Paul Manafort is to Trump as Susan McDougal was to Bill Clinton. Fair comparison? (Clinton eventually pardoned McDougal.)
-
-
Again, my hypothesis is A:B::C:D. It is not that A=C or B=D. McDougal's conduct/crimes/etc are to Clinton's involvement as Manafort's conduct/crimes/etc are to Trump's conduct. The magnitude differences are built into the construction (assuming the parallel holds.
-
I guess I'm suggesting the gravity of this investigation as compared to the WW one means the parallel doesn't hold.
-
The whole point of the construction is that it accounts for that (assuming difference in gravity btwn McD and Manafort is equivalent to that btwn Clinton and Trump).
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
But they're doing so, aside from laying out that motive, to get him to flip on some very grave recent crimes.
-
Didn't prosecutors try to get McDougal to flip on more recent and more serious crimes? (that seems to be what Starr's team thought they were doing, and why she was held in contempt)
-
And didn't she insist there was no evidence she could give? Cohen ADMITTED Trump was guilty. This really is an important difference. I am a bit puzzled about the implied equivalence anyway but so be it.
-
I suggested analogy to Manafort NOT to Cohen. And (for nth time) suggesting analog, not equivalence. To say puppy:dog::foal:horse is not to say canine and equine are equivalent.
-
Um, I think I see, he equivocated.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.