Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Igel

(37,621 posts)
13. And yet the evidence goes like this.
Tue Oct 31, 2017, 08:48 PM
Oct 2017

A Trump supporter--somebody who because of group and ideological allegiance is not highly regarded as regards truth-telling--makes a claim.

The university professor says the claim is false. However, because of his ethnicity we assume he's lying.

Note that if the professor did do what he was alleged to do, there's no legal jeopardy for him. There's fiscal jeopardy, depending on how his employer views his actions.

For Trumpist, though, by cooperating he probably negotiated a nicer deal. Even if "cooperating" meant juicing up the narrative a bit to suit what he probably assumed the investigators' intentions were.

I'm glad I'm not in charge of issuing the judgment against either, so I have no reason to particularly trust or distrust either. Now, if I were in charge of sitting in judgment, I'd be stressed out.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»'Professor' in Russia dis...»Reply #13