Fact Checking The President's Letter to Pelosi

Earlier today, the president sent a scathing letter to House majority leader Nancy Pelosi attacking the impeachment process. The letter contains false, misleading or exaggerated statements. The New York Times fact checked the 5-page latter and found 19 such statements. The NYT did not comment on many other statements such as "Before the Impeachment Hoax, it was the Russian Witch Hunt" on page 4 of the letter. Both assertions in that statement are false: If the House votes to impeach, it will be legal, and solid evidence shows that Russia interfered with the 2016 elections. Such deceitful comments directly undermine democracy and the rule of law, which is the president's obvious intent.

NYT fact check of page 1

NYT fact check of page 2

NYT fact check of page 3

NYT fact check of part of page 4

NYT fact check of part of page 5

The president's unhinged, deceitful letter is likely to further divide and inflame American politics. Few or no minds will change based in this, but attitudes of some are likely to harden more. The letter further undermines democratic institutions, and respect for the constitution and the rule of law.

Ideological Susceptibility to Pseudo-Profound Bullshit

Researchers in Sweden have looked at susceptibility of liberal and conservative people to pseudo-profound bullshit, which are statements and arguments that seem to be insightful or meaningful but are meaningless. An example is the statement “we are in the midst of a high-frequency blossoming of interconnectedness that will give us access to the quantum soup itself.” That's definitely meaningless.

The researchers write for the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin journal: “This research systematically mapped the relationship between political ideology and receptivity to pseudo-profound bullshit—that is, obscure sentences constructed to impress others rather than convey truth. Among Swedish adults (N = 985), bullshit receptivity was (a) robustly positively associated with socially conservative (vs. liberal) self-placement, resistance to change, and particularly binding moral intuitions (loyalty, authority, purity); (b) associated with centrism on preference for equality and even leftism (when controlling for other aspects of ideology) on economic ideology self-placement; and (c) lowest among right-of-center social liberal voters and highest among left-wing green voters. Most of the results held up when we controlled for the perceived profundity of genuine aphorisms, cognitive reflection, numeracy, information processing bias, gender, age, education, religiosity, and spirituality. The results are supportive of theoretical accounts that posit ideological asymmetries in cognitive orientation, while also pointing to the existence of bullshit receptivity among both right- and left-wingers.”

A prior discussion here pointed out that political ideology tends to lead people to false beliefs and unsound reasoning or logic. The cause and effect relationship isn't clear, but there is a correlation between strong ideological beliefs and a tendency to read into rhetoric, facts and truths realities that accord with the ideology even if that leads to distortion and false beliefs.

One of the authors of the research commented: “I think that the notion of pseudo-profound bullshit specifically caught my attention because I have a background in philosophy and an aversion to unclear statements. Understanding how bullshit operates also struck me as particularly urgent in our current digital age, in which fake news, conspiracy theories, and ‘alternative facts’ may have greater destructive potential than ever — although people have probably engaged in bullshitting for thousands of years.” The researcher also commented that “on the left, it may stem from an uncritical openness to ideas that sound ideologically appealing or familiar; on the right, it may stem from a disinclination to critically engage with information and its sources.”

It is probably true that people have engaged in BSing for thousands of years. The historical record and modern times are full of examples. The researcher noted that his interest was in trying to promote scientific thinking regardless of differences in worldview. The research was conducted among Swedes, but presumably the data can be extrapolated at least to Westerners, if not everyone. Follow-up studies will be needed to confirm these findings and further explain the situation.

Forced Confidentiality Agreements Hide Immorality

One powerful tool that hides illegal, embarrassing and immoral acts by companies and wealthy people from public knowledge is the confidentiality agreement (CDA) or non-disclosure agreement (NDA). CDAs are used to prevent a company or person from suffering losses or damages from disclosing sensitive information and trade secrets to prevent the receiving party from profiting from it. Those are legitimate concerns.

However, CDAs usually impose a requirement on employees and contractors to keep all kinds of activities confidential and when disputes arise, CDAs require secret arbitration to resolve the dispute. Activities and disputes that CDAs hide include various illegal tax evasion schemes (discussed here previously), illegal pollution activities, sexual assault and harassment and settlements when consumers are harmed or cheated.

Disputes and settlements arising from a large swath of commercial and private activity are completely shielded from any public scrutiny. In essence, CDAs constitute a vast body of law that is completely private. As usual, the balance of power strongly favors commercial entities and wealthy people who rely heavily on CDAs to hide how they do business and conduct themselves, legal or not.

An article in Vox describes how former Fox News personality Gretchen Carlson came to realize how powerful the CDA shield was in terms of protecting bad acts by companies and individuals from disclosure of sexual harassment. Vox wrote:

Mandatory arbitration clauses mean that many — if not most — cases of sexual harassment are dealt with behind closed doors. Instead of making their way to court, they are settled by arbitrators, independent professionals who are selected to resolve disputes. It’s estimated that more than 60 million Americans have signed such arbitration clauses. Today, the Supreme Court ruled that it’s legal for companies to require employees to sign arbitration clauses in their employment contracts, making it impossible for these workers to bring class action lawsuits against employers over labor disputes. 

In July 2016, Gretchen Carlson sued Fox News chair and CEO Roger Ailes for sexual harassment, a move that eventually won her $20 million and encouraged dozens of other Fox employees to come forward. In the end, Ailes was forced to step down. Now Carlson is focusing her efforts on ending forced arbitration, which she signed in her own contract with Fox News, and helping women speak publicly about harassment. She’s not allowed to explain how her lawyers managed to get around the clause, and says that kind of secrecy is part of the problem. 

“Very early on, I realized that it was a pervasive epidemic,” Carlson says of mandatory arbitration. “When I filed my suit, I had no idea how pervasive it was across every socioeconomic line and every profession, from Smalltown, USA, all the way to Washington, DC.”

Let’s say you’re being harassed. You go to complain to HR. The company wipes their forehead with their hand and goes, “Phew, nobody will ever know about this,” because of these clauses. Then you get thrown into forced arbitration where, oftentimes, the company picks your arbitrator for you. You don’t get the same number of witnesses and depositions [as you would in court]. Rarely does the employee win — only 20 percent of the time. And there are no appeals.

Then you could get fired because once you bring a harassment or discrimination claim, companies rarely keep you on. So now you’re out of a job and can’t ever tell anyone why you had to leave. Also, with arbitration, because it’s secret, the perpetrator oftentimes gets to stay on the job — again, because no one knows the person has been accused — to harass again.

The system is heavily rigged in favor of the business entity and wealthy persons who draft the agreements to favor themselves. In theory, a court or government agency acting can require shielded information to be disclosed, but that is rare. CDAs are not supposed to be used to shield illegal activity, but in practice that is what they often do, either directly or indirectly.

Carlson recently published an opinion piece for the New York Times. She wrote:

When my retaliation and sexual harassment complaint against Roger Ailes, the former Fox News chairman and C.E.O., went public in 2016, there were no #MeToo or Times Up movements to help rally support for my cause. .... When I sued, I could have never known that my story and the stories of other women at Fox would turn into both a television mini-series and a film, and, more important, that I would be prohibited from speaking about these projects. 

“Winning” my complaint with a settlement and a nondisclosure agreement meant I was, essentially, forced into silence. .... Although NDAs usually prohibit employers from disparaging victims, whisper campaigns often follow women for years. As I documented in my book “Be Fierce,” the vast majority of survivors never work in their chosen professions again. American industry has lost many talented women to harassment, while allowing predators to continue climbing the professional ladder (where they have the potential to victimize even more women). 

There are those who say to victims, “You took money in exchange for staying quiet, so what’s the problem?” and “If you want to talk, give your settlement money back.” These sentiments miss the point and perpetuate the lie that victims benefit from being sexually harassed. First of all, buying silence instead of stopping harassment is immoral and unjust. Next, the settlements are made not just in exchange for secrecy, but to make up for lost wages, because once you find the courage to come forward, your “reward” is often that you’ve lost your job (and potentially your career). And lastly, NDAs foster a culture that gives predators cover to commit the same crimes again. (emphasis added)

One can argue that far too much commerce in America is conducted in unwarranted secrecy. The secrecy shields far too much illegal and immoral activity. The public is unaware of how rigged the arbitration system is and they have no way to opt out. Credit card companies all require forced arbitration and secrecy about settlements. Arbitration settlements from harmed consumers are kept secret so that people cannot know what the relative value of their case may be when they are injured. The secrecy system to hide immoral and illegal acts is itself both unfair and immoral.

Public Defenses Against the Dark Arts are Weak or Non-Existent

The New York Times reports that almost no candidate running for office in 2020 is making a significant effort to combat snake oil (disinformation) and lies online. The darks arts of lies, deceit and lies-based emotional manipulation are rampant. The NYT writes:

Less than a year before the 2020 election, false political information is moving furiously online. Facebook users shared the top 100 false political stories over 2.3 million times in the United States in the first 10 months of this year. 

A hoax version of the Green New Deal legislation went viral online. Millions of people saw unsubstantiated rumors about the relationship between Ukraine and the family of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. A canard about the ties between a Ukrainian oil company and a son of Senator Mitt Romney, the Utah Republican, spread widely, too.  

Truth and public interest defenses off, disinformation and profit offenses on

The NYT comments that in September, the president’s campaign posted on content Facebook and the president’s Twitter account that included a lie about Mr. Biden’s dealings with Ukraine. That lie was viewed more than eight million times. The Biden campaign sent letters to Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Fox News, asking them to ban the content, but it remained up. That is political and corporate defense of lies, profit and/or political advantage. Truth and the public interest are of little or no concern to liars, corrupt political partisans and companies making money or gaining advantage from deceit and lies. 

Facebook sometimes labels a post or ad as false, but usually does not remove the content. Facebook policy is that politicians can run ads that make false claims or statements, including ones that have been shown to be false. Counter-disinformation is usually not a serious strategic objective for parties, campaigns and candidates who claim they are powerless to fight lies. Online companies have few restrictions on what users can say or share if they do not lie about their identity, leaving victims of disinformation and lies unable to effectively defend themselves.

Since it takes time and costs money to ferret out sources that lie about their identity, companies are reluctant to do much to combat the spreading rot. In essence, deceivers and liars are mostly free to deceive and lie with no meaningful repercussions whatever. Essentially all lies, deceit and emotional manipulation are constitutionally protected free speech.

Emotional manipulation via a literal fake flag operation - the goal includes provoking 

anti-democratic social discord, distrust and bigotry, not advocacy of knowledge, democracy or the rule of law

Weaponization, with loss of freedom and the rise of fake consent of the governed

By now, all sources of disinformation have been weaponized. Each side in political disagreement now routinely accuses the other of spreading disinformation and beling self-deluded in believing that partisan lies are truth and/or real truth is lies. There is no way to bridge the vast partisan reality and logic gap. This divide will not go away any time soon, if ever. The current rancid mindsets constitute an imminent existential threat to democracy, the rule of law and civil society. This is what tyrants, oligarchs and kleptocrats dream about. Their dreams are coming true in real time.

A final point is worth making. When partisans and special interests are able to act based on the public’s misplaced acceptance of deceit or on emotional reactions to propaganda provocations[1], the liar-deceiver-manipulators take from people who would have not consented their freedom to oppose the deceit- or manipulation-based act. In essence, spreading of deceit, lies and emotional manipulations in service to false reality, disinformation and narrow anti-public interest interests are the acts of morally corrupt tyrants, oligarchs and individuals, groups, tribes and political parties. The moral corruption arises from the taking of freedom to choose based on reality and reason and replaces it with choices based on false facts and reality and flawed reason. That is immoral.

Footnote:
1. Liars and propagandists work hard to provoke unwarranted negative emotions. That helps make partisan and special interest lies and deceit more believable. Unwarranted negative emotions, especially fear, anger, bigotry, distrust and disgust, tend to overwhelm slow conscious fact-based reason and replace that with fast, narrow unconscious moralistic reasoning. In essence, response to emotional provocation causes most people (~ 98% ?) to tend to see inconvenient reality, facts and truth more as lies and deceit than as real reality and truth. That's the basis of the biological mechanism by which disinformation is weaponized and used against people.

Fairness and Objectivity are All but Dead in the GOP

The Washington Post writes that at least one GOP senator is openly not concerned with fairness in any impeachment trial that may reach the Senate. WaPo quoted Senator Lindsey Graham as saying, “I think impeachment is going to end quickly in the Senate. I would prefer it to end as quickly as possible. Use the record that was assembled in the House to pass impeachment articles as your trial record. .... I am trying to give a pretty clear signal I have made up my mind. I’m not trying to pretend to be a fair juror here.”

Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell has said that he will closely coordinate the Senate impeachment trial with the president's lawyers. Total coordination with the president's defense team is how McConnell describes what he intends to do about impeachment. In essence, the Senate is acting as the president's defense counsel, not as a neutral arbiter of facts and logic.

These are clear signals that the most or all GOP is going to be as partisan and biased about impeachment as they can manage, which might be completely partisan and biased. Facts and logic are irrelevant. That total partisan attitude presumably reflects a GOP reaction to the perceived unfairness and partisanship that congressional republicans accused the democrats of in the House impeachment inquiry. On that point, republican accusations of democratic partisanship, bias and unfairness were bitter and repeated during. Republicans were adamant that fairness and objectivity were necessary but sacrificed in the name of narrow-minded partisan politics.

Two ways to do this - moral and immoral

For the sake of argument, assume the democrats acted immorally in the House impeachment on whatever grounds you like, e.g., unfairness, due process, equal protection, free speech, whatever. Regardless of whether republican complaints of bad behavior in the House are true, the Senate has three basic options.

The first is to be professional and take impeachment seriously and try to get to the real truth. The Senate conduct a real trial that tries to correct the alleged deficiencies the GOP complained bitterly about in the House proceedings. For example, to complete the fact record to their satisfaction, the Senate could call whatever the witnesses they want, e.g., Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, Hillary, Barak, Adam Schiff, the whistleblower and anyone else they think has relevant information. This option is the public interest and country before party option.

The second option is that Senate could do exactly what they complained the House democrats did in their inquiry. They could hold a sham trial to mirror the alleged hoax House inquiry. The GOP could Senate repay alleged democratic partisan unfairness and immorality in the House with their own partisan unfairness and immorality in the Senate. This option is the party before the public interest and country option.

In the third option, the Senate could do some meaningful, not trivial, mix of both options, some moral professionalism and some partisan immorality. This option is mostly a party before the public interest and country option. The reason for that belief is that the congress is supposed to serve the public interest and country before party. That accords the GOP Senate no benefit of any doubt on this.

So far, it looks like the Senate is choosing the first option, i.e., partisan immorality. Statements by McConnell and Graham make it clear, at least for the time being, they're going with what's behind door #1. Maybe that will change. Time will tell.

In the current climate of partisan hate and distrust, two wrongs is about the best the American people can hope to get in the quest for what is right. That's good 'ole grade school morality at work in adult politics. If we get option 1, the losers will be the American people, democracy and the rule of law. The winners will be authoritarians, kleptocrats, America's enemies, and of course, the president.

America's Move Toward Single Party Rule

In 2017, the Economist magazine wrote regarding the tendency of American elections to no longer convert majority votes into control of government due to an inherent bias that favors rural Republicans:

“EVERY system for converting votes into power has its flaws. Britain suffers from an over-mighty executive; Italy from chronically weak government; Israel from small, domineering factions. America, however, is plagued by the only democratic vice more troubling than the tyranny of the majority: tyranny of the minority. 

This bias is a dangerous new twist in the tribalism and political dysfunction that is poisoning politics in Washington. Americans often say such partisanship is bad for their country (and that the other lot should mend their ways). The Founding Fathers would have agreed. George Washington warned that ‘the alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge…is itself a frightful despotism’.”

In November 2018, a Washington Post article, The U.S. is in a state of perpetual minority rule, focused on minority rule in the US:

“Look behind the midterm elections’ outcomes — and the distortions produced by small states in the Senate and by gerrymandering in the House — to focus directly on the votes that constitute democratic bedrock, and a very different picture comes in to focus. The partisan balance of power — even the new balance, including a Democratic House — subjects the United States to undemocratic minority rule. 

Both results represent trends rather than historical anomalies or accidents. Research by the political analyst David Wasserman (of the Cook Political Report) shows that the current Republican biases in both the House and Senate elections are at all-time highs — greater than the partisan biases in favor of either party at any prior time for which data exist. 

President Trump and the Republican senators have used their offices to remake the judiciary in their own image. Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh entrench a reliable conservative majority at the Supreme Court, in spite of being nominated by a popular-vote-losing president and confirmed by senators who, our research shows, collectively won (in each case) about 24 million fewer votes than the senators who voted against the nominations.”

The WaPo asserts that the president and Republican senators are using their their power to extend and entrench Republican advantage in elections. The Supreme Court could consider election law cases that could solidify Republican power and foster a further move toward minority rule.

Various republican efforts are underway in some states or have already been put in place. In Wisconsin, the GOP has a clear vision of how to proceed: “If you can’t win elections, rig them. If the rules say you can’t do something, change the rules. Then if voters still elect Democrats, take away their power.” There republicans reduced early voting, making it harder for citizens to get to the polls.

Similarly, in North Carolina in December 2016, the republican-controlled legislature passed laws that severely limited incoming democratic governor’s ability to make key cabinet appointments without GOP approval. The GOP also changed the Board of Elections so that republicans would control it in election years. Republicans in Michigan also limited the power of incoming democrats after 2016 elections.

The intense urge to exert lasting influence despite the GOP's perception of an increasingly minority status (real or not) appears to be driving its willingness to impose single party rule and policy choices to the extent possible. Republican fear of a growing liberal majority is a major factor. Presumably, most or essentially all republicans would deny that they are rigging the system, pursuing minority dominance or that they exert anything close to a tyranny of the minority.