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

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 

Notices


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 donald trump , FBI investigations , Michael Flynn , Trump controversies , Trump-Russia connections

Reply
Old 23rd March 2017, 12:03 PM   #121
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 13,391
Originally Posted by TraneWreck View Post
I don't know what would worry me more: the idea of Team Trump exchanging favors with Putin to win the election, or Team Trump spending all that time with Russia, giving them favors, and getting nothing in return...

The second possibility seems more like puppetry....

NO, YOU'RE THE PUPPET!!!!
I think of it more like a journalist and a leaker with an axe to grind. Both benefit from a news report based on leaked information. Both benefit more based on timing. One party is breaking the law but the other isn't. But there isn't a quid pro quo.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2017, 12:04 PM   #122
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 72,392
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Except those groups do not have interests.
Of course they do. Here's an example: my wife and I are a couple. We have common interests. Ergo, the couple has interests. It's really not hard to figure out unless you are, as I said, divorced from reality and instead obsessed with theory.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2017, 12:10 PM   #123
TraneWreck
Philosopher
 
TraneWreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,929
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I think of it more like a journalist and a leaker with an axe to grind. Both benefit from a news report based on leaked information. Both benefit more based on timing. One party is breaking the law but the other isn't. But there isn't a quid pro quo.
If that's the case, I think you could justify impeachment on the cover up, alone. Somehow Trump folks know who stole the information, who has it, and instead of alerting American authorities, they keep the source confidential by directly lying about it (400lb kid on his mom's couch), and then accept the benefits that result from the damage. Even that level of collusion would be deadly.

It should also be mentioned that a journalist has a long tradition of law protecting her from prosecution for keeping that source confidential. No such protection exists for shady politicians. And, of course, they did take, at a minimum, the clear act of changing the Platform at the Convention.

We need an investigation, for sure, but it doesn't look great.
TraneWreck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2017, 12:35 PM   #124
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 13,391
Originally Posted by TraneWreck View Post
It should also be mentioned that a journalist has a long tradition of law protecting her from prosecution for keeping that source confidential.
There are no federal shield laws. The judge will scrutinize a prosecutor's request to subpoena and jail a reporter to reveal the source, but nearly every reporter whose source broke federal law could be held in contempt tomorrow if desired.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2017, 12:41 PM   #125
TraneWreck
Philosopher
 
TraneWreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,929
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
There are no federal shield laws. The judge will scrutinize a prosecutor's request to subpoena and jail a reporter to reveal the source, but nearly every reporter whose source broke federal law could be held in contempt tomorrow if desired.
Right, but almost every state has enacted them.

As I said, there is a long legal tradition of protection for press members keeping their sources confidential. There is no such tradition for shady politicians.

The bottom line is that if there was any collusion, hell, if there was any prior communication about the hack, those specific officials are in trouble and it will be very difficult for Trump to act like he knew nothing.

The foreknowledge seems pretty obvious at this point:

Quote:
Recall that on Aug. 21 conservative operative and longtime Trump associate Roger Stone tweeted gleefully, “it will soon be Podesta’s time in the barrel,” referring to Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta. Lo and behold, on Oct. 7 WikiLeaks released its trove of Podesta’s emails.

It wasn’t long after this that Trump’s close ally, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, exhibited a similar eerie prescience. Days before FBI Director James Comey announced that his agency would examine Clinton emails found on a computer used by Anthony Weiner, Giuliani told Fox News Trump has “got a surprise or two that you’re going to hear about in the next few days. . . . I’m talking about some pretty big surprises. . . . . We got a couple of things up our sleeve that should turn this around.” Was he ever right.
http://www.salon.com/2017/03/23/devi...scandal-worse/
TraneWreck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2017, 02:59 PM   #126
Hercules56
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,884
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
People are convicted by presenting that circumstantial evidence. Instead, this is people with little credibility (FBI) saying they have circumstantial evidence.

I can only base it on what evidence is out there. I can't consider evidence that isn't out there.
Why does the FBI have little credibility?

They are probably the most thorough and professional national investigative police force in the world.
Hercules56 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2017, 03:00 PM   #127
Hercules56
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,884
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Speaking of credibility, congressmen have none.
OK, so you believe the FBI has no credibility and Congressmen have no credibility.

Do you believe Trump has any credibility? How about Fox News?

How about Breitbart and Infowars?
Hercules56 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2017, 03:02 PM   #128
Hercules56
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,884
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
An enemy of the USA is a nation that works against our interests.

That makes Russia our enemy.
Hercules56 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2017, 03:07 PM   #129
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 13,391
Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
OK, so you believe the FBI has no credibility and Congressmen have no credibility.

Do you believe Trump has any credibility? How about Fox News?

How about Breitbart and Infowars?
Do you think I am a republican or support Trump? Haha. No.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2017, 03:09 PM   #130
Hercules56
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,884
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Do you think I am a republican or support Trump? Haha. No.
Which news media do you think is credible?
Hercules56 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2017, 03:22 PM   #131
Cleon
King of the Pod People
 
Cleon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 25,653
Originally Posted by Hercules56 View Post
An enemy of the USA is a nation that works against our interests.

That makes Russia our enemy.
I suspect that legally this definition may leave something to be desired.
__________________
"People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich
Cleon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2017, 03:26 PM   #132
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 68,002
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
On what principle?
Once again you ignore the discussion and continue on your merry way as if no one had answered your question.

You seem to have forgotten the potential collusion was with a crime: hacking the DNC and Podesta, and a foreign government interfering in the US election.

Should I make the font bigger?
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2017, 03:27 PM   #133
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 68,002
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
It seemed like from the post I was responding to, it was talking about non criminal but indefensible collusion. I do think actual criminal activity is impeachable.
Oh that's right, when you are demonstrably wrong, just resort to claiming your comment only applied in some narrow way to one post.

So why ask upon which principle impeachment would be based?
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2017, 03:30 PM   #134
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
As cited in the case above, the standard is open hostility. That does not describe open hostility.

Russians firing on American aircraft is not considered hostility??? I have to disagree with your assessment.
skyeagle409 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2017, 04:12 PM   #135
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17,118
Originally Posted by TraneWreck View Post
This is either comically semantic or an outright equivocation (flipping back and forth from some logical concept of "proof" to a legal meaning).
Considering that this forum is not a court room, and the majority of the posters are not lawyers, requiring that the strict legal definitions of terms be used rather then there common language definitions is beyond silly.

Quote:
"Proof" in a legal context, which you may notice, will be the relevant universe should this investigation move forward, can absolutely be circumstantial.
Proof, as I am using it, is evidence that when placed before people is sufficient to show the truth of the facts by itself, it is direct and there can be no other likely alternative explanations that would satisfy it.

Circumstantial Evidence by its very nature requires that the truth is inferred from it and is never sufficient to show the truth of the facts alone.

Quote:
OJ's DNA mixed with the victims DNA at the crime scene, in his car, and in his house is circumstantial, but it allows any sane person to infer what happened.
Perhaps a better word would be "guess".

See this is exactly the thing I am meaning with the difference between the two. OJ's DNA mixed with the victims DNA at the crime scene, in his car, and in his house is not enough to determine the truth by itself. All it means is that at some time both OJ and the victim were at the crime scene, in his car, and at his house. DNA is never time stamped.

Now if you can show that the victim was never in the car or OJ's house, then it becomes stronger, but you need that extra evidence beyond just your circumstantial presence of DNA. Of course you still have to rule out poor collection techniques that allow for multiple samples to be gathered because of the areas swabbed, and of course the ever present possibility of contamination as possible reasons for the result.

And it goes further. Even if you were to say find the victim's blood in the car and the house, this still isn't proof that he committed the murders because all it does is simply show that he was at the crime scene either during or after the murders and got blood on him. An alternative explanation for your evidence is that he arrived after the murders, got blood on him at the scene, then transported it to his car and home. Finding his DNA at home and in his car is not surprising, one would expect it throughout these places so finding it mixed there says nothing other than that he transported the blood to those places where his DNA already was.

See your problem here?

Quote:
Whether or not you want to call that "proof" is wholly irrelevant to anything that will happen in this FBI investigation.
True, but considering that the FBI themselves have no idea what that investigation will reveal, there is no point in jumping the gun and waving placards or chanting "High 'em high" as some here are doing. It's the equivalent of what the Republicans were doing with Hillary's E-mails, and is just lousy critical thinking.

Quote:
And, by the way, it's highly likely that first-hand testimony will play a large role as they move on - use the inferences from strong circumstantial evidence to roll over witnesses...etc.
Note the high-lighted part, you don't know what they have, and nor do I. How about we wait till we find out for sure rather then rushing the gate?

Quote:
We're not at the point of impeachment
Not even close, or even close to close. This is the problem. When there is evidence that can impeach, then get excited, until then cool your drawers.

Quote:
but anyone with a doofy red hat should be very worried.
Funnily enough the party I support is red, but our colours are reveresed to the US, our main right-wing party is Blue and the left-wing Red.

Quote:
Fortunately, they seem to love that color over in Russia, so if you don't like the results of this investigation, you can geeeet out of this country.
Seriously this part of your post has to go down as one of the dumbest things I have ever seen posted to these forums, and I used to argue with Moon Hoaxers and 9/11 Truthers. Considering even the FBI doesn't know what the result of the investigation is going to be, what are you going to do if they come back with a result you don't like? Take your own advice? And secondly, if it was aimed at me, then if you had even taken a second to observe my postings, you'd know that a) I'm not in the US (surely the flag in my signature shows that) and b) I'm left winger in what is already a far more socialist country than the US will ever be, meaning that to most US people I'm a raging socialist, so why would I give a toss if Trump was impeached? That I was also a Hillary supporter, and a reasonable vocal one at that, should also have pointed that out to anyone remotely following this section in the past year that I an totally anti-Trump. I just don't want to see the Democrats running off into Truther-land like the Republicans have been doing for the past 8 years.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.

Last edited by PhantomWolf; 23rd March 2017 at 04:14 PM.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2017, 04:27 PM   #136
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17,118
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Do you think I'm saying there's proof? I think you are talking past me.
You seem to be saying that you think there is enough circumstantial evidence to get excited about. I just don't agree with that evaluation.

Other's here are seemingly already past the trial and into sentencing, which is seriously carried away.

I'm just suggesting that everyone settle down, keep their powder dry and await the facts when they finally come out, rather then rushing the gate now and ending up embarrassed at the result if it doesn't go in your favour.

We have had a nice 8 years of laughing at the Republicans rushing down the Benghazi and Email Truther Rabbit hole. Why screw that up by finding your own one to rush down and having them declare a Tu quoque.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2017, 04:28 PM   #137
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 13,391
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Once again you ignore the discussion and continue on your merry way as if no one had answered your question.

You seem to have forgotten the potential collusion was with a crime: hacking the DNC and Podesta, and a foreign government interfering in the US election.

Should I make the font bigger?
I have not ignored that. If it is criminal that is reason enough.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2017, 04:30 PM   #138
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17,118
Originally Posted by elgarak View Post
Bring charges to whom?

The body to bring the charges to would be Congress. In particular the House Intelligence Committee. Who's chairman has shown yesterday he's more interested to inform and shield Trump than in following up on an investigation and its results.

THEY HAVE NO ONE TO BRING THE CHARGES TO. Currently, their only strategy is to exert public pressure on the trustworthy elements in Congress, by whistleblowing (i.e., normally illegal leaking that is justified, because there's no other legal way).
The only person that has protection from prosecution is the President. If there were others involved then the FBI could have them charged.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2017, 04:55 PM   #139
logger
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11,145
Originally Posted by TraneWreck View Post
I don't know what would worry me more: the idea of Team Trump exchanging favors with Putin to win the election, or Team Trump spending all that time with Russia, giving them favors, and getting nothing in return...

The second possibility seems more like puppetry....

NO, YOU'RE THE PUPPET!!!!
How does exchanging favors with Russia win them the election?
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2017, 04:56 PM   #140
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 18,186
Insf is on the case!
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2017, 04:58 PM   #141
logger
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11,145
Originally Posted by TraneWreck View Post
If that's the case, I think you could justify impeachment on the cover up, alone. Somehow Trump folks know who stole the information, who has it, and instead of alerting American authorities, they keep the source confidential by directly lying about it (400lb kid on his mom's couch), and then accept the benefits that result from the damage. Even that level of collusion would be deadly.

It should also be mentioned that a journalist has a long tradition of law protecting her from prosecution for keeping that source confidential. No such protection exists for shady politicians. And, of course, they did take, at a minimum, the clear act of changing the Platform at the Convention.

We need an investigation, for sure, but it doesn't look great.
Replace Trump people with journalist, they would be the next Woodward and Bernstein if the FBI had the balls to recommend prosecution?
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2017, 05:01 PM   #142
logger
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11,145
Originally Posted by TraneWreck View Post
Right, but almost every state has enacted them.

As I said, there is a long legal tradition of protection for press members keeping their sources confidential. There is no such tradition for shady politicians.

The bottom line is that if there was any collusion, hell, if there was any prior communication about the hack, those specific officials are in trouble and it will be very difficult for Trump to act like he knew nothing.

The foreknowledge seems pretty obvious at this point:


http://www.salon.com/2017/03/23/devi...scandal-worse/
With respect to Rudy, didn't NY officials have access to Weiner's computer first?
Why does this automatically come from Russia?
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2017, 05:05 PM   #143
TraneWreck
Philosopher
 
TraneWreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,929
Quote:
Considering that this forum is not a court room, and the majority of the posters are not lawyers, requiring that the strict legal definitions of terms be used rather then there common language definitions is beyond silly.
I'm going to go waaaaaaay out on a limb and suggest that the relevant use of evidence and proof in an FBI (and possibly Congressional) investigation would be the legal one.

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
See your problem here?
Haha, no, but you've made yours plain as day.


Quote:
Note the high-lighted part, you don't know what they have, and nor do I. How about we wait till we find out for sure rather then rushing the gate?
Only if you promise to send me an email when it's ok to talk about. I confess, I'm not versed in the unwritten rules of when it's appropriate to discuss politics on a relatively obscure internet message board.

If you don't believe there will be hearings with witnesses as this progresses, I mean, it's really hard to avoid insults.

Quote:
Not even close, or even close to close. This is the problem. When there is evidence that can impeach, then get excited, until then cool your drawers.
No. I will continue to heat my drawers and discuss the issue. Even with goofballs that don't understand how evidence works in a court of law.

Quote:
Funnily enough the party I support is red, but our colours are reveresed to the US, our main right-wing party is Blue and the left-wing Red.
Wow. Very cool and very interesting.

Quote:
Seriously this part of your post has to go down as one of the dumbest things I have ever seen posted to these forums,
Perhaps you should recalibrate your irony detector.

You are demanding a level of proof wholly absent from courtrooms. Many, many cases are built on circumstantial evidence. This case will be built on circumstantial evidence. There will likely be direct testimony as it moves forward, but you seem to think both the word "circumstantial" and "inference" are pejoratives.

That is just silly and no really worth discussing.

Last edited by TraneWreck; 23rd March 2017 at 05:19 PM.
TraneWreck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2017, 05:10 PM   #144
TraneWreck
Philosopher
 
TraneWreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,929
Originally Posted by logger View Post
With respect to Rudy, didn't NY officials have access to Weiner's computer first?
Why does this automatically come from Russia?
Respect and Rudy shouldn't be that close without a negation.

The contents of Wiener's computer contained the Clinton emails, which were voluntarily handed over by Hillary as a part of that investigation. Those were not the DNC hacked emails. They were also all duplication. Congress had all of them.
TraneWreck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2017, 05:11 PM   #145
TraneWreck
Philosopher
 
TraneWreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,929
Originally Posted by logger View Post
Replace Trump people with journalist, they would be the next Woodward and Bernstein if the FBI had the balls to recommend prosecution?
Minus the keeping it secret, lying about it, and generating quid pro quo's with the party engaged in illegal activity.

This is a very bad comparison.
TraneWreck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2017, 05:13 PM   #146
TraneWreck
Philosopher
 
TraneWreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,929
Originally Posted by logger View Post
How does exchanging favors with Russia win them the election?
Were you in a coma for the past year? Do I really need to explain this?

Trump gets:
-Hacked emails that undermine Hillary's campaign.

Russia gets:
-Lackey in the White House pushing for a weakening of NATO and other issues important to Putin.
TraneWreck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2017, 06:33 PM   #147
logger
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11,145
Originally Posted by TraneWreck View Post
Minus the keeping it secret, lying about it, and generating quid pro quo's with the party engaged in illegal activity.

This is a very bad comparison.
What good is it to a journalist if he/she/it keeps it secret?
Lying about what?
What quid pro quo's were generated?
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2017, 06:37 PM   #148
logger
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11,145
Originally Posted by TraneWreck View Post
Were you in a coma for the past year? Do I really need to explain this?

Trump gets:
-Hacked emails that undermine Hillary's campaign.
Show where Trump got them? You've heard of Wikileaks haven't you?
Quote:
Russia gets:
-Lackey in the White House pushing for a weakening of NATO and other issues important to Putin.
Except he hasn't done that.


Once again how does exchanging favors with Russia actually win him the election?

Was your candidate such a ****up that it would be that easy?

Last edited by logger; 23rd March 2017 at 07:01 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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2017, 06:40 PM   #149
logger
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11,145
Originally Posted by TraneWreck View Post
Respect and Rudy shouldn't be that close without a negation.

The contents of Wiener's computer contained the Clinton emails, which were voluntarily handed over by Hillary as a part of that investigation. Those were not the DNC hacked emails. They were also all duplication. Congress had all of them.
Once again, you're implying that somehow Rudy got this tidbit from the Russians when it's quite reasonable he got it from NY city officials who had already put it out that there was very damaging things on that computer.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2017, 06:50 PM   #150
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 68,002
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
You seem to be saying that you think there is enough circumstantial evidence to get excited about. I just don't agree with that evaluation.

Other's here are seemingly already past the trial and into sentencing, which is seriously carried away.

I'm just suggesting that everyone settle down, keep their powder dry and await the facts when they finally come out, rather then rushing the gate now and ending up embarrassed at the result if it doesn't go in your favour.

We have had a nice 8 years of laughing at the Republicans rushing down the Benghazi and Email Truther Rabbit hole. Why screw that up by finding your own one to rush down and having them declare a Tu quoque.
Invoking Benghazi is a ludicrous false equivalence and you should know better.

I do believe you are imagining my excitement when I'm merely annoyed at people ready to dismiss the whole thing because proof hasn't manifested fast enough. That's a really stupid measure.

I've seen a rather steady accumulation of evidence with no sign the accumulation has fizzled out. That's a long way from 'excitement'.

In fact, I have a bit of a dilemma. If there is a Watergate type offense here, I expect people to let Pence slide just so they have a 'solution'. In reality, Clinton should be declared the winner (she did win the popular vote by a large margin) or another election should be held. But the GOP controlled Congress will never let that happen and the US public will have no precedent so they are unlikely to call the election outcome moot.

So I don't see a win here, just more frustration.

OTOH, the evidence has to be pursued to wherever it leads. Prematurely dismissing it makes no sense.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 23rd March 2017 at 06:52 PM.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2017, 06:51 PM   #151
TraneWreck
Philosopher
 
TraneWreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,929
Originally Posted by logger View Post
Once again, you're implying that somehow Rudy got this tidbit from the Russians when it's quite reasonable he got it from NY city officials who had already put it out that there was very damaging things on that computer.
This is just false. The Wiener saga and the Clinton Emails are separate from the Russian-hacked DNC stuff. I don't know of anyone who believes that the Russians were involved with that. If my earlier post gave that impression, my mistake.

The issue is the coordination of leaks based on what should be confidential information. Rudy knew something about Wiener - obviously from NY folks. Trump people start changing their story in the wake of Trump's doofy tweets about Obama, then Nunes shares info from an unnamed source to try and bolster the point...

Stone is the guy who started babbling about the stuff in the Russian hacks.
TraneWreck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2017, 06:51 PM   #152
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17,118
Originally Posted by TraneWreck View Post
I'm going to go waaaaaaay out on a limb and suggest that the relevant use of evidence and proof in an FBI (and possibly Congressional) investigation would be the legal one.
Which has what to do with discussions on a forum? Are you claiming that any and all discussions of issues that might end up in a court room should be posted in lawyer speak?

Quote:
Haha, no, but you've made yours plain as day.
Rather pointless rebuttal there.

Quote:
Only if you promise to send me an email when it's ok to talk about. I confess, I'm not versed in the unwritten rules of when it's appropriate to discuss politics on a relatively obscure internet message board.
Ohhh sarcasm now, the last refuge of the scoundrel so they say. Perhaps the time to discuss it is when there is actually something to discuss?

Quote:
If you don't believe there will be hearings with witnesses as this progresses, I mean, it's really hard to avoid insults.
Do you really believe that any real court would accept what is in the public arena currently into a hearing? If you presented the case that currently exists in the public arena to a prosecutor, he'd laugh you out of the building. All there is, is a bunch of unrelated circumstances and some anonymous heresay. It's laughable that you think that this is enough to be building a case on. Now yes it's likely the FBI has more, but until they are ready to release it and tell us what they have, lighting your torches and grabbing your pitchforks just seems a tad premature.

To be honest, you sound like certain other posters that bravely declared... Do you really think that they aren't going to find something in those 400,000 emails? Why would have Comey gone to Congress if they didn't have something?

At least let the chickens lay the eggs before you count them.

Quote:
No. I will continue to heat my drawers and discuss the issue. Even with goofballs that don't understand how evidence works in a court of law.
I know exactly how evidence works in a court, and I know that a Judge would toss out what you currently have and likely laugh at you while doing so.

Quote:
You are demanding a level of proof wholly absent from courtrooms.
We are not in a courtroom.

Quote:
Many, many cases are built on circumstantial evidence.
They aren't built on anonymous heresay though.

Quote:
This case will be built on circumstantial evidence. There will likely be direct testimony as it moves forward
You understand you just contradicted yourself in two sentences?

Quote:
but you seem to think both the word "circumstantial" and "inference" are pejoratives.
Not at all. What I believe is that jumping to conclusions based on limited circumstantial evidence and claiming it to be inference is not critical thinking, but rather is a great way to end up in woo-land when you become so committed to your inferred belief that you refuse to accept any possibility you might be wrong.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.

Last edited by PhantomWolf; 23rd March 2017 at 06:55 PM.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2017, 06:54 PM   #153
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 68,002
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
The only person that has protection from prosecution is the President. ...
Where did you get that idea?
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2017, 06:58 PM   #154
TraneWreck
Philosopher
 
TraneWreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,929
Originally Posted by logger View Post
Show where Trump got them? You've heard of Wikileaks haven't you?
I mean, that's the point of the investigation. Folks are pretty sure that the Russians participated in the hack, but Trump and his team's involvement is slowly coming to light. At no point have I stated that all of this is known.

Quote:
Except he hasn't done that.
He's been president for about two months. He changed the RNC platform to be more accommodating to Russian interests. He has made waves about undermining NATO, but it hasn't been put into political action yet.

Part of the issue is speculative, part is based on known prior actions. The investigation hasn't even started yet. You're acting as though I should have a full explanation this early in the process.


Quote:
Once again how does exchanging favors with Russia actually win him the election?
Asked and answered. Again, I can only tell you what is known and suspected at the moment. More will come out, in all likelihood, but even now the outline of a quid pro quo is pretty obvious - should Trump's role be proven.

Quote:
Was you candidate such a ****up that it would be that easy?
Yes. And there was a contentious primary. And there are way too many people in this country who think President Trump was acceptable.
TraneWreck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2017, 06:59 PM   #155
logger
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11,145
Originally Posted by TraneWreck View Post
This is just false. The Wiener saga and the Clinton Emails are separate from the Russian-hacked DNC stuff. I don't know of anyone who believes that the Russians were involved with that. If my earlier post gave that impression, my mistake.

The issue is the coordination of leaks based on what should be confidential information. Rudy knew something about Wiener - obviously from NY folks. Trump people start changing their story in the wake of Trump's doofy tweets about Obama, then Nunes shares info from an unnamed source to try and bolster the point...
Unless Rudy says something specific, there is no issue.
Quote:
Stone is the guy who started babbling about the stuff in the Russian hacks.
Your guessing that it came from the Russians.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2017, 07:09 PM   #156
logger
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11,145
Originally Posted by TraneWreck View Post
I mean, that's the point of the investigation. Folks are pretty sure that the Russians participated in the hack, but Trump and his team's involvement is slowly coming to light. At no point have I stated that all of this is known.
Trump and his teams involvement is slowly coming to light? You mean coming to light that it was nothing?


Quote:
He's been president for about two months. He changed the RNC platform to be more accommodating to Russian interests. He has made waves about undermining NATO, but it hasn't been put into political action yet.
How was the platform changed?
Are you sure what his complaints about NATO are about and he has since changed his mind about NATO?
Quote:
Part of the issue is speculative, part is based on known prior actions. The investigation hasn't even started yet. You're acting as though I should have a full explanation this early in the process.
Not at all, I'm trying to show you you're guessing like everyone else, on some very flimsy evidence.


Quote:
Asked and answered. Again, I can only tell you what is known and suspected at the moment. More will come out, in all likelihood, but even now the outline of a quid pro quo is pretty obvious - should Trump's role be proven.
Once again I'm trying to get you to see how ridiculous it is to suggest Hillary lost this because of these emails leaks that weren't all that harmful. Of all the reasons she lost, wouldn't you agree this would be the least of those?

Quote:
Yes. And there was a contentious primary. And there are way too many people in this country who think President Trump was acceptable.
I would say the same of a corrupt person like Hillary Clinton and her sexual predator husband.
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 Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2017, 07:11 PM   #157
TraneWreck
Philosopher
 
TraneWreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,929
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Which has what to do with discussions on a forum? Are you claiming that any and all discussions of issues that might end up in a court room should be posted in lawyer speak?
Haha. I am claiming that when discussing the evidence in a legal investigation, the relevant burdens of proof are, in fact, legal. You can have your own magical definition of "proof" and "evidence," but those standards mean much less than accepted legal standards.

Thus, there is little point in trying to understand your shifting, goofy understanding of the words.

Quote:
Rather pointless rebuttal there.
What is asserted without a point may be rebutted without a point.

Quote:
Ohhh sarcasm now, the last refuge of the scoundrel so they say. Perhaps the time to discuss it is when there is actually something to discuss?
There is plenty to discuss, as evidenced by the discussion.



Quote:
Do you really believe that any real court would accept what is in the public arena currently into a hearing?
Have I ever argued such? The investigation hasn't even started. Right now there is nothing linking Trump folks to collusion save for a vague statement by the FBI.

At what point have I argued that Trump should be impeached right now? There is ample evidence to justify an investigation, and there is ample to demand an independent investigation.

Quote:
To be honest, you sound like certain other posters that bravely declared... Do you really think that they aren't going to find something in those 400,000 emails? Why would have Comey gone to Congress if they didn't have something?
Ok, we'll see. I'm pointing out how circumstantial evidence leads to direct evidence in legal investigations. I sincerely have no idea what the result will be, but there is a lot of smoke.

Even something as dumb as Benghazi lead to hearings with direct testimony. You seem to think that because I believe the circumstantial evidence will lead to direct evidence that I'm also asserting the content of that evidence. I am not.

It's perfectly possible that further evidence will benefit Trump.


Quote:
I know exactly how evidence works in a court, and I know that a Judge would toss out what you currently have and likely laugh at you while doing so.
Is all your babble based on this silly, incorrect notion that I'm suggesting Trump should immediately be impeached? That all facts are known and the case is ready to be made?

Quote:
We are not in a courtroom.
But we're discussing how certain bits of evidence will be treated in a courtroom.

Quote:
You understand you just contradicted yourself in two sentences?
Do you think circumstantial evidence and direct testimony are mutually exclusive? Either you have one or the other?

Quote:
Not at all. What I believe is that jumping to conclusions based on limited circumstantial evidence and claiming it to be inference is not critical thinking, but rather is a great way to end up in woo-land when you become so committed to your inferred belief that you refuse to accept any possibility you might be wrong.
What conclusion have I jumped to? We are speculated based on currently available information, which establishes nothing illegal or impeachable at this point. It does justify an independent investigation.

What a lot of nonsense based on one assumption you made that was without justification.
TraneWreck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2017, 07:11 PM   #158
jeffas69
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 428
Originally Posted by TraneWreck View Post
Evidence of what? That people are convicted on circumstantial evidence or the reasons the innocence project cites for most wrongful convictions?

As to the former, if you don't understand that, you should probably bring your argument to the conspiracy forum as this is a fact so obvious that it would require some bizarre brain-in-a-vat style global skepticism to undermine. You find someone's fingerprint on a murder weapon and a strong inference based on circumstantial evidence can be made.

As to the second:


http://www.newenglandinnocence.org/c...l-convictions/


You may note that eyewitness accounts are direct, not circumstantial.
I was curious as to how often it happened not if it was possible. That is why I was asking for citations so I could look into it. I apologize because I didn't make that clear at all. The reason for my curiosity is that I do not believe that it is at all common in a case like this where there is at this time no evidence whatsoever that a crime was committed.
jeffas69 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2017, 07:14 PM   #159
TraneWreck
Philosopher
 
TraneWreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,929
Originally Posted by logger View Post
Unless Rudy says something specific, there is no issue.
For a bunch of goofballs who are now whining about leaks, Rudy obtaining leaked information is "no issue"? I enjoy your consistency.

Quote:
Your guessing that it came from the Russians.
I'm not guessing, I'm pointing out the pattern. It is not known, at this point, if Stone got his info from the Russians - or Guccifer who he met with or wikileaks....

That's why an investigation is necessary
TraneWreck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2017, 07:16 PM   #160
TraneWreck
Philosopher
 
TraneWreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,929
Originally Posted by jeffas69 View Post
I was curious as to how often it happened not if it was possible. That is why I was asking for citations so I could look into it. I apologize because I didn't make that clear at all. The reason for my curiosity is that I do not believe that it is at all common in a case like this where there is at this time no evidence whatsoever that a crime was committed.
There was a crime, the hack. The question is Trump's and his friends' involvement. Right now there is no solid evidence pointing to any collusion, but the investigation is just getting rolling.
TraneWreck is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

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 04:35 AM.
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.