(11-21-2019 04:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Ok, let's clear things up.

No one is saying there was no reason to continue encouraging Ukraine to investigation corruption throughout the government. The issue is whether Trump was actually interested in that OR just interested in using Ukraine as a tool to attack his political interests.

Yes, let's clear things up. Hunter Biden was a highly paid member of the board of the entity at the forefront of this corruption. To act as if ousting the guy who refused to cooperate with other nations somehow clears them of wrongdoing is ridiculous.

Quote:Going further, if you listen to the testimonies, you'll learn that Ukraine had been doing work to clean up their corruption. Immediately prior to the new president's inauguration, the DOD had certified that their military was meeting anti-corruption benchmarks. And Zelensky ran on a very public anti-corruption platform - so there wasn't a lot of reason to believe he wouldn't carry through that stance. In fact, Ukraine recently passed legislation removing politician's immunity from prosecution.

Yes... that's exactly what Trump said during the call at the center of this, and the investigation you're referring to happened during the 'hold' on the funds.

Quote:So no, getting rid of one guy was not the only thing that needed to be done; but there is substantial evidence that Trump did not actually want to combat corruption in Ukraine. Was there a specific policy agenda Trump himself pushed and brought up? Were Burisima/Biden part of something bigger - like focusing on nepotism?

You're doing exactly what I said the author was doing. You're framing Trump's actions based on a very limited scope... that he has to have a specific policy agenda... and then arguing with that premise.

Actually there is almost NO evidence that he didn't want to combat this same corruption that Biden wanted to combat in Ukraine... The only difference is the focus on America's part in it. There are lots of 'I understood' or 'that is what i interpreted' and certainly a whole lot of 'This is who Trump is, so I choose to believe it'... but almost no evidence. The best evidence we have is that Trump did something Obama never did in approving weapons for Ukraine to use against Russia... and the funds and weapons were held pending the very decision you speak about was made and then they were approved... and no investigation was announced by Ukraine. He may or may not have wanted it, but he didn't get it and there is no evidence that this was an issue at any point.

You guys keep saying 'combat corruption in Ukraine', and ignore that Trump was elected (in part) on 'draining the swamp' in the US, as was the Ukrainian President in the Ukraine... they spoke about this on the call. He was also elected (in part) by putting American interests first. The battle against corruption clearly isn't bound by borders, and there were high profile 'swamp' members from both nations at the forefront of the Burisma issue.

It seems to me that since Biden wanted Burisma investigated, he'd also want to have his son vindicated in that.

So as Trump requested, you have an investigation into Biden's role.

Trump asked for an investigation, not a conviction.

(11-21-2019 04:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-21-2019 04:08 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  pfft.

The article you quote... which is clearly a political piece... alludes to my questions, but still doesn't answer them. I suspect because it doesn't like the answers. It starts off by defining (incorrectly) what the other side is saying so that they can argue with that false premise... and then act as if they've answered the question because they answered their own preferred version of the question.

The author is a relatively recent Rice alumnus who has an expertise on Eastern European affairs.

"I'm a writer, analyst, and investigative journalist on topics ranging from kleptocracy and grand corruption to developments in the post-Soviet space and Western relations therein. I received my Master's degree in Russia, Eurasia and Eastern Europe Studies from Columbia University's Harriman Institute, and my pieces and analyses have appeared in outlets like Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, The Atlantic, The New Republic, POLITICO Magazine, Washington Post, Sports Illustrated, Just Security, Bellingcat, ThinkProgress, Quartz, The American Interest, Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, openDemocracy, Guardian, National Review, World Politics Review, Al Jazeera, Slate, The Daily Beast, Roads & Kingdoms, Talking Points Memo, EurasiaNet, Houston Chronicle, Jamestown, Moscow Times, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and Business Insider, among a host of other outlets. "

http://www.caseymichel.com/

I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that educated RIce people are incapable of having clear political bias that can cloud their judgement about the motives of others? (I'm laughing at us both there.

I see nothing in there that makes him an expert in 'what Republicans think or are arguing'... If you're just being informative, thank you.

(11-21-2019 06:19 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(11-21-2019 04:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The author is a relatively recent Rice alumnus who has an expertise on Eastern European affairs.

Correction: the writer is a relatively recent Rice graduate who seems to have written a lot of opinions about Eastern European affairs. To the extent that "expertise" is intended to imply sound judgment, writing a bunch of opinions is not much evidence of it (see, e.g., Paul Krugman).

I figured the advanced degree from Columbia helped make the case.

(11-21-2019 06:36 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-21-2019 06:19 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(11-21-2019 04:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The author is a relatively recent Rice alumnus who has an expertise on Eastern European affairs.

Correction: the writer is a relatively recent Rice graduate who seems to have written a lot of opinions about Eastern European affairs. To the extent that "expertise" is intended to imply sound judgment, writing a bunch of opinions is not much evidence of it (see, e.g., Paul Krugman).

I figured the advanced degree from Columbia helped make the case.

I guess you missed the point on Paul Krugman

I have cracked the lad Enigma machine code.

A writer, source, facts presented, or media whom he agrees with their opinion --- fact, or 'has ... expertise'.

A writer, source, facts presented, or media with whom he disagrees with their slant or does not like the facts presented --- 'discredited', 'garbage', 'tainted', 'clear bias'.

I would bet going back this has about an 85% hit rate.

Y’all crack me up spending so much mental effort trying to push back on a claim of expertise based on a post-secondary degree in the field.

You crack me up since in your mind a post-secondary degree is the sine qua non of life, the universe, and everything.

I will take it that you think that writing a bunch of opinions is massive evidence of sound and proper judgement.

Interesting take.

Especially given your dismissive attitude towards at least a couple of authors of opinions holding similar degrees whom happen to disagree with your given stance; that has happened on more than one occasion when an opinion source has been presented that you poo-poo. Funny, you didnt laud that PhD in those instances..... I will now note to make sure you know the degree level of any opinion writer I cite so you can give the due and proper respect to given your newly known stance on the issue.

Shall we add another facet to the lad Enigma cypher ---

Post secondary degree holder author with whom lad agrees with == expertise.
Post secondary degree holder author with whose opinions lad disagrees with == simple opinion.

(11-21-2019 07:27 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  You crack me up since in your mind a post-secondary degree is the sine qua non of life, the universe, and everything.

I will take it that you think that writing a bunch of opinions is massive evidence of sound and proper judgement.

Interesting take.

Especially given your dismissive attitude towards at least a couple of authors of opinions holding similar degrees whom happen to disagree with your given stance; that has happened on more than one occasion when an opinion source has been presented that you poo-poo. Funny, you didnt laud that PhD in those instances..... I will now note to make sure you know the degree level of any opinion writer I cite so you can give the due and proper respect to given your newly known stance on the issue.

Shall we add another facet to the lad Enigma cypher ---

Post secondary degree holder author with whom lad agrees with == expertise.
Post secondary degree holder author with whose opinions lad disagrees with == simple opinion.

Tanq, please point out what expertise I claimed certain individuals didn’t have, and in what fields I said they didn’t have expertise.

Saying someone is or isn’t a reliable source because of past reporting biases or accuracies/inaccuracies is VERY different than saying someone is or isn’t an expert on a subject matter.

What a farcical take.

You wasted a lot of words putting together an opinion that amounts to you not believing a degree confers expertise. I guess I could be a practicing lawyer based on your opinions.

(11-21-2019 07:53 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You wasted a lot of words putting together an opinion that amounts to you not believing a degree confers expertise.

I dont believe a degree to the god-like level that you do, you mean. Especially in an opinion.

I have seen rafts of people with much much much much (you get the drift, right?) higher levels of education than a masters of policy from Columbia be dead wrong in opinions. Comes as part of what I have done professionally. Funny that.

You seemingly are saying a fing masters from Columbia confers the answer to life, the universe, and everything and has buttloads of credence all contained within a buzzfeed article. Good for you. On an opinion to boot. You want to defend this dude to the death grip on his opinion -- good for you as well, son. Whatever blows your hair back.


To me, it is an opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. Clear enough for you not to twist, lad?

Now getting back to your fing absolutely overbroad statement. Please do tell where I have noted that I unequivocally '[do] not believ[e] a degree confers expertise'. It may, or it may not. But please do state any unequivocal statement that I '[do] not believ[e] a degree confers expertise'.

On a sidenote, that statement is kind of rich coming from the squawk you laid out just today about 'making someone defend a position they haven't taken.' You never cease to surprise me lad.

All I said was that a Master’s in that subject gives the author an expertise in the subject.

Anything else you inferred is exactly that, an inference. But go ahead and tell me exactly what I mean because you know me oh so well.

(11-21-2019 10:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  All I said was that a Master’s in that subject gives the author an expertise in the subject.

Anything else you inferred is exactly that, an inference. But go ahead and tell me exactly what I mean because you know me oh so well.

A masters may, or may not, give such expertise. But you automatically assume that it does. Got it.

Further, I seem to note the Masters is 'in Russia, Eurasia and Eastern Europe Studies'. I am glad that gives him a seemingly uber awesome expertise in Ukrainian corruption and Ukrainian internal commercial and legal issues, and his opinions are gold because of it.

Does the Masters 'in Russia, Eurasia and Eastern Europe Studies' also give him that same super duper expertise Ukrainian folk festivals involving gnomes and Angorra rabbits?

Funny how you automatically conflate a Masters in a rather general area to 'expertise' in a highly limited area or sub-area. I will be sure to note graduate degrees to all authors of opinion pieces I put forth from this time forward so you can attach that same level of rock star rapt adherence to that you so strongly attach to this opinion piece author. Sound good to you?

I mean if we take your 'interesting' proposition to its fullest extent, my JD (a doctorate no less if you want to be precise) would give me expertise in trusts, wills, estate, and probate law. While I would be absolutely thrilled to have such lavish praise thrust upon me, I can undoubtedly tell you to go to another lawyer who would have that particular, uh, what would be the best term for that, yeah I got it, another lawyer with that 'expertise'.

Still clueless on the issue lad? Or do you want to pontificate some more about how obvious the expertise is for the author based on a piece of parchment? Or is there some other 'nuance' you feel the need to proffer?

You ask if Michel is an expert in Ukrainian corruption? Let me repost how his focus is on kleptocracy and grand corruption developments in the post-Soviet space.


"I'm a writer, analyst, and investigative journalist on topics ranging from kleptocracy and grand corruption to developments in the post-Soviet space and Western relations therein. I received my Master's degree in Russia, Eurasia and Eastern Europe Studies from Columbia University's Harriman Institute, and my pieces and analyses have appeared in outlets like Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, The Atlantic, The New Republic, POLITICO Magazine, Washington Post, Sports Illustrated, Just Security, Bellingcat, ThinkProgress, Quartz, The American Interest, Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, openDemocracy, Guardian, National Review, World Politics Review, Al Jazeera, Slate, The Daily Beast, Roads & Kingdoms, Talking Points Memo, EurasiaNet, Houston Chronicle, Jamestown, Moscow Times, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and Business Insider, among a host of other outlets. "

http://www.caseymichel.com/

Edit: let me add more from Michel’s bio:

“ I recently put together a full-length report with the Hudson Institute on the U.S.'s transition into a global offshore finance haven, and I’ve spoken at both the Atlantic Council and Wilson Center’s Kennan Institute on kleptocratic tools (shell companies, anonymous trusts, etc.). I'm a member of the Advisory Council for the Hudson Institute's Kleptocracy Initiative, and I also recently served as a Senior Investigative Fellow with the Human Rights Foundation.”

Go ahead and disagree with his conclusions, but it is utterly hilarious to try and say that he doesn’t have an expertise in what I said he does.

Thats great. I am glad to know that I need to subscribe religious reverence to someone based on a bio.

As before, the dude's educational background may indicate an expertise, or it may not. You are so enraptured with the sheet that you overlook that issue.

I am glad he claims that. Good for him. I guess that is the end of the matter for that for you. Funny you pay exactly zero fing homage to those bio credentials when one presents an opposing view to yours. Not funny as odd, since that seems to be your craft and trade, just funny in a humorous way.

Which is odd, as you pretty much on a continuous basis take a dump on the opinions of OO. I seem to remember he has a Masters on at least some of the subjects he posts about; and I think he did those exact things for 40+ years. I mean, on some of the subjects which are within that wheelhouse you have commented that he is ignorant or something equivalent. You seemingly take a piss on OO's 'sheepskin' background and expertise there, why the prostrating of yourself to this guy from Columbia Masters program?

So be it. I sincerely hope your deference to bios keeps up with you as you age. Actually let me rephrase -- your deference to bios of people you happen to agree with. And yes, hate to tell you I dont have the utter religiosity of you to bios, and many times degrees.

As I noted to you before, I have seen way too many self-proclaimed (and externally proclaimed) 'experts' who have demonstrably been shown to be absolutely incorrect in their viewpoint. Notwithstanding a bio or a degree held.

You seemingly forget that at a younger time I did a lot of big-ticket commercial litigation. So, in that regard, the 'batting average' expertise-wise of every post secondary degree I have ever seen is actually far less than 50 per cent -- the 50 per cent is by definition mind you. But again, we have the intrusion of the real world into the paeans of lad world I guess.

I think we can all agree that a liberal who presents liberal ideas through liberal publications and to liberal gatherings will be considered an expert by liberals.

Especially if he has advanced degrees from liberal institutions.

To file under the proverbial 'not enough smoke' banner, or the 'you must be completely daft to believe the NatSec apparatus would subvert an investigation into Trump' banner.

“FBI official under investigation after allegedly altering document in 2016 Russia probe.”

Quote:An FBI official is under criminal investigation after allegedly altering a document related to 2016 surveillance of a Trump campaign adviser, several people briefed on the matter told CNN.

Quote:Horowitz turned over evidence on the allegedly altered document to John Durham, the federal prosecutor appointed early this year by Attorney General William Barr to conduct a broad investigation of intelligence gathered for the Russia probe by the CIA and other agencies, including the FBI. The altered document is also at least one focus of Durham’s criminal probe.

…The alterations were significant enough to have shifted the document’s meaning and came up during a part of Horowitz’s FISA review where details were classified, according to the sources.

By the way, this is not the 'lets edit the 302 after the first one didnt do the job' that Strzok and Page are seemingly occupied with presently.

Yep, some of us were completely daft to think some investigator's fingers were on the scale in the debacle and that smoke was present. [sarcasm off] Notwithstanding what others might have opined.

It will be interesting to see what the IG report states on the mess.

(11-22-2019 01:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think we can all agree that a liberal who presents liberal ideas through liberal publications and to liberal gatherings will be considered an expert by liberals.

Especially if he has advanced degrees from liberal institutions.

And, at one point in time I too was enraptured by sheets of paper from universities.

I outgrew that automatic deference to them *and* those pieces of paper, but only after the first year of so of dealing with such 'people of expertise' in a litigation setting. Probably should have been sooner in hindsight. My own naivete on display there.

(11-22-2019 01:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think we can all agree that a liberal who presents liberal ideas through liberal publications and to liberal gatherings will be considered an expert by liberals.

Especially if he has advanced degrees from liberal institutions.

What if, it is really that someone who spent multiple years in a region, then did a master’s degree studying that region, who continued afterwards to research and right about that region, perhaps has an expertise in that region?

This is seriously the stupidest thing y’all have ever wanted to argue with me about - me saying that Michel has an expertise in a specific topic that is discussed at length in an opinion piece.

Did y’all actually read the entirety of the opinion piece and see how much detail he provided regarding Ukrainian politics/corruption?

Glad to have confirmation that y’all will argue with me about anything big or small.

(11-22-2019 02:56 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-22-2019 01:01 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think we can all agree that a liberal who presents liberal ideas through liberal publications and to liberal gatherings will be considered an expert by liberals.

Especially if he has advanced degrees from liberal institutions.

And, at one point in time I too was enraptured by sheets of paper from universities.

I outgrew that automatic deference to them *and* those pieces of paper, but only after the first year of so of dealing with such 'people of expertise' in a litigation setting. Probably should have been sooner in hindsight. My own naivete on display there.

Tanq, it isn’t me being enraptured - it is me recognizing that obtaining an advanced degree in a specific topic denotes that you have some expertise in said topic. That doesn’t make them infallible, but it certainly provides extra weight to their opinions/insights in that topic area.

To think otherwise shows a wonderful amount of hubris.

What should Mr. Michel have done differently to be considered a reliable source?

new polls

Support for impeachment waning.

Support for Trump rising.

(11-22-2019 02:49 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  To file under the proverbial 'not enough smoke' banner, or the 'you must be completely daft to believe the NatSec apparatus would subvert an investigation into Trump' banner.

“FBI official under investigation after allegedly altering document in 2016 Russia probe.”

Quote:An FBI official is under criminal investigation after allegedly altering a document related to 2016 surveillance of a Trump campaign adviser, several people briefed on the matter told CNN.

Quote:Horowitz turned over evidence on the allegedly altered document to John Durham, the federal prosecutor appointed early this year by Attorney General William Barr to conduct a broad investigation of intelligence gathered for the Russia probe by the CIA and other agencies, including the FBI. The altered document is also at least one focus of Durham’s criminal probe.

…The alterations were significant enough to have shifted the document’s meaning and came up during a part of Horowitz’s FISA review where details were classified, according to the sources.

By the way, this is not the 'lets edit the 302 after the first one didnt do the job' that Strzok and Page are seemingly occupied with presently.

Yep, some of us were completely daft to think some investigator's fingers were on the scale in the debacle and that smoke was present. [sarcasm off] Notwithstanding what others might have opined.

It will be interesting to see what the IG report states on the mess.

Will be very interesting to see what comes out regarding those changes, especially since, as the report says, it changed the meaning of the document. Was it a correction? Or was it intentional obfuscation/lying?

I do note that you left out a very crucial sentence from the paragraph you copied. From where you left off:

Quote:...came up during a part of Horowitz's FISA review where details were classified, according to the sources. According to the Washington Post, it did not change Horowitz's finding that the FISA application had a legal basis.

Wonder if the WashPo reporting is truthful.