US Officially Blames Russia

[Garrette]

I don't know what the reality of it is, but my first thought is that Putin had no idea it would actually work. I think he told his guys to cause havoc and "help that buffoon throw the electorate into a tizzy," and when Trump actually won, Putin probably had a moment of shock. "Holy ****** We own a stupid POTUS! Now what do we do?"

 

[dudalb]

I think the events of the past few days have made any attempt to lift the sanctions or do anything to look like you are friendly to Putin politically toxic. And even before the Flynn story broke, both houses of Congress were sending shots across Trump's bow when it came to making pals with Putin, "Don't Go There". Now that just been multiplied X10.

 

[Belz...]

I'm at a loss here. Do you think I'm saying that Clinton should have a lower bar in criminal courts than "reasonable doubt", or do you think I'm talking about calls that we as individuals can make about someones behavior?

I'm saying that as members of a forum dedicated to critical thinking we should indeed apply a court-level benefit of the doubt. This isn't a holiday dinner with your in-laws.

Are you comfortable voting for someone who has had serious criminal investigations into their conduct as a government official

Of course. The reverse would mean that anyone ever accused of anything bad should never be trusted again, and that'd just encourage people to make false accusations.

Yes, it absolutely does. Lying to the FBI is a crime.

I stand corrected. Then she would be guilty of perjury.

 

[Belz...]

He probably didn't have the capacity to grasp just how mind-bendingly stupid Trump and his sycophants actually are.

The idea that someone could be that much of an idiot and still manage to get where Trump has gotten is a bit tough to swallow.

"I wanted a stupid puppet as POTUS,but not one THAT stupid!"

 

[Minoosh]

I think the events of the past few days have made any attempt to lift the sanctions or do anything to look like you are friendly to Putin politically toxic. And even before the Flynn story broke, both houses of Congress were sending shots across Trump's bow when it came to making pals with Putin, "Don't Go There". Now that just been multiplied X10.

The official account on Flynn's sins is incredibly self-serving. If this is what he is willing to admit, how much worse can the reality be? I can't rule out that any intelligence briefing is immediately shared with some functionary in Russia. Who would immediately share it with whoever might covet that information - for example, Syria or Iran.

Whoever plays Putin on SNL is doing a great job and I hope the show continues to depict their budding relationship. I was going to say romance or bromance but that would probably require mutual respect and I doubt that Putin respects Trump in any way, shape or form. Trump is seriously outmatched and does not comprehend that.

 

[dudalb]

Someone in my office just remarked that Stephan Miller bears a certain resembelance to Vlad the Impaler Putin.

 

[Minoosh]

Doesn't he have a first-class research department? Trump's mind bending stupidity has been evidenced over the years, and lots of other folk had put it together.

IMO, Trump's problem isn't stupidity, it's ignorance. Putin I think has been able to exploit this to his advantage.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Nothing about the spy ship or the treaty-busting missile, but damn that Obama for being soft on Russia.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/831846101179314177

Crimea was TAKEN by Russia during the Obama Administration. Was Obama too soft on Russia?

 

[trustbutverify]

IMO, Trump's problem isn't stupidity, it's ignorance. Putin I think has been able to exploit this to his advantage.

Stupidity takes many forms. Expertise (of one degree or another) in a narrow field(s) doesn't exclude a general inability to recognize patterns and discern subtle meanings. I think Dump is, in many ways, quite stupid. Putin has also been able to exploit that, although it may turn out to be a double edged sword.

 

[Newtons Bit]

I'm saying that as members of a forum dedicated to critical thinking we should indeed apply a court-level benefit of the doubt. This isn't a holiday dinner with your in-laws.

Courts vary from preponderance of evidence (<50%) to clear and convincing (<75%) to beyond a reasonable doubt (<90%). Criminal courts will use reasonable doubt, civil courts will usually use clear and convincing, but step down to preponderance in some cases (typically in things like 'which person owns this object'). We don't have to apply the same level as criminal courts to make simple discernments, particularly when that discernment is whether or not someone is getting away with breaking the law. Requiring a level of evidence sufficient to prove someone actually committed a crime in a court room to justify a statement like "she's getting away with a crime" is an impossible bar.

I stand corrected. Then she would be guilty of perjury.

Technically it would be something like obstruction of justice or making false statements...

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Comey said no reasonable prosecutor would take the case, not that there hadn't been a crime committed. There's a difference.....

Only to right wingers and others with CDS.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The discussion has been over crimes she got away with. ....

What in your mind would cause any reasonable prosecutor to forego a prosecution?

Not enough evidence? That's called not guilty.
Clinton controls all the reasonable prosecutors? CT forum that way ->

Do you know how absurd it is to interpret "no reasonable prosecutor would take the case" to mean 'the person got away with it'?

Jeebus, talk about an alt-reality, you are living it (apparently).

 

[phiwum]

Courts vary from preponderance of evidence (<50%) to clear and convincing (<75%) to beyond a reasonable doubt (<90%).

Surely, a 90.1% chance of guilt is not beyond a reasonable doubt! Where do you get those percentages?

 

[sunmaster14]

Surely, a 90.1% chance of guilt is not beyond a reasonable doubt! Where do you get those percentages?

Blackstone's formulation:

It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.

So, technically, it should be at least 90.91%

 

[Belz...]

Courts vary from preponderance of evidence (<50%) to clear and convincing (<75%) to beyond a reasonable doubt (<90%).

What's with the percentages? It's about how certain you feel about the evidence, not how you calculate them.

Requiring a level of evidence sufficient to prove someone actually committed a crime in a court room to justify a statement like "she's getting away with a crime" is an impossible bar.

No it's not. It means you hold yourself to a higher standard than your crazy uncle.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Once again, Comey stated that a reasonable prosecutor wouldn't bring the case, not that there wasn't evidence that the crime took place. His bar is "beyond reasonable doubt" combined with a jury pool that is overwhelmingly pro-Clinton. That's a hard case to prove in a court.

But I'm not in a court. I don't have to use the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. I can make a call based on a 50%> likelihood, the same standard that the Dept of Ed wants universities to use against students accused of rape (along with a host of due process violations).

Perhaps you need to be reminded of the evidence. The FBI reports states that Clinton claims concussion related amnesia explains why she can't remember what the parenthetical markings (c), (s), (ts) etc, mean. A Clinton campaign aide later said she never told the FBI that.

Who is lying?
The FBI? Clinton to the FBI? Her aide?

You are the one lying, you are lying to yourself.

Not everything one does wrong amounts to criminal behavior. This is where you are having trouble grasping the situation.

 

[a_unique_person]

That depends on whether Putin's goal was getting a puppet in the White House or just to destabilize the American political scene. If his goal was the latter, he's already won.

This would be my guess. Destabilising governments is a popular hobby of several states.

 

[Darat]

That depends on whether Putin's goal was getting a puppet in the White House or just to destabilize the American political scene. If his goal was the latter, he's already won.

And he has seen the USA's change of policy regarding NATO. Which may not seem a major thing in the USA but considering some of Putin's apparent goals is a huge change. I doubt Putin was that concerned about how his goals are achieved as long as they are.

 

[Darat]

Trump winning was gravy. His goal was to make western style democracy look ridiculous. Candidate Trump being seen as a credible candidate did that with aplomb. Trump winning proves that it can result in poor outcomes because enough people can make poor decisions in unison.

I'd say his goal was to neuter the USA in regards to its "policeman of the world" role and he's done that. Anything else is just gravy.

 

[Darat]

What in your mind would cause any reasonable prosecutor to forego a prosecution?

Not enough evidence? That's called not guilty.
Clinton controls all the reasonable prosecutors? CT forum that way ->

Do you know how absurd it is to interpret "no reasonable prosecutor would take the case" to mean 'the person got away with it'?

Jeebus, talk about an alt-reality, you are living it (apparently).

Let's also remember that we now know that must have been the worse possible wording he could have used about Hillary's "crimes" , and if he could have used anything more politically damaging he would have done. Another way of putting the same thing would have been "there was no case to answer"