6 ms·

"Let this go, or I'll fire you"?

by ethbro 9y ago

pound 9y ago
"The President began by asking me whether I wanted to stay on as FBI Director, which I found strange because he had already told me twice in earlier conversations that he hoped I would stay, and I had assured him that I intended to. "
mcphage 9y ago
So you're saying, the President can get away with making whatever threats he wants, so long as he makes them obliquely? Like it's only an illegal threat if he says the magic words?
- ethbro 9y ago
  I feel like history and law bears out my answer: yes. Isn't that the definition of plausible deniability?
  - mcphage 9y ago
    Denial becomes a lot less plausible when you consider that Comey did not end the investigation, and was fired for it. But no, being vague in your implications is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. Laws are evaluated by humans who are adept at seeing through bullshit, not computers.
    - ethbro 9y ago
      Aware of the complexities, but Clinton wasn't impeached by the Senate despite giving a knowingly false statement. While being vague is not a get out of jail free card, it's demonstrably easier to defend a vague statement than a concrete one.
      - mcphage 9y ago
        > it's demonstrably easier to defend a vague statement than a concrete one It is, I agree. However, when the speaker—in this case Trump—behaves as if the coyly hinted at meaning was correct, then there's no room left to hide behind "oh but that's not what I meant". In Trump's statement was a strongly implied—yet unstated—threat: If you don't drop this investigation, then you'll lose your job. And what happened? When it became clear that Comey wasn't dropping the investigation, he lost his job. Trump has no wiggle room in claiming an alternate meaning, because the clearly implied meaning was what he did.
  - mcphage 9y ago
    Imagine this: You're walking down the street at night. You pass a man, who calls out to you. You notice that he's got a gun in his front pocket. While he places his hand on the gun, he tells you that he really could use some money, whatever you have on you. Which you proceed to give him. Did you get mugged? Or did you instead give $200 and your phone to your new best friend?

"Let this go, or I'll fire you"?

by ethbro 9y ago

"Let this go, or I'll fire you"?

"The President began by asking me whether I wanted to stay on as FBI Director, which I found strange because he had already told me twice in earlier conversations that he hoped I would stay, and I had assured him that I intended to. "

mcphage 9y ago

So you're saying, the President can get away with making whatever threats he wants, so long as he makes them obliquely? Like it's only an illegal threat if he says the magic words?

ethbro 9y ago
I feel like history and law bears out my answer: yes. Isn't that the definition of plausible deniability?
- mcphage 9y ago
  Denial becomes a lot less plausible when you consider that Comey did not end the investigation, and was fired for it. But no, being vague in your implications is not a get-out-of-jail-free card. Laws are evaluated by humans who are adept at seeing through bullshit, not computers.
  - ethbro 9y ago
    Aware of the complexities, but Clinton wasn't impeached by the Senate despite giving a knowingly false statement. While being vague is not a get out of jail free card, it's demonstrably easier to defend a vague statement than a concrete one.
    - mcphage 9y ago
      > it's demonstrably easier to defend a vague statement than a concrete one It is, I agree. However, when the speaker—in this case Trump—behaves as if the coyly hinted at meaning was correct, then there's no room left to hide behind "oh but that's not what I meant". In Trump's statement was a strongly implied—yet unstated—threat: If you don't drop this investigation, then you'll lose your job. And what happened? When it became clear that Comey wasn't dropping the investigation, he lost his job. Trump has no wiggle room in claiming an alternate meaning, because the clearly implied meaning was what he did.
- mcphage 9y ago
  Imagine this: You're walking down the street at night. You pass a man, who calls out to you. You notice that he's got a gun in his front pocket. While he places his hand on the gun, he tells you that he really could use some money, whatever you have on you. Which you proceed to give him. Did you get mugged? Or did you instead give $200 and your phone to your new best friend?