No I can't argue against a negative

I can't prove Donald Trump is honest, nor can I prove he is dishonest.

Asking me to prove a negative is like asking me to prove god exists or a flying spaghetti monster created humanity.

Yes Tom lots of motivated reasoning going on with both sides of the aisle. That is because there is an absence of facts, and without facts to tie down the evidence you get motivated reasoning for this is human nature and this is how human beings try to guess the future in the absence of evidence.

Leap of faiths, tribalism, religion, whatever you want to call it, is it not deductive logic but instead inductive projection.

------

Humor me though

All I can give is slanted hypotheticals until more facts are assembled.

Part A) Here is a fact, the week prior to the firing Comey asked for more money to for the russian investigation

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/10/us/politics/comey-russia-investigation-fbi.html

----

And these are not facts but they are close enough to be facts for they may be facts in reality, but I can't validate B and C due to anonymous sources, but the reporters who are reporting these anonymous sources could themselves validate B and C

Part B) The attorney general and Trump according to sources have been wanting to fire Comey for about a week now.

Speculation for B) Why a week we do not know,

Speculation B1) but a week earlier he asked for more money for the FBI in a specific investigation tied to russia.

Speculation B2) a week ago Comey talked before Congress on May 3, Wednesday. So something he said at this congress hearing may have convinced Trump to fire Comey.

Part C) Once again anonymous sources so I can't verify it personally and I just have to take the reporter's word and put my faith in his credibility. But supposedly according to CNN's John King, a journalist who is chief national correspondent for CNN as well as the host of several CNN shows, well King talked to an anonymous source that Donald Trump often talks with over the weekend as a friend who is not tied directly to politics. (We know for a fact that Donald Trump likes to shoot the breeze with dozens of these people.)

Supposedly last weekend Donald Trump was white hot when talking over the phone with one of his friends and he was talking about Russia, Russia, Russia even though at the time the friend did not understand why he was not taking pride in the US House passing their Health Care bill on Thursday of last week.

------

Two Standards

More Stringent Standard

Tom you are a lawyer so you should understand how big of deal motivated reasoning is, for it is the key part of reasonable doubt where you must argue against what the jury's motivated reasoning is and they must demonstrate guilt beyond a reasonable interpretation and the amount of evidence must be overwhelming.

So we may not have enough evidence to convict Donald Trump right now.

Lesser of Two Standards

But there is another legal standard. Is there enough evidence that a normal prosecutor would start dedicating resources into the matter and start trying to collect potential witnesses, dedicate manpower and man hours, and so on into investigating this matter and building a theoretical case? Eventually a grand jury and subpoenas would be created and so on. Is there enough evidence and enough motivated reasoning that a prosecutor would consider building a case against Donald Trump.

In my personal opinion the answer to this lesser standard is yes.