Mueller Investigation pt4

[Dr. Keith]

The politician actually claimed 'maybe growing evidence', so from none to maybe ever so slightly more than none.

And quiet air since June on the subject.

Second hand "maybe growing evidence" equals probable cause in almost all* jurisdictions. Unless the target worked on the Trump campaign and has admitted to breaking the law, then it is an unfounded Witch Hunt.


*Probably none, actually.

 

[Imhotep]

The joke about the Daily Mail is that it is the Daily Fail. It is notorious for making up stories from whole cloth. They wrote stories about Amal Clooney's family not wanting her to marry George Clooney that were entirely fabricated. Similarly it reported on Amanda Knox as if she was guilty for years including an article about a party that was 90 percent fabricated. It's worse than the National Enquirer for accuracy.

I hesitate to agree with that last part...

Mediabias has the NE listed as a Questionable Source, so they didn't even bother to give them a Factual Reporting rating. While the DM got a rating of Mixed.

 

[The Big Dog]

Somebody saying that they have evidence in support of a claim is not sufficient evidence in support of that claim.

If I claim I have a nickel in my pocket, me saying that I have evidence that I have a nickel in my pocket is not sufficient evidence that I do: a picture of the contents of my pocket would be better evidence; a nickel-sized bulge in my pocket (no jokes, please) would be better evidence; testimony from someone who saw me put a nickel in my pocket would be better evidence.

We still don't know if there is sufficient evidence or not, especially since it's one person, and nothing has happened since June, that congressman's party is in control of the House, and the qualifier "growing evidence" does not equal sufficient evidence.

If I tell you that I have a nickel in my pocket, is that sufficient evidence that I do?

I encourage you not to get ahead of your skis: don't make claims until evidence is actually presented, and can be evaluated as to whether it is sufficient to support a claim based on that evidence.

Lets fix your analogy. say that you are going into a meeting where they are going to show you a nickel. You come out and describe it to us. You would agree that is evidence yes?

But we clamor for more, but the Fuzz says they ain't gonna show you it to us.

Well you would certainly agree that there is enough evidence, mainly your statement, that requires that it go to the next level.

Further, there is also evidence that in other cases, say the design of the dime, the same characters admitted that they did not show the whole original design. well, that would raise your hackles, yes?

By gum is there enough evidence to open an investigation? HELL YES!

 

[acbytesla]

I hesitate to agree with that last part...

Mediabias has the NE listed as a Questionable Source, so they didn't even bother to give them a Factual Reporting rating. While the DM got a rating of Mixed.

Fair enough. I just know I have read articles that were fabricated by the Mail's reporters. Also, the Enquirer has had some good scoops over the years. But I will cede to your point. Thanks.

 

[acbytesla]

Delete

 

[Paul2]

Lets fix your analogy. say that you are going into a meeting where they are going to show you a nickel. You come out and describe it to us. You would agree that is evidence yes?

But we clamor for more, but the Fuzz says they ain't gonna show you it to us.

Well you would certainly agree that there is enough evidence, mainly your statement, that requires that it go to the next level.

Further, there is also evidence that in other cases, say the design of the dime, the same characters admitted that they did not show the whole original design. well, that would raise your hackles, yes?

By gum is there enough evidence to open an investigation? HELL YES!

Open an investigation? That wasn't the issue! You claimed that they DID alter the 502s. What happened to that claim of yours? You've reduced that claim down to merely "let's open an investigation."

And, the congressman did not describe the evidence that the 302s had been altered. He merely said that he had evidence that they had been altered. (Unless I missed that in the article, please point me to where he described what the evidence was.)

 

[plague311]

Lets fix your analogy. say that you are going into a meeting where they are going to show you a nickel. You come out and describe it to us. You would agree that is evidence yes?

Fix? It wasn't broken.

If everyone in that meeting came out and described the same dime, then yes. That would be evidence. Oddly, no one else has confirmed this story.

But we clamor for more, but the Fuzz says they ain't gonna show you it to us.

Well you would certainly agree that there is enough evidence, mainly your statement, that requires that it go to the next level.

But Flynn isn't making that statement. You're making that statement. No one with any knowledge of the situation at all, outside of this individual, is making that statement. Just you two.

Further, there is also evidence that in other cases, say the design of the dime, the same characters admitted that they did not show the whole original design. well, that would raise your hackles, yes?

By gum is there enough evidence to open an investigation? HELL YES!

As was pointed out, you keep backpeddling so much it's hard to tell where you're going to end up on this.

 

[The Big Dog]

As for actual facts, recall that in April the Committee on Intelligence released a report stating that "Among the 44 findings in the report was a line stating that 'Federal Bureau of Investigation agents did not detect any deception during Flynn's interview.'”

As such, when considering the release of the Flynn sentencing report today, ask yourself about this finding by the House.

Keep in mind also when considering the Report that there is evidence that actual scumbos McCabe and Strzok falsified the 304s for the Flynn interview.

Flynn pardon is very cool and very legal.

Open an investigation? That wasn't the issue! You claimed that they DID alter the 502s. What happened to that claim of yours? You've reduced that claim down to merely "let's open an investigation."

And, the congressman did not describe the evidence that the 302s had been altered. He merely said that he had evidence that they had been altered. (Unless I missed that in the article, please point me to where he described what the evidence was.)

oh dear.... mayhap you will wish to review the discussion in context

 

[Cabbage]

oh dear.... mayhap you will wish to review the discussion in context

Translation: You got me, now I begin my attempt to bluff my way out of it to save face.

 

[plague311]

oh dear.... mayhap you will wish to review the discussion in context

But there isn't any evidence...there's just a claim by a solo individual. The only individual that is making that claim. Something don't pass the sniff test.

 

[Dr. Keith]

But there isn't any evidence...there's just a claim by a solo individual. The only individual that is making that claim. Something don't pass the sniff test.

Just like there is no* evidence of collusion. Hence, one is probable cause and the other is Which Hunt. Geez, people, why are you so confused?


*Except for the evidence.

 

[The Big Dog]

Just like there is no* evidence of collusion. Hence, one is probable cause and the other is Which Hunt. Geez, people, why are you so confused?

*Except for the evidence.

That post is not exactly making your point. Either you are making TBD's point, or employing double standards.

Either way, ring up another dinger for the big dog!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Just to put this nonsense to bed, source:



There are multiple conversations, and multiple shady dealings between Flynn, Russia, and some with Turkey.

TBD is wrong, moving on.

Re Flynn lying to Pence, that seems to be the false fact that sticks. Sally Yates warned the WH about Flynn before they made up the lie to give Pence cover and excuse firing Flynn when they should have fired him when Yates shared the information.

ABC News: A timeline of Sally Yates' warnings to the White House about Mike Flynn

Jan 29, 2017
... She explained to McGahn the reasons why the DOJ was informing the White House of this -- Flynn’s conduct was “problematic in and of itself,” they believed Pence was entitled to know the information about Flynn he was spreading “wasn’t true,” and that the American people had been misled about Flynn’s actions.

Yates stressed that one of the reasons why the DOJ decided to notify McGahn was because the Russians were aware of Flynn’s conduct, including that Flynn had misled Pence and that she had not accused Pence of “knowingly providing false information to the American people.”

Feb. 9, 2017
Pence first heard that Flynn misled him about his contact with Russian Ambassador to the U.S. Sergey Kislyak, according to White House officials, two full weeks after Yates first met with McGahn.

The WH is claiming Pence didn't know Flynn was lying when the WH was well aware of they lying to the press 2 weeks earlier. Mind you, no one thinks Flynn was pulling off some dealings with Russia and Turkey without Trump et al knowing all about it. IOW, they obviously didn't need Yates filling them in.

 

[Paul2]

oh dear.... mayhap you will wish to review the discussion in context

You made the claim that McCabe and Strozk had altered the 302s. I've been trying to get sufficient evidence from you to support that claim, and that still hasn't happened, so there's no other relevant context.

You have the following choices:

1. Present sufficient evidence for your claim that McCabe and Strozk altered the 302s.

2. Retract your claim.

3. Be intellectually dishonest in regards to the issue.

 

[The Big Dog]

You made the claim that McCabe and Strozk had altered the 302s. I've been trying to get sufficient evidence from you to support that claim, and that still hasn't happened, so there's no other relevant context.

You have the following choices:

1. Present sufficient evidence for your claim that McCabe and Strozk altered the 302s.

2. Retract your claim.

3. Be intellectually dishonest in regards to the issue.

Actually, paul, I wrote:

"Keep in mind also when considering the Report that there is evidence that actual scumbos McCabe and Strzok falsified the 304s for the Flynn interview."

Don't paraphrase my post and in the next breath accuse The Big Dog of being intellectually dishonest.

Next, I posted evidence, you are claiming that in your opinion it is not sufficient.

protip; your assessment of whether it is "sufficient" evidence does not contradict my claim that there was evidence.

second protip; your opinion ain't evidence and is just a "claim," you dig?

 

[Paul2]

Actually, paul, I wrote:

"Keep in mind also when considering the Report that there is evidence that actual scumbos McCabe and Strzok falsified the 304s for the Flynn interview."

Don't paraphrase my post and in the next breath accuse The Big Dog of being intellectually dishonest.

Next, I posted evidence, you are claiming that in your opinion it is not sufficient.

protip; your assessment of whether it is "sufficient" evidence does not contradict my claim that there was evidence.

second protip; your opinion ain't evidence and is just a "claim," you dig?

You are correct, you claimed there was evidence. My apologies.


But: when you say that you "posted evidence," assuming you mean the link to the daily mail article, that is still not evidence that McCabe and Strozk altered the 302s (sufficient or not). It's merely someone else saying, like you have, that there is evidence. It's still not evidence. Evidence would be the 302s (originals and altered forms, if any). Or a video of them doing the altering. Or someone saying that they saw the 302s. Or someone saying they saw them do the alterations. Or some communication between them that they were planning on changing the 302s, or that they had already changed them. Etc. Etc. Etc.


If we get 100 people saying they have evidence, we still don't have the evidence.

 

[varwoche]

The bigger problem is that there is no evidence in that article, there is merely (another) claim (by the congressman) that there is evidence. Yet you made the following claim that there was evidence:
and when asked for what this evidence is, the first thing you could do was to link to an article that had no evidence, but merely claimed that there was evidence. That's not a strong move.


Did I miss what the evidence that was presented in that article? Please point it out to me if I did.


I'm perfectly happy to condemn falsifying 302s by anyone, if and when there is evidence.

@TBD One thing I'll add to Paul2's comments, he with the patience of a saint:

The source, GOP rep Mark Meadows, has credibility issues. As pathetic as Ryan and McConnell are, in terms of not checking Trump, at least they weren't on stage with him chanting "Lock her up!". Meadows is a raving, anti-democratic, tea party whackjob. I don't trust frothing zealots one bit.

 

[acbytesla]

@TBD One thing I'll add to Paul2's comments, he with the patience of a saint:

The source, GOP rep Mark Meadows, has credibility issues. As pathetic as Ryan and McConnell are, in terms of not checking Trump, at least they weren't on stage with him chanting "Lock her up!". Meadows is a raving, anti-democratic, tea party whackjob. I don't trust frothing zealots one bit.

I agree. Paul has the patience of a saint.

TBD has been going on and on that McCabe and Strozk altered the 302s regarding Flynn as if this was a fact. And Paul and others have been pressing him for evidence for a while. And this is what TBD provides? What a joke! Really damn sad how easily some people seize on something when they desperately want to believe.

All I can say is KOO KOO.

 

[phiwum]

Somebody saying that they have evidence in support of a claim is not sufficient evidence in support of that claim.

If I claim I have a nickel in my pocket, me saying that I have evidence that I have a nickel in my pocket is not sufficient evidence that I do: a picture of the contents of my pocket would be better evidence; a nickel-sized bulge in my pocket (no jokes, please) would be better evidence; testimony from someone who saw me put a nickel in my pocket would be better evidence.

We still don't know if there is sufficient evidence or not, especially since it's one person, and nothing has happened since June, that congressman's party is in control of the House, and the qualifier "growing evidence" does not equal sufficient evidence.

If I tell you that I have a nickel in my pocket, is that sufficient evidence that I do?

I encourage you not to get ahead of your skis: don't make claims until evidence is actually presented, and can be evaluated as to whether it is sufficient to support a claim based on that evidence.

Actually, by and large, your testimony about having a nickel is not bad evidence. It's not conclusive, but we accept appeal to reliable authority all the time.

 

[plague311]

Actually, by and large, your testimony about having a nickel is not bad evidence. It's not conclusive, but we accept appeal to reliable authority all the time.

Standalone? Without any corroborating evidence at all? I'd be interested in seeing that.

ETA: From what I understand, the hilited is suspect as well.