superrific
Legend of ZZL
- Messages
- 9,020
To corroborate is to make it more likely that some description is true. So the corroboration has to be independent of that description; otherwise it's indistinguishable from aping. And yes, that's a weird sentence -- though so very characteristic of me -- so I'll use an inexact analogy to illustrate.I may be sometimes embarrassed to ask but you know I’m never too prideful enough to admit when I don’t understand something- what does that mean exactly? If Trump has been on record in interviews with Howard Stern and others many times that he has found Ivanka attractive since she was like 10 years old and that he’d like to date her if she wasn’t his daughter, isn’t a pretty reasonable leap in logic that he probably made some even more lewd comments about her in private and around what he thought to be trusted confidants?
Suppose you're a cop and there are two sketchy looking guys hanging at the Circle K. You approach them and ask what they are doing. Let's run through scenarios.
1. It's just you. They are standing together. Randy says they are waiting for his girlfriend to pick them up. Bobby says, "what Randy says." Would you think Bobby to have corroborated Randy?
2. Same as #1, except Bobby says, "waiting for Randy's girlfriend to pick them up." That doesn't change anything, right? Bobby's response would be expected whether or not they were actually meeting the gf or were instead up to no good.
3. Same as #1, except your partner is on the scene. You pull Randy aside, and he tells you they are waiting for the girlfriend. Then your partner asks Bobby, who is standing 15 feet away from Randy. Bobby says waiting for the gf. Does that change anything? Only if Bobby can't hear.
4. So corroboration comes when Randy and Bobby are not only separated but independent. If you take Randy into the squad car and your partner takes Bobby into the Circle K, and they tell the same story, there's corroboration.
The video footage of Trump talking about Ivanka puts this into bucket #3. In this case, "Randy" is "If she weren't my daughter, I'd be dating her," and Bobby is Miles Taylor claiming that stuff was said around the White House. Because Miles knows the story, he could easily fashion his lie to look consistent.
Does that make sense? I fear I've done little but take obviousness and dress it up in abstract language.