President Trump

[phiwum]

Please quote where I have claimed that California voters count less.

Trump's margins weren't stellar, nor have I claimed they were. But his margins were more evenly distributed across the country, at least from a statistical perspective.

Measured by what? Certainly by area, which the electoral college favors. Diff you mean different than that?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

When you said, "Can you say with absolute certainty that Trump didn't* coordinate with the Russians to cheat?" that is a classic shifting of the burden of proof. If you are making an assertion that Trump did coordinate with Russia, that's for you to provide evidence for, not for Emily's Cat to provide evidence against.

Or that's the gist I get from her argument.


*Italics mine

Yes, both of us are saying there is not absolute certainly of either conclusion.

As for providing evidence, I have now in about three separate posts, including saying more evidence is needed to conclude collusion occurred.

 

[Emily's Cat]

This is all straw and nonsense. Maybe you should quote my actual words and show how exactly the say what you think they say? I assure you they don't.

Form: Can you say with 100% confidence that a thing did not occur, for which there is no current firm evidence that it did occur?

Can you absolutely with 100% certainty say that invisible pink unicorns don't exist?

Can you say with absolute certainty that Trump didn't coordinate with the Russians to cheat?

Can you say with certainty that Comey didn't wrongly interfere with his personal rant on the emails and his last minute letter to Congress, associating Clinton with Weiner along with reopening a closed case only to close it again a few days later because he had nothing, all the while refusing to comment on the ongoing investigation of a Trump team/Russia connection didn't unfairly interfere with the election?

In both cases, which I have quoted a couple of times now, you're asking for people to prove that a thing didn't happen. Nobody can prove that a thing didn't happen. That is EXACTLY the point of Russel's Teapot. You can't prove that there isn't a teapot orbiting the sun.

In either case, maybe the event occurred, maybe it didn't. At present we do not have sufficient evidence to form an solid opinion. That will undoubtedly change as we move forward - more information will come to light.

At present, we do NOT know whether Trump actively coordinated with Russia. Nor do we know if it constitutes cheating. Clearly you believe this to be the case - and that's fine. You're entitled to your opinions and beliefs.

In this case, however, it's your method of argument that I take exception to, not the content.

 

[Emily's Cat]

What, next to Emily's cat?

My status is still undetermined

 

[Emily's Cat]

Clinton also had a large spike in New York - over a million and a half, and nearly a million in Illinois. I don't see what inference you are drawing by singling out CA.

Nothing more than noting that the margin by which she won the popular vote in CA is larger than the margin by which she won the overall US popular vote. It's statistically interesting.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Yes, both of us are saying there is not absolute certainly of either conclusion.

As for providing evidence, I have now in about three separate posts, including saying more evidence is needed to conclude collusion occurred.

You appear to have a very clear bias. It appears that you're specifically looking for information that will confirm the conclusion you have already reached, rather than withholding your conclusion until sufficient evidence arises to warrant a decision. Of course, this is my impression and could be wrong.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Can you agree on this? ---> When media get information from a reliable "source" relaying details of a highly classified meeting, that is called a "leak".

No, I don't agree. A leak, and in particular the leaks Trump is referring to are leaks from public employees in federal jobs who have access to the information because of their job.

A private investigator reports, it is not called "a leak". Even if it were, Trump's claim is that someone in the CIA or the government leaked confidential intelligence data.

From CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/donald-trump-intelligence-report-russia/index.html

^^the leak in bold

That's not a leak either. The private investigator gave the dossier to reporters, members of Congress, and the clients who paid for the investigation.

^^same leak? different leak? after the fact? Doesn't say.

^^makes it sound like a credible document, no? That's not how Biden tells it: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wire...cials-told-us-trump-allegations-leak-44737495

^^ wow. Sounds like something supersupersecret CNN probably shouldn't be told, doesn't it? Yet multiple officials did tell CNN.

It sounds exactly like I said, the two pages remain confidential. As for the credibility of the investigator, that is an established fact. They have an excellent reputation as investigative services, as does the investigator they used. No one needed the CIA to confirm that.

From the CNN link:

One reason the nation's intelligence chiefs took the extraordinary step of including the synopsis in the briefing documents was to make the President-elect aware that such allegations involving him are circulating among intelligence agencies, senior members of Congress and other government officials in Washington, multiple sources tell CNN....

This synopsis was not an official part of the report...

...allegations about communications between the Trump campaign and the Russians, mentioned in classified briefings for congressional leaders last year, prompted then-Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid to send a letter to FBI Director Comey in October,

That is widely known. Reid and McCain both got the private investigator's dossier and thought Comey needed to see it.

It would appear the only additional information CNN has from their usual sources, confirmed the CIA found the investigative agency credible. CNN could have figured that out themselves had they spent a few minutes looking at the agency's established credibility.

In no place in that CNN report does it say anyone leaked anything specifically from the CIA-prepared 2 page synopsis. The fact there were 2 additional pages added to the now public dossier was obviously common knowledge in the Congress.

But again, nothing from the 2 pages themselves have been leaked.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Form: Can you say with 100% confidence that a thing did not occur, for which there is no current firm evidence that it did occur?

Can you absolutely with 100% certainty say that invisible pink unicorns don't exist?

[snip]

Here's the original paragraph of mine, that you quoted in post #3367:

Can you say with absolute certainty that Trump didn't coordinate with the Russians to cheat? Can you say with certainty that Comey didn't wrongly interfere with his personal rant on the emails and his last minute letter to Congress, associating Clinton with Weiner along with reopening a closed case only to close it again a few days later because he had nothing, all the while refusing to comment on the ongoing investigation of a Trump team/Russia connection didn't unfairly interfere with the election?

Here's where you are getting it wrong. The answer to the question is, no. No one cannot say that.

I was addressing the claim that Trump didn't collude with Russia. I wasn't asking The Great Zaganza to cough up the evidence. I was pointing out it was too soon to conclude there is no there there.

You went on in that thread to say:

Speculation that can't be disproved does not constitute evidence, nor even support.

That's false. The 35 page dossier is indeed evidence and it was collected by a reliable investigator with connections in Russia.

It's not a conviction, but it's certainly evidence.

But here's the other issue. I took your comment to mean the evidence in the 35 page dossier could not be confirmed or refuted. It wasn't "speculation", that would be the conclusions one would draw upon looking at the evidence. The evidence itself, as reported in the dossier, could indeed be confirmed or refuted.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You appear to have a very clear bias. It appears that you're specifically looking for information that will confirm the conclusion you have already reached, rather than withholding your conclusion until sufficient evidence arises to warrant a decision. Of course, this is my impression and could be wrong.

Are you dismissing out of hand the evidence I have posted here? And the evidence Varoche added that Trump's platform re Russia and the Ukraine veered from the GOP Party line to one favorable to Putin.

Who has the bias?

 

[phiwum]

My status is still undetermined

Here's hoping no one opens the box.

 

[Sherkeu]

No, I don't agree. A leak, and in particular the leaks Trump is referring to are leaks from public employees in federal jobs who have access to the information because of their job.

A private investigator reports, it is not called "a leak". Even if it were, Trump's claim is that someone in the CIA or the government leaked confidential intelligence data.

That's not a leak either. The private investigator gave the dossier to reporters, members of Congress, and the clients who paid for the investigation.

It sounds exactly like I said, the two pages remain confidential. As for the credibility of the investigator, that is an established fact. They have an excellent reputation as investigative services, as does the investigator they used. No one needed the CIA to confirm that.

From the CNN link:That is widely known. Reid and McCain both got the private investigator's dossier and thought Comey needed to see it.

It would appear the only additional information CNN has from their usual sources, confirmed the CIA found the investigative agency credible. CNN could have figured that out themselves had they spent a few minutes looking at the agency's established credibility.

In no place in that CNN report does it say anyone leaked anything specifically from the CIA-prepared 2 page synopsis. The fact there were 2 additional pages added to the now public dossier was obviously common knowledge in the Congress.

But again, nothing from the 2 pages themselves have been leaked.

NO ONE CLAIMS the actual 2 page summary was leaked.

Without the official source telling CNN what was discussed in the classified briefing, there is NO STORY. Leaks do not need, and most often do not have, official documents to go along with them.

If you think there was nothing leaked, please tell me what items Obama had in his confidential classified intelligence briefing today. According to you, I should not require any off-the-record anonymous leak by someone privy to that information. No documents necessary. Just tell me generally what was discussed please. Thanks.

As for the credibility of that dossier? If it was credible and Trumps people were having a secret collusion meetings with an American adversary and about to take on the full power of the presidency, we would not be going forward with an inauguration. It would be a VERY BIG ***** DEAL. Instead, Obama and Biden don't even ask questions about it. Biden says there was "hardly any discussion". It was totally "ancillary" to the real purpose of the meeting. Does that sound like they think it is credible to you?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

NO ONE CLAIMS the actual 2 page summary was leaked.

You do know I'm talking about Trump's and his spokesperson's claims, not any claim made by a member of the forum, right?

Without the official source telling CNN what was discussed in the classified briefing, there is NO STORY. Leaks do not need, and most often do not have, official documents to go along with them.

I would imagine BuzzFeed would respectfully disagree.

If you think there was nothing leaked, please tell me what items Obama had in his confidential classified intelligence briefing today. According to you, I should not require any off-the-record anonymous leak by someone privy to that information. No documents necessary. Just tell me generally what was discussed please. Thanks.

Obama, if it was today, I thought it was earlier, was briefed on things that have not been disclosed. Everyone else has the dossier to look at.

As for the credibility of that dossier? If it was credible and Trumps people were having a secret collusion meetings with an American adversary and about to take on the full power of the presidency, we would not be going forward with an inauguration. It would be a VERY BIG ***** DEAL. Instead, Obama and Biden don't even ask questions about it. Biden says there was "hardly any discussion". It was totally "ancillary" to the real purpose of the meeting. Does that sound like they think it is credible to you?

Uhh, yeah!

Were you too young to follow Watergate? It took months of investigating before impeachment was threatened and Nixon resigned.

 

[quadraginta]

If the Rosenbergs did nott commit treason, Trump most definitely hasn't.

They didn't.

At least they were never charged with treason.

They were charged, tried, convicted, and executed for conspiracy to commit espionage, under a law passed by Congress in 1917.

 

[Sherkeu]

You do know I'm talking about Trump's and his spokesperson's claims, not any claim made by a member of the forum, right?

I would imagine BuzzFeed would respectfully disagree.

Were you too young to follow Watergate? It took months of investigating before impeachment was threatened and Nixon resigned.

Responding to Trumps outrage at "fake news" leaks, James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence:

"I expressed my profound dismay at the leaks that have been appearing in the press, and we both agreed that they are extremely corrosive and damaging to our national security," Clapper said.

At least the man in charge of the intelligence community seems to know what I mean by "leak".
Do you have a specific tweet or interview in mind where Trump or his people said an official leaked the actual documents (any of them)? If they did, that is incorrect. But the outcome of the leak is the same. The story derived from the leaks was slanted towards the dossier being a legitimate part of a high level investigation- just so far totally uncorroborated.

I was a young child during Watergate. But if I recall it correctly, the reason it took so long is because Nixon abused his power in a string of escalating cover-ups. If he had not been president at the time, it would have unraveled much quicker and amounted to some small-time blip in history.

Just think of all the powerful people Hillary's campaign had access to for digging up negatives on her opponents. It seems hard to believe that with such lopsided political clout between her and Trump that he had any chance at all to win. (I'm still half waiting for someone to say "just kidding!")

If there really is a big hidden pile of dirt on Trump that both Democrats and Republicans didn't find with all their resources, then Trump is a true master at cloak and dagger. A certifiable world-class grade-A ninja.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Responding to Trumps outrage at "fake news" leaks, James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence:

At least the man in charge of the intelligence community seems to know what I mean by "leak".
Do you have a specific tweet or interview in mind where Trump or his people said an official leaked the actual documents (any of them)? If they did, that is incorrect. But the outcome of the leak is the same. The story derived from the leaks was slanted towards the dossier being a legitimate part of a high level investigation- just so far totally uncorroborated.

I was a young child during Watergate. But if I recall it correctly, the reason it took so long is because Nixon abused his power in a string of escalating cover-ups. If he had not been president at the time, it would have unraveled much quicker and amounted to some small-time blip in history.

Just think of all the powerful people Hillary's campaign had access to for digging up negatives on her opponents. It seems hard to believe that with such lopsided political clout between her and Trump that he had any chance at all to win. (I'm still half waiting for someone to say "just kidding!")

If there really is a big hidden pile of dirt on Trump that both Democrats and Republicans didn't find with all their resources, then Trump is a true master at cloak and dagger. A certifiable world-class grade-A ninja.

Do you not know how to link to a citation? This is the second time in our recent exchange you've posted some supporting evidence without a link so people can judge for themselves if you are interpreting your source correctly.

Makes it hard to take you seriously.

 

[Sherkeu]

Do you not know how to link to a citation? This is the second time in our recent exchange you've posted some supporting evidence without a link so people can judge for themselves if you are interpreting your source correctly.

Makes it hard to take you seriously.

Apologies. I suppose I am not used to anyone needing citations from me in my regular dialogue.

Clapper's statement link
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news...er-trump-russia-memo-wasn-t-leaked-us-n705956

 

[Civet]

If there really is a big hidden pile of dirt on Trump that both Democrats and Republicans didn't find with all their resources, then Trump is a true master at cloak and dagger. A certifiable world-class grade-A ninja.

I doubt he's quite that good (though I don't think him a stupid man), but Vladimir Putin's people may well be. For the record, I'm by no means convinced that Trump deliberately and knowingly colluded with the Russians.

 

[uke2se]

How so? I'm not seeing that in what I wrote, but of course, I'll always see what I intended.

When you release dirt on one side when there is dirt on both sides, you present a false reality to the public.

 

[Noztradamus]

When you release dirt on one side when there is dirt on both sides, you present a false reality to the public.

So just normal media behaviour then

 

[Delphic Oracle]

You mean the electoral interference that showed the Dems to be corrupt? That interference?

Discussing the content of the emails as a deflection from the emails being stolen and by whom is just as poor form as discussing who and how the emails where stolen when discussing their contents.