. That kind of direct evidence that shows who the conspirators are, what they agreed to do, and what they did is what is absent from a "conspiracy theory." The conspiracy theorist will always conveniently attribute the absence of evidence to a coverup by the conspiracy.

A good rule of thumb: if you find yourself making arguments in the form of "Oh yeah, how do you explain X," with X being some fact that you think is an anomaly, you're very likely caught up in a conspiracy theory. When you find yourself crying persecution and repression of dissent instead of providing evidence, you are almost certainly caught up in a conspiracy theory.

Naw. It's just name-calling, and glad to see you are convinced at the allegation stage. I guess there is no need to have a trial? Just declare Trumptard guilty and move to the penalty phase?

More silly strawmen. Counsellor, I am confident that you fully understand the difference between the existence of evidence and the weight of the evidence. Why the simple recognition that the government's brief refers to evidence of a conspiracy should send you into hysterics is beyond me.

[Dr Exiled]

Naw. It's just name-calling, and glad to see you are convinced at the allegation stage. I guess there is no need to have a trial? Just declare Trumptard guilty and move to the penalty phase?

More silly strawmen. Counsellor, I am confident that you fully understand the difference between the existence of evidence and the weight of the evidence. Why the simple recognition that the government's brief refers to evidence of a conspiracy should send you into hysterics is beyond me.

No, my point is the term "conspiracy theory" has devolved, as it seems to have been intended, to mere name calling. Conspiracies exists as you know and whether or not a prosecutor or plaintiff can prove such is really the heart of the matter. Defendants, potential defendants, and/or those under the spotlight calling allegations against them "conspiracy theories" is just an attempt to stifle discussion or investigation or to bolster a particular position. Sure, there are wacky theories out there but all too often the "conspiracy theory" label is part of an intended faulty comparison. That seems to be why flat-earth is brought up so often in these discussions.

[Res Ipsa]

More silly strawmen. Counsellor, I am confident that you fully understand the difference between the existence of evidence and the weight of the evidence. Why the simple recognition that the government's brief refers to evidence of a conspiracy should send you into hysterics is beyond me.

No, my point is the term "conspiracy theory" has devolved, as it seems to have been intended, to mere name calling. Conspiracies exists as you know and whether or not a prosecutor or plaintiff can prove such is really the heart of the matter. Defendants, potential defendants, and/or those under the spotlight calling allegations against them "conspiracy theories" is just an attempt to stifle discussion or investigation or to bolster a particular position. Sure, there are wacky theories out there but all too often the "conspiracy theory" label is part of an intended faulty comparison. That seems to be why flat-earth is brought up so often in these discussions.

None of that responds at all to what I've posted. You asked about the difference between an actual conspiracy and a "conspiracy theory." I responded. I never said that the existence of a conspiracy required a court victory. People use language imprecisely all the time. If someone labels something as a conspiracy theory incorrectly, by all means correct them. But the fact that the term is overused doesn't imply that there are no "conspiracy theories."

[canpakes]

No, my point is the term "conspiracy theory" has devolved, as it seems to have been intended, to mere name calling. Conspiracies exists as you know and whether or not a prosecutor or plaintiff can prove such is really the heart of the matter. Defendants, potential defendants, and/or those under the spotlight calling allegations against them "conspiracy theories" is just an attempt to stifle discussion or investigation or to bolster a particular position.

Is this the result of an organized effort headed up by a particular administrative state?

Sure, there are wacky theories out there but all too often the "conspiracy theory" label is part of an intended faulty comparison. That seems to be why flat-earth is brought up so often in these discussions.

What if the example of ‘conspiracy theory’ used lizard people, instead?