So there is devastating, just devastating new evidence in the [inaudible]
Trump Ukraine quid pro quo fiasco and it is really important to understand what we mean
by evidence and I think this is really worth doing. So I'm going to focus on that element
today and I hope that this is useful. Uh, there is new testimony under oath from the
United States Envoy to the Ukraine who says that, listen, the story we've been getting
publicly is true. Donald Trump indeed made the security aid hundreds of millions of dollars
in security aid to Ukraine contingent on dependent upon Ukraine publicly saying that they were
going to carry out this politically motivated smear investigation against Joe and Hunter
Biden. That is as a fact, not very surprising to people in my audience, I presume who had
been following the story. But this is the really important part that I want to focus
on today. If we go back to the Russia probe and carry through to what is going on now
with Ukraine and the impeachment inquiry.
The Trump is right has insisted time and time again that there is no evidence that everything
that there is in the Trump Russia probe with the Ukraine fiasco, it is hearsay and peoples
baseless allegations and this is why we have to be just super crystal clear here because
unless we're prepared to address this farcical claim, they're going to get away with it.
Okay? Testimony under oath is evidence. Now there is a difference between evidence and
sort of caught red handed, irrefutable proof, but before we even get to that we have to
understand how they are distorting what actually counts as evidence. And before I go into this,
let me give you an analogy which I think is useful here. Consider the word theory. Okay.
The word theory has one meaning in colloquial usage and it has another meaning in the world
of science. In science when the, when the term theory is used, we're talking about a
group of propositions that explain facts or explain some real world phenomena.
For example, the theory of evolution that has a very specific meaning in the world of
science, but the word theory in popular culture and colloquial usage has a different meaning
and theory in colloquial usage often actually means what in science is called the hypothesis,
which is it's sort of like a starting point or it's a possibility. It's one of many possibilities
for explaining something in the real world and one of the things that the American right-wing
loves to do is, for example, in the context of climate change, deliberately misstate or
flip between definitions of what they mean by theory. They'll just deliberately distort
the definition of theory by switching back and forth between the scientific definition
and the colloquial usage, which really means hypothesis. They'll say, you know a theory
about climate change. A theory is just one of 2030 or 40 different explanations about
what's going on.
We'll hold on a second. That may be what it means in colloquial usage, but when science
calls something a theory, it has a different meaning. Now, let's go back to this evidence
thing. Bearing in mind this analogy from a, you know, theory hypothesis all along Republicans
have said there is no evidence for anything in the Russia probe. There is no evidence
of any quid pro quo in the Ukraine fiasco. Sometimes they'll also use the word hearsay.
They'll say it's all hearsay. What they mean is no one has been caught on video in a cartoonish
out of the movies, sort of red handed way that satisfies them as irrefutable proof.
But here's the really important thing. Sworn testimony is evidence. William Taylor, the
United States Envoy to Ukraine provided sworn testimony to lawmakers where he says there
is no question that Donald Trump was withholding aid in order to try to get Ukraine to smear
Joe Biden and Hunter Biden publicly.
So now the Trumpists are coming in and they're saying, hold on a second. What William Taylor
says is not evidence. It's merely hearsay, which is also the wrong word, but let's forget
that for now. We're not going to get into hearsay right now. Sworn testimony is evidence.
Sworn testimony is evidence made under oath or affirmation under penalty of perjury. Now
someone could give sworn testimony and belying someone could give sworn testimony and not
remember the facts correctly. But when the right says there is no evidence, that's either
a lie or an ignorant understanding of what evidence means. The testimony is evidence.
But here's where the theory versus hypothesis thing comes back to be useful. They're also
using evidence interchangeably with proof. This is the other game that they're playing.
William Taylor giving evidence that Donald Trump withheld aid in a quid pro quo for Joe
Biden to be smeared is not irrefutable proof that that took place.
And that's okay. But what they are often saying when they say there is no evidence is that
it is not irrefutable proof, which is a completely different standard. It's a completely different
issue. So now understanding this, all of this relates to the total and complete lack of
critical thinking and epistemology skills in our society, which I have been sounding
the alarm about for years at this point. When people understand how are made, when people
understand how to figure out for themselves. If the words being used to describe things
are the most accurate and precise words that can be used. You can't trick people like this.
The climate change theory, hypothesis games, the games around what counts as evidence versus
proof. You can only get traction with distortions and lies. You can only confuse people semantically
when people don't have the skills to think these things through for themselves and that's
really the tragedy.
That's really the saddest thing of all about the status quo of American [inaudible] ability
to think critically. Now, some last thoughts about the substance of the testimony from
William Taylor, the U S Envoy to Ukraine just to kind of come full circle and and do at
least some small analysis of that. Although it doesn't really warrant much of an analysis
because we know what's going on. Number one, the testimony is truly devastating to the
Trump narrative because everyone involved who has given testimony, including testimony
about their knowledge of that Trump phone call with the Ukrainian president. Even Mick
Mulvaney without realizing it, without meaning to everyone, is confirming elements of the
story that the aid was contingent upon the smears of Joe Biden. Now, after the fact,
they'll deny it. They'll try to go back and again play semantic games about the definitions
of the words that they use, but that is the trend.
Everybody's confirming the original story even if they don't mean to. Secondly, this
also seems to have jump-started Fox news back into state media mode where you know, we've
talked about, there have been recently some disagreements between Fox news and Donald
Trump on some minor issues. The last 24 hours. The testimony from William Taylor has completely
restarted Fox news. His narrative around the entire Ukraine thing is a nothing burger.
It's all a smear attempt against Donald Trump. It's all a witch hunt, et cetera. They covered
this story about William Taylor's testimony as if the testimony from William Taylor is
obviously not credible and suggest that the Trump witch hunt narrative is the correct
one, which I mean, imagine being that disconnected from reality, that that's your takeaway. And
again, to go back to the conversation between Donald Trump and the Ukrainian president,
the excerpt that was released, they initially said it was a transcript.
Then they said, well, it's not a transcript. It's a summation. In reality, it was a partial
transcript. Trump release that believing that it vindicated him. Anyone who again, can think
for themselves can apply basic critical thinking and epistemology skills to a document and
not be swayed by the story that Donald Trump tells you about it. You realize that that
partial transcript is extraordinarily damning. Uh, when it comes to Donald Trump's involvement
in this quid pro quo, we will see what the future is of this entire thing. I know that
there are people in the audience who from a practical perspective, are saying, listen,
David, I know you're right. And it's not just you that's saying, I mean it's anybody who
analyzes the evidence, understands what it is that took place here, but it is going to
be hard to get Trump on it and I don't disagree with you.
And that's why all of these investigations, all of these discussions, they need to be
properly contextualized in. Let's use them to motivate voters to go out and vote for
someone other than Donald Trump. Because the most likely scenario, I know that there are
other paths. The most likely scenario is none of this stuff will forcefully remove Trump
from office. But if we play it correctly, if we talk about it in the right way, it will
motivate voters to go out on November a of whatever the date is, early November, 2020,
uh, and say no more. I'm voting for somebody else. Let me know what you think. I'm on Twitter
at D Pacman. The show is on Twitter at David Packard.
Let me check