Status
Not open for further replies.
If you are a skeptic, it works the exact opposite. The argument works now as there hasn't been a process that involves the fair presentation of all the evidence. Until that time, it is you who is choosing to believe something without all the evidence.

The process you describe is that involved in obtaining a criminal conviction- which I suspect will indeed occur eventually in the case of the Trump administration. However it is certainly fair to reach a reasonable working conclusion before that. Indeed it is essential to do so all the time just to lead our lives. We get a phone call telling us we owe the IRS $2453 and that we will go to jail if we don't send them Apple Music Store gift cards? We conclude it is probably a scam without a fair presentation of all the evidence. The ground outside is wet and we see many people with umbrellas? We conclude it probably rained, without a detailed investigation of possible other causes. We are entitled, indeed often have to make these likely conclusions based on reasonable evidence all the time. To hold a reasonable opinion does not need the rigid requirements for criminal conviction or indeed for scientific publication. And holding a reasonable opinion adoes not exclude the expectation of changing it if new evidence arises. Being a skeptic does not mean having a completely blank mind until some theoretical, absolute level of proof is obtained.

By the way- the level of evidence that individuals in the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia is already such that maintaining otherwise is what is unreasonable. Claims that there is no evidence are laughable!
 
Last edited:
The process you describe is that involved in obtaining a criminal conviction- which I suspect will indeed occur eventually in the case of the Trump administration. However it is certainly fair to reach a reasonable working conclusion before that. Indeed it is essential to do so all the time just to lead our lives. We get a phone call telling us we owe the IRS $2453 and that we will go to jail if we don't send them Apple Music Store gift cards? We conclude it is probably a scam without a fair presentation of all the evidence. The ground outside is wet and we see many people with umbrellas? We conclude it probably rained, without a detailed investigation of possible other causes. We are entitled, indeed often have to make these likely conclusions based on reasonable evidence all the time. To hold a reasonable opinion does not need the rigid requirements for criminal conviction or indeed for scientific publication. And holding a reasonable opinion adoes not exclude the expectation of changing it if new evidence arises. Being a skeptic does not mean having a completely blank mind until some theoretical, absolute level of proof is obtained.

By the war- the level of evidence that individuals in the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia is already such that maintaining otherwise is what is unreasonable. Claims that there is no evidence are laughable!

I do not claim to know those things you describe.
 
I reckon the Congress is in the pay of Israel and Saudi Arabia. It prevents any American president carrying out his proper duties, even though he might be hare-brained. Personally, I'm all for gas and oil pipelines and I don't see why there has to be terrible wars over the matter.

Where is the EVIDENCE that Russia interfered in the American election apart from the opinions of TV journalists and TV and film technicians and the Clintons and Cocaine Importation Agency and New York Times and Washington Post? The Russians might have had a preference for Trump, and even who won the election in France, but America has interfered in Syria and Venezuela and Brazil and Argentina and Central America and Ukraine.


You seem to have a very flexible approach to evidence - you like putting forward unsupported assertions from which you build up what passes for an argument without assessing that the basic premises are wrong.

You demonstrate a similar approach to this (and interestingly another "betrayal" of Russia) in this thread, where you don't seem to acknowledge that Neville Chamberlain had a very good reason for not informing the Russians about the German planning for the invasion of Russia, due to his having died before the planning started.

Or later on about how the unlaunched and definitely uncommissioned Bismark could have threatened the Royal Navy in August 1940.

If you actually want to look for the evidence, I suggest you look at the timeline of events or even better the Washington Post's spider diagrams showing the connections between Trump's team and Russia together with key events.


Mar 19| Podesta email hacked
Apr 19| DCLeaks.com registered
May 3| Trump becomes presumptive nominee
June 3| Goldstone contacts Trump Jr. to setup meeting which promises to discuss Clinton
June 7 17:16| Don Jr. confirms meeting w/ Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya June 7 21:13| Trump Sr promises press conf the next week with Clinton dirt June 8| Trump posts link to DCLeaks
June 9| Trump Jr, Kushner, Manafort meet with Russian operative
June 12| Assange announces Clinton emails
June 27| Hacked emails posted to DCLeaks
July 11| Trump/Manafort nix pro-Ukranian plank in GOP platform (and lie about it)
Late July | Unusual activity noticed between Russian bank and Trump server
Aug 21| Roger Stone writes "it will soon be Podesta's time in the barrel"
Oct -7 | Pussygate video released
Oct 7| Wikileaks releases Podesta emails (an hour later)
2017 - May| DOJ drops money laundering case against client of Natalia Veselnitskaya
July-08| Don Jr issues statement* saying the meeting was about orphanages
July-09 | NYT prepares to release story about the meeting supposedly about dirt on Clinton
July-09 | Donald Trump Jr. issues a new statement* changing his story from less than 24 hours earlier, and accepting that it was about getting dirt on clinton but that nothing came of it:
July-10| Don Jr hires lawyer
July-12| Democrats ask questions about the DoJ dropping the money lanudering case
July-14| CNN reports that at least two more people were in the Jun-2016 meeting with Jr and Kushner
July -19| Trump Administration reveals it has ended covert support for moderate Syrian rebels - in line with Putin's wishes
July-21 | WaPo reports Intercepts show Russian ambassador Kislyak discussed Trump Campaign with Sessions during the 2016 Presidential race

* " “It was a short introductory meeting. I asked Jared and Paul to stop by. We primarily discussed a program about the adoption of Russian children that was active and popular with American families years ago and was since ended by the Russian government, but it was not a campaign issue at the time and there was no follow up… I was asked to attend the meeting by an acquaintance, but was not told the name of the person I would be meeting with beforehand.”"


*“I was asked to have a meeting by an acquaintance I knew from the 2013 Miss Universe pageant with an individual who I was told might have information helpful to the campaign. I was not told her name prior to the meeting. I asked Jared and Paul to attend, but told them nothing of the substance. We had a meeting in June 2016. After pleasantries were exchanged, the woman stated that she had information that individuals connected to Russia were funding the Democratic National Committee and supporting Ms. Clinton. Her statements were vague, ambiguous and made no sense. No details or supporting information was provided or even offered. It quickly became clear that she had no meaningful information. She then changed subjects and began discussing the adoption of Russian children and mentioned the Magnitsky Act. It became clear to me that this was the true agenda all along and that the claims of potentially helpful information were a pretext for the meeting. I interrupted and advised her that my father was not an elected official, but rather a private citizen, and that her comments and concerns were better addressed if and when he held public office. The meeting lasted approximately 20 to 30 minutes. As it ended, my acquaintance apologized for taking up our time. That was the end of it and there was no further contact or follow-up of any kind. My father knew nothing of the meeting or these events.”

*Far* more comprehensive timeline available at http://billmoyers.com/story/the-trump-resistance-plan-a-timeline-russia-and-president-trump/

a good interactive chart in the Washington Post highlighting the known connections between Trump's team and Russia

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/trump-russia/?utm_term=.ee816bce20f4

It is in this thread, the TLDR version is that Team Trump keep lying about links with Russia and changing their story when evidence comes out.

Trump Jr even has emails where he discusses Russia getting dirt on Clinton.
 
Last edited:
What's the source for the claim that POTUS crafted the message? So far as I can tell, all sources lead back to this WaPo article:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-dictated-sons-misleading-statement-on-meeting-with-russian-lawyer/2017/07/31/04c94f96-73ae-11e7-8f39-eeb7d3a2d304_story.html?utm_term=.82eb8392ffe8
That article states it as fact, but provides no supporting evidence. They don't even reference an anonymous source for this.
When you posted this, the White House had already admitted Trump's involvement. It was newsworthy of course, and widely reported.
 
Last edited:
Where is the EVIDENCE that Russia interfered in the American election apart from the opinions of TV journalists and TV and film technicians and the Clintons and Cocaine Importation Agency and New York Times and Washington Post? The Russians might have had a preference for Trump, and even who won the election in France, but America has interfered in Syria and Venezuela and Brazil and Argentina and Central America and Ukraine.
The extent to which this is fact-challenged lies boldly in the realm of the surreal. I'd summarize that evidence if it wasn't common knowledge, and if I thought you were amenable to facts.
 
The extent to which this is fact-challenged lies boldly in the realm of the surreal. I'd summarize that evidence if it wasn't common knowledge, and if I thought you were amenable to facts.

I am amenable to facts and evidence, but not to opinions and beliefs. A court must take into consideration nothing but the evidence in the case before it, and witnesses other than experts must not be allowed to give their opinions, but must speak only as to facts.

This is part of what former CIA agent Ray McGovern thinks about the matter. It's part of the evidence and facts:

But what about the "Russian hacking," the centerpiece of the accusations about Kremlin "interference" to help Trump? Surely, we know that happened. Or do we?

On March 31, 2017, WikiLeaks released original CIA documents -- almost completely ignored by the mainstream media -- showing that the agency had created a program allowing it to break into computers and servers and make it look like others did it by leaving telltale signs (like Cyrillic markings, for example). The capabilities shown in what WikiLeaks calls the "Vault 7" trove of CIA documents required the creation of hundreds of millions of lines of source code. At $25 per line of code, that amounts to about $2.5 billion for each 100 million code lines. But the Deep State has that kind of money and would probably consider the expenditure a good return on investment for "proving" the Russians hacked into Democratic Party emails.

In other words, it is altogether possible that the hacking attributed to Russia was actually one of several "active measures" undertaken by a cabal consisting of the CIA, FBI, NSA and Clapper -- the same agencies responsible for the lame, evidence-free report of Jan. 6.
 
I am amenable to facts and evidence, but not to opinions and beliefs. A court must take into consideration nothing but the evidence in the case before it, and witnesses other than experts must not be allowed to give their opinions, but must speak only as to facts.

This is part of what former CIA agent Ray McGovern thinks about the matter. It's part of the evidence and facts:
And yet you omitted the assessments of US Intel when you pretended there was no evidence.

Why does the word of a former agent count as evidence, but current intelligence doesn't count?
 
I am amenable to facts and evidence, but not to opinions and beliefs. A court must take into consideration nothing but the evidence in the case before it, and witnesses other than experts must not be allowed to give their opinions, but must speak only as to facts.

This is part of what former CIA agent Ray McGovern thinks about the matter. It's part of the evidence and facts:

Well there are an awful lot of high profile agents and lawyers who seem to believe there is sufficient evidence.

And it's odd that you say you're amenable to facts and evidence, not opinions or beliefs, but then to back your position you quote someone saying something is possible.
 
Well there are an awful lot of high profile agents and lawyers who seem to believe there is sufficient evidence.

And it's odd that you say you're amenable to facts and evidence, not opinions or beliefs, but then to back your position you quote someone saying something is possible.

To say nothing about "reckoning" that Congress is in the pay of Israel and Saudi Arabia.
 
I am amenable to facts and evidence, but not to opinions and beliefs.
You are amenable to anything you find politically palatable, and "facts/evidence" are just your condiment.

This is part of what former CIA agent Ray McGovern thinks about the matter. It's part of the evidence and facts

Ray McGovern is a self-inflated stooge, who dutifully repeats whatever he hears on Russian State media as if he actually thought of it himself. AKA... your "evidence"
 
Last edited:
I am amenable to facts and evidence, but not to opinions and beliefs. A court must take into consideration nothing but the evidence in the case before it, and witnesses other than experts must not be allowed to give their opinions, but must speak only as to facts.

[snip]

You requested evidence that Russia had hacked the election- as noted multiple times in this thread there is extensive evidence favoring this conclusion, a surprising amount of which has been confirmed by the Trump White House itself. The evidence is not opinion or belief- the evidence consists of facts (and there are a lot of facts pointing to a Russian involvement). In contrast it is the conclusion that one generates from the evidence that is an opinion. Interesting all conclusions, including convictions in court, are opinions, with criminal convictions hopefully drawn logically and reasonably from the facts presented in court (which in turn are hopefuly all the relevant ones). But courts are not magical means by which mere opinions are turned into absolute truth- court decisions remain opinions, although ones that the society sincerely hopes are correct.

As I noted upthread, it is perfectly reasonable for people to reach conclusions, based on the facts, prior to or in the absence of, court proceedings. We do so every day. In many cases it is stupid to not be willing to reach a conclusion when most of the facts point in a particular direction. What distinguishes a skeptic is keeping an open mind and the willingness to reconsider a conclusion when new facts become available.
 
Henri, first you say:
I am amenable ... not to opinions and beliefs...

And then you continue:
...what former CIA agent Ray McGovern thinks about the matter...:

... WikiLeaks released ... the Deep State ... would probably consider ... it is altogether possible ... lame, evidence-free ...

Looks like you are amenable to opinions and beliefs after all, for that is what you posted there.
 
I think Ray McGovern understands what is going on, unlike the American public and American journalists. I don't like the way Hillary Clinton keeps mentioning 'Russian Wikileaks' when there is no hard evidence to back that up, or the cover up of the Podesta child sex ring pedophiles involving Portugal and possibly Madeleine McCann.

There is background to what Ray McGovern thinks about the matter at:

www.informationclearinghouse.info/47556.htm

This is part of it:

Did Hillary Scapegoat Russia to Save Her Campaign?

By Mike Whitney

August 01, 2017 "Information Clearing House" - The “Russia hacking” flap has nothing to do with Russia and nothing to do with hacking. The story is basically a DNC invention that was concocted to mitigate the political fallout from the nearly 50,000 emails that WikiLeaks planned to publish on July 22, 2016, just 3 days before the Democratic National Convention. That’s what this is really all about. Russia didn’t hack anything, it’s a big diversion that was conjured up on-the-fly to keep Hillary’s bandwagon from going down in flames.

Put yourself in Hillary’s shoes for a minute. She knew the deluge was coming and she knew it was going to be bad. (According to Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, DNC contractor Crowdstrike claimed to find evidence of Russian malware on DNC servers just three days after WikiLeaks announced that it was about “about to publish “emails related to Hillary Clinton.” Clearly, that was no coincidence. The plan to blame Russia was already underway.)

Hillary knew that the emails were going to expose the DNC’s efforts to rig the primaries and torpedo Bernie Sanders campaign, and she knew that the media was going to have a field-day dissecting the private communications word by word on cable news or splashing them across the headlines for weeks on end. It was going to be excruciating. She knew that, they all knew that.

And how would her supporters react when they discovered that their party leaders and presidential candidate were actively involved in sabotaging the democratic process and subverting the primaries? That wasn’t going to go over well with voters in Poughkeepsie, now was it? Maybe she’d see her public approval ratings slip even more. Maybe she’d nosedive in the polls or lose the election outright, she didn’t know. No one knew. All they knew was that she was in trouble. Big trouble.

So she reacted exactly the way you’d expect Hillary to react, she hit the panic button. In fact, they all freaked out, everyone of them including Podesta and the rest of the DNC honchoes. Once they figured that their presidential bid could go up in smoke, they decided to act preemptively, pull out all the stops and “Go Big”.

That’s where Russia comes into the picture. The DNC brass (with help from allies at the CIA) decided to conjure up a story so fantastic that, well, it had to be true, after all, that’s what the 17 intel agencies said, right? And so did the elite media including the New York Times, the Washington Post and CNN. They can’t all be wrong, can they? Sure, they goofed-up on Saddam’s WMDs, and Iran’s imaginary nukes program, and Assad’s fictional chemical weapons attack, but, hey, everyone makes mistakes, right? And, besides, have I told you how evil Putin is lately and how much he reminds me of Adolph Hitler? (sarcasm)

In any event, they settled on Russia mainly because Russia had rolled back Washington’s imperial project in both Ukraine and Syria, so the media was already in full demonetization-mode and raring to go. All the DNC needed to do was utter the words “Russia meddling” and they’d be off to the races.
 
There is plenty of evidence to back up the Russian connections, unlike the assertion that Congress is in the pay of Israel and Saudi Arabia.

One that hasn't been mentioned yet:

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/12/22/android_malware_tracked_ukrainian_artillery/

The Russian hacking crew controversially linked to hacks against the Democrat Party during the US election allegedly used Android malware to track Ukrainian artillery units from late 2014 until 2016, according to new research.



This and other similarities have allowed CrowdStrike to link the Ukrainian hacking operation to Fancy Bear (APT 28), a hacking crew linked by US intelligence to GRU, Russia's military intelligence agency. The filename "Попр-Д30.apk" of a malicious Android app used to carry out the spying is linked to a legitimate application which was initially developed domestically within Ukraine by an officer of the 55th Artillery Brigade, according to CrowdStrike. The legitimate app provided a targeting guide to using the D-30 122mm towed howitzer, a Soviet-era artillery piece that’s still in service.


Variants of the same malware were used in both this and the DNC hacks. The "Fancy Bear" group had previously been linked to the Russian state. The use of this for this military effect requires close cooperation with the Russian state.

This is further evidence linking the DNC hack to the Russian state.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom