Cocaine? Oh dear, whatever you’re on I don’t want any
Matthew Norman Davies
21

Your post is completely incoherent… and bo bo had not written anything when I replied (or, at least, wrote it between my reading the comment and hitting submit). Due to the incoherency, I am not sure if you presupposed bo bo’s point of view was available to me or not. Anyway…

Firstly, it is explicit in my previous post that I am willing to entertain the notion that there are issues with the Clinton Campaign’s conduct. I don’t believe that, but I certainly didn’t state such an opinion previously (although I did make a snide remark about the FBI investigation). It is laughable to tell me what I told you with a tone of critique. However, it is absurdly common on the internet to find such behaviour.

Secondly, the premise of the Trump Jr. Collusion emails scandal is that it is a problem for a member of a campaign to believe they have an opportunity to involve a foreign government in the conduct of American elections. Now, if you want to make an argument, such as the one bo bo has made, that this is a false premise, you are free to do so. However, it is neither here nor there in the context of my post.

You see, and this should have been obvious, that I was characterising two things. I was not attaching any moral/political assessment to them, rather I was explaining what is known (or thought to be known) about them and why the two are not reasonably similar (contrary to the claims of a certain “rogue journalist”). However, I did repeat the standard premise (i.e. that is a problem¹). But this is exactly how it is perceived, which was the focus of what I was doing.

Furthermore, while technically accurate (to my understanding) to use “private citizen” to describe Trump jr. the issue that people are concerned about is that Trump jr’s actions constitute collusion by the campaign first and foremost and secondly that they’re problematic even if he was acting privately. (Which is why in the BBC article I quote below, you find it is framed in terms of the Trump Campaign but also discusses the potential consequences for Trump jr. as a person… which to bo bo’s mind are none; I take no position on bo bo’s being right or not, incidentally.)

Thirdly, I didn’t say “Russiagate” is real. I don’t know if I think the Trump Campaign colluded with foreign governments, or even that foreign governments interfered in US elections², and that you seem to think I do³ is a big cause of your incoherence. Now, I certainly did say things that one might superficially think are suggesting that Trump jr.’s activities are bad and I actually did say that the Trump associated investigations should continue, but this is not the same thing.

If you’d care to read what I wrote, you’ll observe that I was pointing out a logical fallacy. Specifically, that our friend the Rogue Journalist had offered us the logic of “But Johnny killed four people and no-one cared, so we shouldn’t care that Joanna killed four people too”.⁴ What matters is not the reception of the act, but rather the act itself… if we want to judge the act (obviously, if you have a bunch of people celebrating quadruple murderers there is something to care about there). It could be the case that people don’t actually think of Johnny as a killer even if both of them are on video shooting people in the head(which goes to reception, now that I look back on it) and that A is not X doesn’t actually say anything about B’s being X.⁵ Finally, if you think that Joanna has means, motive and opportunity for four murders, I rather hope that you agree with me that we should investigate Joanna… even if you think she’s innocent. But I think the killer blow was my point that that if they are the same, then that means you investigate Clinton/Johnny too.⁶ (Clearly, this follows from the premise we should investigate suspects, even ones we believe are innocent.)

Basically, get a grip and read next time. If it turns out the cocaine analogy was what confused you before, please forgive me for following up with a post that depends on another analogy.

¹ As a BBC article put it, it is a known, not bo bo exclusive idea, that “some Trump supporters have been insisting that even if members of the campaign did co-ordinate with Russian operatives, it wouldn’t have been illegal or even improper” so I should have been more careful here.

² Frankly the whole US electoral system is so dumb, it amazes me that people think they’ll be able to notice anything.

³ “This imaginary Russiagate shit is really Boring and you need to get a grip”.

“Soliciting political opposition research from Russian connections? And then released absolutely nothing?”

⁵ This is actually kind of the logic of precedent… similar cases should have similar outcomes. If you take things this way, I should point out that I had just argued that A and B were not similar cases.

⁶ Hey, look, it turns out that I don’t disagree with the logic of the common law.