Maddy wrote:moda0306 wrote: If tech is operating without published counter-analysis, but instead simply judging the facts as they are provided from the best sources (I'd hope we all agree that building your counter-arguments against the worst of your opposition is hardly sufficient) then I'd instead be curious the sources he's analyzed the claims evidence from. Either way, something with some actual teeth would be nice.
Let's say, just for the sake of argument, that Tech has done absolutely nothing in the way of analysis. Let's say that he's come to his conclusion based solely upon the fact that none of the proponents of impeachment has come forward with anything even remotely sufficient to justify it. Wouldn't that be enough to make his case? [Channeling Celotex v. Catrett (when a defendant challenges, on summary judgment, a plaintiff's ability to prove one or more of the requisite elements of his case on which he bears the burden of proof, and the plaintiff fails to come forward with competent and admissible evidence sufficient to make out a prima facie case, summary judgment of dismissal is warranted since there can be no genuine issue of material fact when there is a complete failure of proof).]
Why don't we just cut to the chase and have you lay out what YOU think are the facts and evidence that justify these proceedings?
Only some are calling for impeachment. That specifically limiting research to the most ardent opponents of Trump, and probably the most obvious players.
I'm trying to figure out who is worth reading or listening to. Not just observe tribal political banter devoid of research. The only evidence I could provide are the names of journalists and podcasters on these topics. Obviously limited of course. I am not smart or informed enough to be able to digest all the barrage of sources. Put another way, I can't perfectly identify really good analysis. But identifying bad or incomplete analysis isn't all that difficult, and that's all I seem to see on this board nowadays. I'm not saying I can do much better, mind you.
Most of my sources consist of Glenn Greenwald, Jeremy Scahill, Noam Chomsky, Sam Harris (sorta... he's more of an indirect conduit to other sources I couldn't name), and put on the spot with a couple beers in me I couldn't name more off hand.
To simplify my "narrative," I guess I'd say I haven't seen one analysis that doesn't include trump being an inept, dangerous baffoon that I've found to be valuable. And that includes many that analyze Hillary and several other recent presidents and candidates as being awful apte natives in their own way. Most conclude that the president simply his way too much unilateral power. Hope that helps. :/
