ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags !MOD BOX WARNING! , Andrew McCabe , donald trump , George Papadopoulos , Michael Cohen , Paul Manafort , Robert Mueller , Trump controversies , Trump-Russia connections

Closed Thread
Old 10th June 2018, 10:14 PM   #1
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 17,060
Breaking: Mueller Grand Jury charges filed, arrests as soon as Monday pt 2

Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
How quickly we go from McCabe is a patriot to ignoring the facts about the OIG to asserting that McCabe's criminal lawyer is acting reasonably in obtaining an immunity deal before testifying before Congress arising out of his misconduct while the person who was second in charge at the FBI.



Lying under oath to advance one's personal interests at the expense of the FBI.

Sounds like a patriot, don't it.
We don't know what instructions or pressure Sessions or others in the administration put on the IG at DOJ to come to their conclusion. We'll have to wait for a party untainted by Trump connections to determine the truth.


Mod Info
Continued from this thread. You can quote and reply to any post from that thread here.
Posted By:zooterkin

Last edited by zooterkin; 11th June 2018 at 10:22 AM.
Craig4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 12:44 AM   #2
davefoc
Philosopher
 
davefoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: orange country, california
Posts: 9,402
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
...

You keep using this word [know]. I do not think it means what you think it means.

...

I have thought quite a bit about what it means to know something and I do not use the word often but I intended to use it in the post you criticized.

To focus on one of the issues you had a comment about:

davefoc posted:

"5. Trump is known to have fired Comey to stop the investigation of the Russian interference in the election"

I know that Trump attempted to prevent Comey from pursuing the Russian investigation. I base this on the fact that Trump is a relentlessly dishonest person and based on his previous behavior it is absolutely to be expected that if there was a discrepancy between him and Comey, Comey's version is the true version. I also base this on the fact that Trump essentially confirmed that Comey was fired to end the Russian investigation when Trump said this to a Russian official: “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.” I also base this on the fact that Trump has whined throughout the time of Russian Investigation that he thought Sessions should end it, presumably by firing people that wouldn't cooperate with ending it. ETA: Part of Trump comment made in Lester Holt interview: "And in fact when I decided to just do it [fire Comey] I said to myself, I said, You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should’ve won.”

I would like to explain what I mean when I used the word, know, above: I didn't mean that I could know absolutely in the philosophical sense or that I could know in the sense of having mathematical certainty. I meant it in the sense that for all practical purposes I know that Trump lied about his meeting with Comey and that his purpose for firing Comey was to stop the Russian investigation especially the investigation of Flynn. I also know this in the sense that I would be willing to bet my life on my belief that this is correct.

I understand that you think my conclusion is not knowable based on the available evidence. My suggestion is that for reasons that you might not be aware of you are allowing your agreement with Trump on some set of issues to lead you to make false conclusions about the issues being discussed in this thread. Your idea that the Uranium One deal was some great piece of evidence against Clinton was a demonstration of one such false conclusion. The Uranium One scandal is something cynically cooked up by Republican Partisans to smear Clinton. Clinton was not involved in any wrong doing with regard to it. In this thread you have routinely criticized posts that point out Trump malfeasance because the evidence does not meet some very high evidentiary threshold you have set but you jump right on the Conservative conspiracy theory bandwagon when the evidence reinforces your support of Trump.

Please, if you choose to make a response to the above, understand this: I am not a fan of Clinton and I think a lot of the criticism of her is justified, however her detractors have engaged in lying and misrepresentations to advance a partisan agenda and the lies and misrepresentations about the Uranium One deal is a very good example of that.
__________________
The way of truth is along the path of intellectual sincerity. -- Henry S. Pritchett

Perfection is the enemy of good enough -- Russian proverb

Last edited by davefoc; 11th June 2018 at 12:57 AM.
davefoc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 03:20 AM   #3
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
I've already written in great detail the complete actual story on uranium one.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 03:40 AM   #4
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 30,960
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
I've already written in great detail the complete actual story on uranium one.
I’m not sure I’ve seen it. What’d you conclude?
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 03:56 AM   #5
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
I’m not sure I’ve seen it. What’d you conclude?
That the scandal is nothing but claptrap invented by the fevered imagination of hyper partisan, hateful idiots and perpetuated by more of them.

Zig seems to think I'm missing some facts but declines to say what those missing facts actually are.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 05:11 AM   #6
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 30,960
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
That the scandal is nothing but claptrap invented by the fevered imagination of hyper partisan, hateful idiots and perpetuated by more of them.
That agrees with everything I’ve read.

Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Zig seems to think I'm missing some facts but declines to say what those missing facts actually are.
That agrees with everything I’ve read.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 05:13 AM   #7
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 39,050
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
That the scandal is nothing but claptrap invented by the fevered imagination of hyper partisan, hateful idiots and perpetuated by more of them.

Zig seems to think I'm missing some facts but declines to say what those missing facts actually are.
Zig seems to be JAQing and nothing more.
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes
a_unique_person is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 05:16 AM   #8
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 30,960
Originally Posted by a_unique_person View Post
Zig seems to be JAQing and nothing more.
No, no. Zig is also promoting easily debunked right-wing conspiracy theories. So, he’s got that going for him.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 10:40 AM   #9
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 18,974
Originally Posted by davefoc View Post
I have thought quite a bit about what it means to know something and I do not use the word often but I intended to use it in the post you criticized.

To focus on one of the issues you had a comment about:

davefoc posted:

"5. Trump is known to have fired Comey to stop the investigation of the Russian interference in the election"

I know that Trump attempted to prevent Comey from pursuing the Russian investigation. I base this on the fact that Trump is a relentlessly dishonest person and based on his previous behavior it is absolutely to be expected that if there was a discrepancy between him and Comey, Comey's version is the true version. I also base this on the fact that Trump essentially confirmed that Comey was fired to end the Russian investigation when Trump said this to a Russian official: “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.” I also base this on the fact that Trump has whined throughout the time of Russian Investigation that he thought Sessions should end it, presumably by firing people that wouldn't cooperate with ending it. ETA: Part of Trump comment made in Lester Holt interview: "And in fact when I decided to just do it [fire Comey] I said to myself, I said, You know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story, it’s an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should’ve won.”

I would like to explain what I mean when I used the word, know, above: I didn't mean that I could know absolutely in the philosophical sense or that I could know in the sense of having mathematical certainty. I meant it in the sense that for all practical purposes I know that Trump lied about his meeting with Comey and that his purpose for firing Comey was to stop the Russian investigation especially the investigation of Flynn. I also know this in the sense that I would be willing to bet my life on my belief that this is correct.

I understand that you think my conclusion is not knowable based on the available evidence. My suggestion is that for reasons that you might not be aware of you are allowing your agreement with Trump on some set of issues to lead you to make false conclusions about the issues being discussed in this thread. Your idea that the Uranium One deal was some great piece of evidence against Clinton was a demonstration of one such false conclusion. The Uranium One scandal is something cynically cooked up by Republican Partisans to smear Clinton. Clinton was not involved in any wrong doing with regard to it. In this thread you have routinely criticized posts that point out Trump malfeasance because the evidence does not meet some very high evidentiary threshold you have set but you jump right on the Conservative conspiracy theory bandwagon when the evidence reinforces your support of Trump.

Please, if you choose to make a response to the above, understand this: I am not a fan of Clinton and I think a lot of the criticism of her is justified, however her detractors have engaged in lying and misrepresentations to advance a partisan agenda and the lies and misrepresentations about the Uranium One deal is a very good example of that.
This is extremely well said. I agree with this assessment. People are playing partisan games. If politics was totally eliminated from the equation I have no doubt that a jury in a criminal trial would easily convict Trump beyond a reasonable doubt of obstruction simply based on Trump's documented words and actions.

100 percent certainty is NOT how people operate. In fact, it can be argued that it is unobtainable.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 12:23 PM   #10
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 10,542
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
This is extremely well said. I agree with this assessment. People are playing partisan games. If politics was totally eliminated from the equation I have no doubt that a jury in a criminal trial would easily convict Trump beyond a reasonable doubt of obstruction simply based on Trump's documented words and actions.

100 percent certainty is NOT how people operate. In fact, it can be argued that it is unobtainable.
I totally get your point, but Trump's comments about thinking about Russia as he fired Comey doesn't meet the "reasonable doubt" threshold for me. And I'm not at all partisan in this regard. I'd like Trump *not* to be removed without really overwhelming evidence, since such removal might be really bad for the nation, but I'm not applying the "overwhelming evidence" requirement here.

He said he thought about Russia as a "made-up" thing. He didn't say that such thoughts are why he fired Comey. I don't "know" (in the sense of beyond reasonable doubt) that he fired Comey because of the Russian investigation, but I find it very likely.
phiwum is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 12:29 PM   #11
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 26,864
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
We don't know what instructions or pressure Sessions or others in the administration put on the IG at DOJ to come to their conclusion. We'll have to wait for a party untainted by Trump connections to determine the truth.


Mod Info
Continued from this thread. You can quote and reply to any post from that thread here.
Posted By:zooterkin
Arguments from incredulity coupled with unfounded ad hominem claims are not close to being meritorious arguments.

here is the OIG report in question. Tell me which parts you have evidence to rebut.

https://static01.nyt.com/files/2018/...abe-report.pdf
__________________
CCP human rights abuse deniers are the fundamental equivalent of holocaust deniers.
The Big Dog is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 12:30 PM   #12
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 14,192
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
I totally get your point, but Trump's comments about thinking about Russia as he fired Comey doesn't meet the "reasonable doubt" threshold for me. And I'm not at all partisan in this regard. I'd like Trump *not* to be removed without really overwhelming evidence, since such removal might be really bad for the nation, but I'm not applying the "overwhelming evidence" requirement here.

He said he thought about Russia as a "made-up" thing. He didn't say that such thoughts are why he fired Comey. I don't "know" (in the sense of beyond reasonable doubt) that he fired Comey because of the Russian investigation, but I find it very likely.
"And in fact when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said 'you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story, it's an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won'."

What is lacking there? That he might have had two related thoughts at once but we're unrelated in reaching a conclusion from one to the other? What is another way to translate that statement?
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 12:32 PM   #13
Lurch
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 562
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
I totally get your point, but Trump's comments about thinking about Russia as he fired Comey doesn't meet the "reasonable doubt" threshold for me. And I'm not at all partisan in this regard. I'd like Trump *not* to be removed without really overwhelming evidence, since such removal might be really bad for the nation, but I'm not applying the "overwhelming evidence" requirement here.

He said he thought about Russia as a "made-up" thing. He didn't say that such thoughts are why he fired Comey. I don't "know" (in the sense of beyond reasonable doubt) that he fired Comey because of the Russian investigation, but I find it very likely.
If we look at this one episode in isolation, then yes, there's much room for doubt.

But in the *totality* of Trump's words and actions, it is one of many pieces of a puzzle which together paint a damnable picture.
Lurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 12:45 PM   #14
logger
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11,145
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
This is extremely well said. I agree with this assessment. People are playing partisan games. If politics was totally eliminated from the equation I have no doubt that a jury in a criminal trial would easily convict Trump beyond a reasonable doubt of obstruction simply based on Trump's documented words and actions.

100 percent certainty is NOT how people operate. In fact, it can be argued that it is unobtainable.
The jury would then have to ignore the fact that Trump has the sole discretion to fire Comey. Trump had to know as everyone around him did that it couldn’t stop the investigation. Rosenstein recommended his firing. Trump said his reason for the firing.

You’re completely wrong. You and Davfoc have no evidence whatsoever, you’re totally making a guess. All evidence points against you and his “belief”
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 12:46 PM   #15
logger
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11,145
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
This is extremely well said. I agree with this assessment. People are playing partisan games. If politics was totally eliminated from the equation I have no doubt that a jury in a criminal trial would easily convict Trump beyond a reasonable doubt of obstruction simply based on Trump's documented words and actions.

100 percent certainty is NOT how people operate. In fact, it can be argued that it is unobtainable.
Another reason why a jury would not side with you.
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 01:31 PM   #16
davefoc
Philosopher
 
davefoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: orange country, california
Posts: 9,402
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
I totally get your point, but Trump's comments about thinking about Russia as he fired Comey doesn't meet the "reasonable doubt" threshold for me. And I'm not at all partisan in this regard. I'd like Trump *not* to be removed without really overwhelming evidence, since such removal might be really bad for the nation, but I'm not applying the "overwhelming evidence" requirement here.

He said he thought about Russia as a "made-up" thing. He didn't say that such thoughts are why he fired Comey. I don't "know" (in the sense of beyond reasonable doubt) that he fired Comey because of the Russian investigation, but I find it very likely.

I appreciate the objectivity your post suggests. A few points:
1. The evidence that Trump fired Comey to end the Russian investigation and protect Flynn involves other evidence than I listed in my post that acbytesla responded to as well. Looking at the totality of the evidence for practical purposes it is knowable that Trump attempted to obstruct justice.

2. My point was not that firing Comey to halt the Russian investigation was or should be an impeachable offense. It was that Trump did attempt to obstruct justice by firing Comey. I would hesitate to bring an impeachment against a sitting president if this was the only crime I believed he had committed.

3. What level of criminality should constitute an impeachable offense depends on a lot of factors and the good of the nation should be the over arching purpose. Right now a significant percentage of the country is under the thrall of Fox News which lies and obfuscates every day about the Mueller investigation and by doing so maintains a significant segment of the population believing that Trump is being unfairly treated by the Mueller investigation. Given the success of Fox News and other partisan media has had with this campaign I believe that the best interests of the nation are served by waiting to see what is discovered by the Mueller investigation and only proceeding with an impeachment if serious criminality by Trump is uncovered that is significant enough that Fox News is forced to abandon its pro-Trump campaign. This will allow cover for enough Republican legislators to move to remove Trump.

4. There is reason to believe based on Trump's actions he has been seriously compromised by his Russian connections. That is the kind of criminality that I think would be enough to unite the country around the need for impeachment and conviction of Trump. I don't think evidence that Trump is actually compromised by Russia or Russian crime families is known to the public right now.
__________________
The way of truth is along the path of intellectual sincerity. -- Henry S. Pritchett

Perfection is the enemy of good enough -- Russian proverb

Last edited by davefoc; 11th June 2018 at 01:33 PM.
davefoc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 01:46 PM   #17
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 18,974
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
This is extremely well said. I agree with this assessment. People are playing partisan games. If politics was totally eliminated from the equation I have no doubt that a jury in a criminal trial would easily convict Trump beyond a reasonable doubt of obstruction simply based on Trump's documented words and actions.

100 percent certainty is NOT how people operate. In fact, it can be argued that it is unobtainable.
Originally Posted by davefoc View Post
I appreciate the objectivity your post suggests. A few points:
1. The evidence that Trump fired Comey to end the Russian investigation and protect Flynn involves other evidence than I listed in my post that acbytesla responded to as well. Looking at the totality of the evidence for practical purposes it is knowable that Trump attempted to obstruct justice.

2. My point was not that firing Comey to halt the Russian investigation was or should be an impeachable offense. It was that Trump did attempt to obstruct justice by firing Comey. I would hesitate to bring an impeachment against a sitting president if this was the only crime I believed he had committed.

3. What level of criminality should constitute an impeachable offense depends on a lot of factors and the good of the nation should be the over arching purpose. Right now a significant percentage of the country is under the thrall of Fox News which lies and obfuscates every day about the Mueller investigation and by doing so maintains a significant segment of the population believing that Trump is being unfairly treated by the Mueller investigation. Given the success of Fox News and other partisan media has had with this campaign I believe that the best interests of the nation are served by waiting to see what is discovered by the Mueller investigation and only proceeding with an impeachment if serious criminality by Trump is uncovered that is significant enough that Fox News is forced to abandon its pro-Trump campaign. This will allow cover for enough Republican legislators to move to remove Trump.

4. There is reason to believe based on Trump's actions he has been seriously compromised by his Russian connections. That is the kind of criminality that I think would be enough to unite the country around the need for impeachment and conviction of Trump. I don't think evidence that Trump is actually compromised by Russia or Russian crime families is known to the public right now.
There is far more evidence that Trump has been attempting to obstruct justice than simply firing Comey. There are comments Trump said to the Russians. Comments he made to Comey and to other intelligence officers as well as tweets about how he would never have appointed Sessions if he had known that Sessions would obey the law and recuse himself. His day after day calling it a witch hunt which it certainly is not.

No the evidence that Trump obstructed justice and continues to do so is conclusive. Not that I'm under any illusion that the law will be obeyed. As I said, 'if politics weren't involved' no one would dispute it. But there is no God or Santa Clause either.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 01:49 PM   #18
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 12,290
Originally Posted by logger View Post
The jury would then have to ignore the fact that Trump has the sole discretion to fire Comey. Trump had to know as everyone around him did that it couldn’t stop the investigation. Rosenstein recommended his firing. Trump said his reason for the firing.
As Trump's lawyers' memo makes clear: The president could murder Comey and not be prosecuted for it. Now, of course, he would never do such a thing, but if he did, the appropriate Constitutional process would be impeachment. This just means that Trump should execute Democrats in Congress.
__________________
April 13th, 2018:
Ranb: I can't think of anything useful you contributed to a thread in the last few years.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 02:16 PM   #19
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 4,529
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
There is far more evidence that Trump has been attempting to obstruct justice than simply firing Comey. There are comments Trump said to the Russians. Comments he made to Comey and to other intelligence officers as well as tweets about how he would never have appointed Sessions if he had known that Sessions would obey the law and recuse himself. His day after day calling it a witch hunt which it certainly is not.

No the evidence that Trump obstructed justice and continues to do so is conclusive. Not that I'm under any illusion that the law will be obeyed. As I said, 'if politics weren't involved' no one would dispute it. But there is no God or Santa Clause either.
His forging of the message for Jr., the emails Jr. released that show some pretty sketchy communication, etc. There's enough there where I'm convinced as well.
__________________
"All acts performed in the world begin in the imagination."--Barbara Grizzuti Harrison

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 02:25 PM   #20
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 11,477
And don't forget that Trump, Stone and Papadopoulos had foreknowledge of the wikileaks dump. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence.
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 02:28 PM   #21
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 18,974
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
His forging of the message for Jr., the emails Jr. released that show some pretty sketchy communication, etc. There's enough there where I'm convinced as well.
That he wrote his son's false statement to Congress. I forgot that one for a moment is borderline witness tampering. Trump is lying about what happened and is encouraging others to lie as well.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 02:34 PM   #22
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 30,960
Originally Posted by varwoche View Post
And don't forget that Trump, Stone and Papadopoulos had foreknowledge of the wikileaks dump. There is a lot of circumstantial evidence.
And Giuliani, too.


eta: Wait, was that a wikileaks dump? I might have gotten that confused with something else.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

Last edited by Upchurch; 11th June 2018 at 02:37 PM.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 02:47 PM   #23
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 10,542
Originally Posted by davefoc View Post
I appreciate the objectivity your post suggests. A few points:
1. The evidence that Trump fired Comey to end the Russian investigation and protect Flynn involves other evidence than I listed in my post that acbytesla responded to as well. Looking at the totality of the evidence for practical purposes it is knowable that Trump attempted to obstruct justice.

2. My point was not that firing Comey to halt the Russian investigation was or should be an impeachable offense. It was that Trump did attempt to obstruct justice by firing Comey. I would hesitate to bring an impeachment against a sitting president if this was the only crime I believed he had committed.

3. What level of criminality should constitute an impeachable offense depends on a lot of factors and the good of the nation should be the over arching purpose. Right now a significant percentage of the country is under the thrall of Fox News which lies and obfuscates every day about the Mueller investigation and by doing so maintains a significant segment of the population believing that Trump is being unfairly treated by the Mueller investigation. Given the success of Fox News and other partisan media has had with this campaign I believe that the best interests of the nation are served by waiting to see what is discovered by the Mueller investigation and only proceeding with an impeachment if serious criminality by Trump is uncovered that is significant enough that Fox News is forced to abandon its pro-Trump campaign. This will allow cover for enough Republican legislators to move to remove Trump.

4. There is reason to believe based on Trump's actions he has been seriously compromised by his Russian connections. That is the kind of criminality that I think would be enough to unite the country around the need for impeachment and conviction of Trump. I don't think evidence that Trump is actually compromised by Russia or Russian crime families is known to the public right now.
Your third point is precisely where I stand.
phiwum is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 04:53 PM   #24
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,252
Originally Posted by davefoc View Post

4. There is reason to believe based on Trump's actions he has been seriously compromised by his Russian connections.
Can you elaborate? I was under the impression that he had been rather tougher on Russia than Obama or Hillary?
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 04:55 PM   #25
beren
Graduate Poster
 
beren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Dallas, Tx
Posts: 1,155
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
Can you elaborate? I was under the impression that he had been rather tougher on Russia than Obama or Hillary?
No.
__________________
Drive-by snark artist.
Deep thinker as long as I can do it quickly with minimal effort.
Band wagon pile-oner
beren is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 04:57 PM   #26
NoahFence
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 22,131
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
Can you elaborate? I was under the impression that he had been rather tougher on Russia than Obama or Hillary?
righhht....

NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 05:04 PM   #27
logger
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11,145
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
As Trump's lawyers' memo makes clear: The president could murder Comey and not be prosecuted for it. Now, of course, he would never do such a thing, but if he did, the appropriate Constitutional process would be impeachment. This just means that Trump should execute Democrats in Congress.
You still cant get past the simple fact that we have the system we have. If your side wants to change it, they need to first win elections,then change it. The first is quite a tall order, if they did, bet they wouldn’t change it.
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 05:04 PM   #28
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 30,960
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
Can you elaborate? I was under the impression that he had been rather tougher on Russia than Obama or Hillary?
Dude literally had to be legally forced to put economic sanctions on Russia, freely gave up secret information in a private meeting with a Russian representative, proposed bringing Russia back into the G7 while alienating US allies, and almost never fails to wax favorably about Putin. How has Trump even been tough on Russia?


ETA: or did I fall for a Poe?
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 05:04 PM   #29
Giz
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 8,252
So, no data just partisan hysterics.
Giz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 05:20 PM   #30
Steve
Illuminator
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,987
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
Can you elaborate? I was under the impression that he had been rather tougher on Russia than Obama or Hillary?
You get your info from the same sources as Trump - " people are saying".....
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 05:21 PM   #31
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 18,523
Trump:
Quote:
The appointment of the Special Counsel is totally UNCONSTITUTIONAL! Despite that, we play the game because I, unlike the Democrats, have done nothing wrong!
Loser Liberal: The Terrible Arguments Against the Constitutionality of the Mueller Investigation

The loser is Kellyane Conway's husband.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 07:30 PM   #32
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,410
Originally Posted by Giz View Post
Can you elaborate? I was under the impression that he had been rather tougher on Russia than Obama or Hillary?
How? There have been a couple things that were obviously done for show and had little real effect, that unsurprisingly and conveniently happened while the news was more loudly talking about the question of why Trump's sucking up to Putin so much. Even the sanctions were largely questionable and only put in place after a lot of resisting (which also gave those affected plenty of time to prepare and minimize their losses). And then there's the question of enforcement. Has Trump been enforcing them? The last burst of news on that subject suggests that no, he really hasn't.

Trump has been a gift that just keeps giving to Putin since before he even became President. Trying to make direct comparisons to Obama and Hillary, of course, is... odd, on the other hand, given the notably different situations that Obama was dealing with, and that Hillary was never the President. That Trump's been overwhelmingly more pro-Russia than either, though, should be really, really, really obvious to anyone paying attention.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 11th June 2018 at 07:55 PM.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 07:36 PM   #33
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 22,378
Originally Posted by davefoc View Post
<snip>

3. What level of criminality should constitute an impeachable offense depends on a lot of factors and the good of the nation should be the over arching purpose.

<snip>

The GOP in the House of Representatives in 1998 (bless their shriveled black hearts), more than a few of whom are still serving, set that standard for us. Lying under oath about something as inconsequential as a single sexual encounter between consenting adults is sufficient grounds for impeachment.

Has Trump reached that threshold? Of course he has.There seems to be little doubt that he has lied under oath multiple times over issues far more serious than a single sexual encounter between consenting adults.

Has he lied under oath while President? Not yet, maybe. But only because he has not been compelled to testify under oath ... yet. Judging by his apparently congenital inability to tell the truth about anything at all, even when it is to his own, personal benefit to do so, there can be little doubt that once under oath, he would lie some more. (Which is probably (certainly?) why he has resisted being put under oath since taking office.)

Would the GOP Representatives in the House maintain the same standard today that they established in 1998?

Of course they wouldn't.
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."

Last edited by quadraginta; 11th June 2018 at 07:37 PM.
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 07:40 PM   #34
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 14,192
Originally Posted by quadraginta View Post
The GOP in the House of Representatives in 1998 (bless their shriveled black hearts), more than a few of whom are still serving, set that standard for us. Lying under oath about something as inconsequential as a single sexual encounter between consenting adults is sufficient grounds for impeachment.

Has Trump reached that threshold? Of course he has.There seems to be little doubt that he has lied under oath multiple times over issues far more serious than a single sexual encounter between consenting adults.

Has he lied under oath while President? Not yet, maybe. But only because he has not been compelled to testify under oath ... yet. Judging by his apparently congenital inability to tell the truth about anything at all, even when it is to his own, personal benefit to do so, there can be little doubt that once under oath, he would lie some more. (Which is probably (certainly?) why he has resisted being put under oath since taking office.)

Would the GOP Representatives in the House maintain the same standard today that they established in 1998?

Of course they wouldn't.
When has he lied under oath?
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 07:41 PM   #35
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 22,378
Originally Posted by logger View Post
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
This is extremely well said. I agree with this assessment. People are playing partisan games. If politics was totally eliminated from the equation I have no doubt that a jury in a criminal trial would easily convict Trump beyond a reasonable doubt of obstruction simply based on Trump's documented words and actions.

100 percent certainty is NOT how people operate. In fact, it can be argued that it is unobtainable.
Another reason why a jury would not side with you.

Is it your contention that "beyond reasonable doubt" and "100 percent certainty" are the same thing under U.S. law?

Do you think that a judge should offer such a standard as an instruction to a jury?
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 07:48 PM   #36
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
 
quadraginta's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Central Vale of Humility
Posts: 22,378
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
Trump:
Quote:
The appointment of the Special Counsel is totally UNCONSTITUTIONAL! Despite that, we play the game because I, unlike the Democrats, have done nothing wrong!
Loser Liberal: The Terrible Arguments Against the Constitutionality of the Mueller Investigation

The loser is Kellyane Conway's husband.

Obviously a RINO.

Under the new, revised definition which is; "anyone who has said or written anything which fails to be completely, unreservedly in support of Trump or any of his cronies".
__________________
"It never does just what I want, but only what I tell it."
"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened."
quadraginta is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 08:18 PM   #37
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 12,290
Originally Posted by logger View Post
You still cant get past the simple fact that we have the system we have. If your side wants to change it, they need to first win elections,then change it. The first is quite a tall order, if they did, bet they wouldn’t change it.
You're actually correct that I cannot tolerate the system we have -- in part because even if my side (the Green Party) -- did manage to win elections, they still couldn't change it. It's virtually impossible to abolish the Senate. As for Republicans and Democrats, you're being obtuse. Each side wins, and then implements changes to consolidate power.

Of course, nothing in your answer has anything to do with the original point. It's just all-purpose fluff -- like most of your posts.
__________________
April 13th, 2018:
Ranb: I can't think of anything useful you contributed to a thread in the last few years.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 08:20 PM   #38
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,410
After all that Bill Clinton's speech in Russia being linked to Uranium One as reason to believe that Clintons are more corrupt than Trump... I do have to wonder how that's being held up in comparison to the very numerous cases of Trump literally using campaign and government funds to enrich himself.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 08:23 PM   #39
logger
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11,145
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
You're actually correct that I cannot tolerate the system we have -- in part because even if my side (the Green Party) -- did manage to win elections, they still couldn't change it. It's virtually impossible to abolish the Senate. As for Republicans and Democrats, you're being obtuse. Each side wins, and then implements changes to consolidate power.
That’s why it’s best to join a party, a real party....and work within it.
Quote:
Of course, nothing in your answer has anything to do with the original point. It's just all-purpose fluff -- like most of your posts.
lol


Last edited by logger; 11th June 2018 at 08:26 PM.
logger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 11th June 2018, 08:33 PM   #40
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 18,974
Originally Posted by logger View Post
That’s why it’s best to join a party, a real party....and work within it.


lol

The depth, the detail, amazing!
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:34 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.