Did Trump Take a Chinese Bribe to Help ZTE?

Is Trump selling out the national security of the United States to make money for himself and his family?
That sounds like the plot for a spy novel but there is actually some circumstantial evidence of this that should lead to further investigation.
Consider the case of Chinese phone maker ZTE for example:

1. In 2012 Congress warned that ZTE and Huawei phones could be used for espionage against the United States.
2. In February 2018 the CIA, FBI, NSA, and Defense Intelligence Agency all repeated these warnings to a Congressional Committee. They advised Americans not to buy phones from these companies.
3. In the meantime the U.S. Commerce Department took legal action against ZTE for illegally selling equipment to Iran and North Korea.
4. The Pentagon has prohibited the sale of ZTE and Huawei phones on military bases because of the espionage risk.

So, if ZTE has violated US sanctions, and their phones are potentially a threat to US national security, this is certainly not a company the US president would want to help, right?
Well... here comes the interesting part:

1. On May 7, 2018 Ivanka got approval for a number of Chinese trademarks which will help to protect her financial interests in that country.
2. On May 10, 2018 China approved a $500 million loan to an Indonesian development which will include a Trump hotel, residences, and a golf course.
3. On May 13, 2018 Trump surprised the world by announcing that the US government will HELP ZTE and get them back to work FAST....

This is a very suggestive and suspicious sequence of events. Within a single week in May 2018 Ivanka got her trademarks from China, the Indonesian development Trump is associated with got its loan from China, and China got help from Trump on the sanctions against ZTE!
Is this just a strange coincidence, or did China just pay off the Trump family to get the president to help a Chinese company that has been identified as a threat to US national security?
My sources are listed below. If anyone finds an error in the facts I am reporting please let me know.
The Indonesian Project Gets its Loan https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/05/trump-organization-indonesia-project-will-benefit-from-usd500-million-chinese-government-loan-report-says.html
Ivanka Gets Her Trademarks https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ivanka-gets-5-china-trademarks-as-president-works-zte-deal_us_5b0a07eee4b0568a880c0a0d
Trump Decides to Help ZTE https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-defends-reversal-on-chinas-zte/
***
[This looks like an interesting book about the Trump / Russia collusion case. If you read it before I do please send me a review I can publish here.]
[If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links like the one below to buy your books. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!]
***
Copyright © 2018 by Joseph Wayne Gadway

How to Think #13: Festino

The 13^th valid syllogism we need to learn is called Festino.

The form of this syllogism looks like this:
No P's are M's.
Some S's are M's.
Therefore, some S's are not P's.

This might look familiar to you because it is exactly the same as Ferio, which we considered earlier, except that the P and the M have switched places in the first line.

Now here is an example of Festino using words:
No honorable person takes bribes.
Some police officers have taken bribes.
Therefore, some police officers have not been honorable people.

Syllogisms are not just curiosities and they should not be used just to impress people with how smart we are. Syllogisms are thinking TOOLS and we should use them to help us think better and make stronger arguments.

Let's take a look at how Festino might help us think better in a real debate.

Imagine someone says “ALL police officers are honorable people and deserving of respect.”

You might think that statement is exaggerated and that, in fact, it is likely that “SOME police officers have NOT been honorable people.”

But how can you prove that not ALL police officers are honorable people? If you notice that your statement is the conclusion of a Festino syllogism you can now look at the first two premises used in that syllogism to see what you will need to complete your syllogism and prove your conclusion.

The first premise of Festino is: No P's are M's. In this case, given the conclusion we are trying to prove, P is “honorable people,” so we have “No honorable people are M's.”

So what could M be that would make a person dishonorable? We are looking for characteristics of a person that would justify us in calling that person dishonorable. We can make a list of M's that might include things like lying, cheating, stealing, taking bribes, etc. If any of these things are true about someone then we could reasonably argue that person is dishonorable.

Now look at the 2^nd premise of Festino which is: Some S's are M's. In this case, given the conclusion we are trying to prove, S stands for police officers and potential M's are the items on our list of dishonorable characteristics.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Here is a book that should help us identify faulty reasoning so we can correct it:

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

If you can associate one of the items on your list with police officers then you can prove your conclusion that some police officers are dishonorable.

You can look through the items on your list to find one that will be most persuasive to your audience and also one that can definitely be associated with some police officers.

You could use “lying” but maybe your audience will think that lying is so common to human beings that it doesn't really prove that a person is dishonorable to any unusual degree.

You could use “cheating” but you might decide that this word is too vague to be used in an effective argument: do you mean cheating on a test at school, cheating on your taxes, cheating on a time sheet at work, cheating on a spouse?

Using the taking of bribes seems to work well in this case. It is easy to understand what it means, it is clearly dishonorable, and there is no doubt that SOME police officers have been caught taking bribes.

So now, with help from the syllogism Festino, you have created a strong argument against the statement that “All police officers are honorable.”

The syllogism you have now constructed proves that at least some police officers have not been honorable:
No honorable person takes bribes.
Some police officers have taken bribes.
Therefore, some police officers have not been honorable people.

With practice this use of syllogisms will eventually become automatic. Arguments will take form in your mind so quickly you won't even be aware of the process but you should still be able to examine the final argument and demonstrate that it is a valid argument such as a Festino syllogism.

***

I believe this is classic work by a genius but I have not read it. Please beat me to it and then send a review I can publish here at AnythingSmart.org.

If you want to support "Anything Smart" just click on book links like the one below to buy your books. "Anything Smart" will receive a commission. Thanks!

Copyright © 2018 by Joseph Wayne Gadway