...
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.
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. 
