Background
Over the last week or so, I have been "debating" on Facebook with several people who either support Donald Trump unquestioningly, or who argue that the impeachment inquiry is a fraud, witch hunt, hoax or otherwise a made up coup attempt by the Democrats to remove Trump. There are others that have posted memes or status updates that promote certain Republican talking points regarding the inquiry. These discussions have included people I have known for decades, people I have never met, and anonymous commenters, as well as current sitting Congressmen and other candidates for office. Some of these discussions have been productive. Others, not so much.On one of these discussions, which has ranged over several different posts on Facebook, the person I have been arguing with has taken the position that Trump's call for an investigation of Joe and Hunter Biden in the July 25th call with President Zelensky is justified, and therefore not grounds for impeachment. His argument continues to assert that Joe Biden had prosecutor Shokin fired in order to cover up some crime committed by Hunter Biden.
I will detail all of my position at the end of this piece, but for now it will suffice to say that my position is that the available evidence establishes, or nearly establishes, all of the elements of Bribery: a public official, requesting or receiving a thing of personal value, in exchange for an official act or omission, with corrupt intent. I also hold that Mr. Trump has violated 18 USC 1505 Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees, and 2 USC 192 Refusal of a witness to testify or produce papers.
I contend that the argument that attempts to justify Trump's actions fails for three reasons: 1. It bears no factual relationship to the elements of any of the allegations against the president; at best this argument is an argument in equity/quality that would serve as a mitigating factor 2. It is factually deficient in that there is no evidence that either Joe Biden or his son, Hunter committed any crime under either US or Ukrainian law; and 3. Even if there is a basis to investigate the Biden's, there are more appropriate means of doing so.
I have asked my opponent to provide any evidence he may have to the contrary. He linked to this video by Glenn Beck and his associated website as his evidence. I promised to respond, and I am doing so here so I can provide links, etc.
Beck's basic thesis is that "Socialists" with a hidden agenda promoting regime change are behind attacks on Trump in cahoots with career State Department staff and other democrats trying to foment revolution in order to reach a state of world government. As a part of this plot, George Soros and others are inciting Ukrainians to revolt. Somewhere in all of this, factions in Ukraine interfered in the 2016 Election and the Biden's somehow criminally extracted a large amount of money from Hunter's work with Burisma.
From this I infer that my opponent's intention is to use this to support his argument that Trump's call for investigation is justified. My view is that Beck is promoting a baseless conspiracy theory
Lies, Damn Lies, Statistics, Fake News, & Conspiracy Theories v. Rules of Evidence, Logic & Reason
In order to evaluate Beck's claims, it is necessary to establish some basic rules for what counts as evidence. If this were a court case in a Federal Court the Federal Rules of Evidence would apply. We don't have compulsory process available, so we may have to bend some of these rules or make some assumptions as we go along, but I am going to stay as close to the Rules as I can here.
We also need to define the burden of proof. Since Beck is making a claim, that burden falls to him. In science, this is the null hypothesis. We start with the assumption that the claim is not true until proven.
Beginning at about 1:56 into the video, Beck says, "You will not be able to keep this Republic if you are not well informed and you put your personal desires aside. If you like Trump, you don't like Trump, it doesn't matter. If you want to hold on to that Republic that our founders gave us, you must do your own homework. And I urge you, I urge you, there is so much misinformation and disinformation and out and out lies. Please look for actual documents where you know the source of where that came from. Share all of this with your friends." This is the one statement Beck makes that I agree with completely. Unfortunately, Beck doesn't follow his own advice.
Could we call Glenn Beck as a witness if this were a court trial? Rule 602 requires that a fact witness have personal knowledge of the subject of his testimony. Glenn Beck does not qualify as a fact witness. Is he an "expert" witness. Is there a basis of expertise that would qualify him under Rule 703? According to available information, Beck completed high school, started but did not complete one course in theology at Yale. He does not hold himself out as an expert; rather he says he is an "entertainer, commentator, and rodeo clown." He isn't even a reporter. He has no expert qualifications.
If Beck is not a fact or expert witness, then we must take his video and writings as argument based on underlying facts that can be otherwise authenticated and validated.
In his website, Beck provides several links to documents. By definition, all documents are hearsay under Rule 802, but some can be admitted under exceptions in Rule 803 and 804. Lets take Mr. Beck's advice and "look for the actual documents where you know the source of where that came from."
The first three links go to the Ukrainian Anti Corruption Action Center. We will have to assume that this is the official website, and we will have to assume that the information it contains is accurate. Beck directs us to the finance section, which shows that the Anti Corruption Action Center was funded in part by the US Embassy in Kyiv, USAID, and The International Renaissance Foundation (IRF), a Ukrainian non governmental agency (NGO) founded by George Soros. Beck wants us to notice that the US Government and the IRF are the majority funders. Beck doesn't actually establish the relevance of this, but instead asks rhetorical questions about why. There are several quite reasonable explanations that don't support Beck's theory. Included in the list is that both the United States and the IRF are interested in reducing or eliminating corruption in Ukraine. He's going to have to do better than this to establish a malicious intent.
In this context, Beck then asks, "Let me ask you this: have you noticed where all the people that have been called to testify against Donald Trump in the impeachment inquiry have come from? They're ALL career diplomats." Well, yes, actually, I have noticed. I have also noticed who has chosen to ignore subpoenas and not show up to testify. This omission changes the whole picture. I think we can infer that the people most likely to have observed the facts would be either the career diplomats that are showing up or the politically appointed personnel that haven't shown up. And I wouldn't consider all of the witnesses that have testified to be career diplomats. Sondland comes immediately to mind. Beck is starting with his conclusion and trying to make the evidence fit into it. He's still far short of establishing a malicious or evil intent. We can't infer a sinister motive for the people who are showing up and testifying under oath, but we may be able to infer a motive for the president to block subpoenas and testimony; especially since doing so is a felony criminal offense that carries a 5 year prison sentence.
That loaded paragraph gets even more off the rails. Beck says, "They're all privy to what went down in the months leading up to the Ukrainian Coup, and everything that went down from then up until Donald Trump." He hasn't even tried to provide evidence for this imagined coup. Then he admits to sourcing based on rumors in naming, or attempting to name, the whistleblower. HIs link is to "real clear investigations," a right-centar biased online media source with mixed reviews for factual accuracy. This doesn't even come close to admissible under any exception to the hearsay rule.
Since his identification of the whistleblower isn't admissible, his claims about the whistleblower are also admissible, and probably not relevant.
He makes a claim that seven billion dollars was "misappropriated" but provides no source of this information other than his "mega chalkboard." At the end of the paragraph is a link to the State Department's FOIA search site and a canned search for "Claramella" with six results. For these emails we can assume they are authentic. But the conclusion Beck draws is paper thin. Since most of the email chain he bases his claim on is redacted, he can't even conclusively say what the email chain is about. The email chains do mention USAID several times. Mr. Beck conveniently omits or overlooks the fact that USAID funding was pulled because Burisma was a corporate sponsor of a program. Cherry picking his facts here.
His next link is to the testimony of Christopher Anderson from October 30, 2019. Given Beck's admonition to know the source of documents, it is interesting that he chose to link to npr rather than the office House document. But then he doesn't say anything about Anderson's testimony. Once again, he's trying to make the evidence fit his preconception. It just isn't working.
I think I've probably made my case here. I could go through the rest of the website and show where Beck's cherry picking and attempts to make the evidence fit his theory fall short, but this is turning into a long post. I will leave that as an exercise for the ambitious reader. Beck has certainly not met his burden of proving his case.
Let me leave this section with the observation that the best lies contain enough truth to be plausible to the intended audience, appeal to the bias and vanity of the intended audience, and are difficult, or at least inconvenient to verify. As we've seen above, there is some truth in Beck's theory, but when we start verifying it, it comes up very short. Beck's audience is reportedly 85% on the far right, and his position certainly appeals to that demographic. Beck in in this to make money, and that money comes from pleasing his audience.
Baloney Detection Kit
Michael Shermer has recorded a lecture series for Audible called Conspiracies & Conspiracy Theories: Why we should and shouldn't believe -- and why that provides a set of tools for assessing conspiracy theories that he calls the "Baloney Detection Kit." Lets apply his tools and see what we find:
First, a quote from the Watergate mastermind, G. Gordon LIddy, "Most conspiracy theories are false for two reasons. One, the competency problem, and two, the leakage problem. Most conspiracists are bumbling, fumbling nincompoops who can't keep their mouths shut."
It starts with 10 questions to determine if a conspiracy theory is true of false:
1. How reliable is the source of the claim? The errors noted above appear to be directional, ie. they are directed toward the supporting the claim. They are not random.
2. Does claimant often make similar claims? Beck has a habit of going well beyond the facts. The Huffington Post actually has a "Top 10" list of Beck's conspiracy theories. While I expect that my opponent will try to argue that all of Beck's conspiracy theories are true, I think Beck meets this criterion. He does have a pattern that consistently ignores or distorts data.
3. Have claims been verified by another source not within Beck's belief circle? Who is fact checking Beck's claims. Media Bias/Fact Check rates Mercury Media, the parent company of Beck's The Blaze as far right, with mixed factual reporting and notes that Beck himself has failed multiple fact checks, citing six from Politifact alone.
4. How does the claim fit with what we know about how the world works? The context of Beck's theory here requires many individuals to be working in cahoots within the Federal government, non-governmental organizations, and the governments of other countries. As Liddy noted, this would be very difficult to pull off due to the competence and leakage problems. People just don't work that way.
5. Has anyone gone out of their way to disprove the claim or has only confirming evidence been sought? This is a check for confirmation bias. As discussed above, Beck likes to cherry pick his evidence, try to fit the facts to his preformed conclusions, and more often than not, draws conclusions that stretch way beyond what the evidence can support. What would falsify his theory?
6. Does the preponderance of evidence converge to the claimant's conclusion or a different one? Many of the "conclusions" Beck draws, or rhetorically suggests with questions, have rational, non-nefarious explanations that are more plausible than Beck's assertions.
7. Is the claimant employing the accepted tools of reason and research or have these been abandoned in favor of others that lead to the desired conclusion? Much of Beck's "research" consists of anomaly hunting, and then trying to fit whatever anomaly he finds into his preconceived conspiracy idea. Most of what he finds falls short of supporting the conclusions he wants it to support.
8. Has the claimant provided a different explanation for the observed phenomenon or is it just a process of denying the existing explanation? Criticize you opponent and never say what you actually believe. As Shermer puts it, "This is the 'I'm just asking questions' ploy and it doesn't hold water." Reading through Beck's website, he spends most of it asking questions.
9. If the claimant has proffered a new explanation, does it account for as many phenomena as the original explanation? Beck's theory attempts to give meaning to the anomalies he finds, but his theory doesn't account for the normal things that standard diplomacy and philanthropy account for. His theory of nefarious goings on doesn't really replace the facially accurate existing view.
10. Do the claimant's personal biases and beliefs drive the conclusions or vice versa? What would happen if we asked Beck, "What would it take to change your mind?" I haven't actually spoken with Beck, so I can only guess. But I have spoken to some of the people who believe his theory. Most of them will deny contradictory evidence or try to spin the evidence in some sort of apologia. One person flat out told me she would look at the contradictory evidence. My sense is that Beck would fall into this category.
Beck's Deep State conspiracy theory fails every test.
Some other aspects that make a conspiracy theory suspect:
1. Patternicity - theory see patterns where the dots don't necessarily connect
2. Agenticity - agents behind the conspiracy would need super powers to pull it off
3. Complexity - requires a large number of elements coming together at just the right moment and in just the right sequence.
4 People - the more people involved, the less likely it is to be true.
5. Grandiosity - the more grandiose, especially if it aims for world domination, the more likely it is to be false.
6. Scale - when the theory ratchets up from small events that might be true to much larger events that have much lower probability it is very likely false. Most real conspiracies involve very specific events and targets.
7. Significance - If the theory assigns porentions and sinister meanings and interpretations to apparently innocuous or insignificant events, it is likely false.
8. Accuracy - If the conspiracy theory comingles facts and speculations without distinguishing between the two it is likely to be false.
9. Paranoia - If the conspiracy theorist is extremely and indiscriminately suspicious of any and all government agencies or private corporations this suggests a lack of nuance in understanding how the world works.
10. Falsifiability - If a conspiracy theory cannot be falsified, it is probably false.
Beck's theory fits all 10 of these criteria as well.
Summary
Glenn Beck's "The Democrats' Hydra" falls far short of meeting its burden of proof, and fits all 10 of the Baloney Detection Kit parameters and all 10 of the False Conspiracy Theory Detection Kit parameter that mark it as a false conspiracy theory. It does contain some "truth," enough to be plausible to those who want to believe it. It appeals to the biases and vanity of those who want to believe it; and it is both difficult and inconvenient to verify, especially for those, like Beck himself, that lack the education in logic and reasoning to be able to work through the validation process.
It falls even more short of being able to overcome the desire to justify Donald Trump's attempts to strong-arm President Zelensky into publicly announcing investigations into the Bidens.
Comments