Bombshell: Opposition research memos (not yet substantiated) discuss compromising Russian info on Trump

[Elixir]

I figure that right now there is about a 90% chance +/- 5% with a 95% confidence interval, that Cheato is compromised by the Russians. Maybe a 65% +/- 5% chance with a 95% confidence interval that the salacious stories in the "dossier" are related to HOW Cheato is compromised by the Russians.

Of course my percentages and confidence intervals are just guesses. But those who are privy to all the available evidence (and that's NOT you, WP) will have their own estimates.
My question for you is - at what level of confidence should such people start "concluding" that Uncle Vlad has dirt on Trump, and at what point should they start "concluding" that it's likely that Vlad has film or other evidence of the rumored pissing party? Do you think it requires a full confession by Cheato, and should therefore never be said? Is 99% good enough to start sounding the alarm? 80%?

I think that if there's even half a chance, an alarm should sound, as the POTUS needs to be held to a higher standard than does Joe citizen whose sexual proclivities have little or no potential effect on the populace at large.

The main reason an investigation can fall down or get bogged down blah blah blah <completely irrelevant, stupid response deleted>

You forgot to answer the question again. You really need some help with that kind of thing. Try again:

How confident should a person who is in possession of all the evidence- i.e. NOT YOU - have to be before they raise the alarm?

 

[blastula]

WP is fake news. The DOJ told the White House about Flynn's lies and that it was a security issue since it compromised him.

But once everybody knew, wasn't Flynn then no longer compromised? The entire point seemed to be that the Russians could blackmail him by threatening to reveal the contents of his discussions with the ambassador. If that was already revealed to everybody (except Mike Pence because nobody talks to Mike Pence), the blackmail threat seems to go away and Flynn's compromised position with it.

He would have been compromised up to the point he found out they knew, whenever that was, but only over that one lie. No reason to trust him going further nor his past actions.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The main reason an investigation can fall down or get bogged down blah blah blah <completely irrelevant, stupid response deleted>

You forgot to answer the question again. You really need some help with that kind of thing. Try again:

How confident should a person who is in possession of all the evidence- i.e. NOT YOU - have to be before they raise the alarm?

If they were in possession of the evidence we would see it. In politics one doesn't have to prove anything. They just have to accuse.

 

[ZiprHead]

I think US politics is getting like third world politics. However though he opened his mouth off does not seem to have endangered US National security.

Except for calling on a foreign government to steal damaging information on an opponent in a presidential election.
Except that they did just that and his campaign staff was directly communicating with this foreign government during this time.
Except that the FBI received a "new" dump of emails right before the election.
Except for the weird secure server in the Trump office that connected only to the Russian "Bank".

He's either completely insane or a fucking traitor. I believe it is a little of both.

Wasn't there a Trump campaign guy that said there was a big issue for Hillary coming and the next day was a big document dump on Wikileaks? The only way he could have known that is if he was in communication with the leakers, the Russians.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You forgot to answer the question again. You really need some help with that kind of thing. Try again:

How confident should a person who is in possession of all the evidence- i.e. NOT YOU - have to be before they raise the alarm?

If they were in possession of the evidence we would see it. In politics one doesn't have to prove anything. They just have to accuse.

The accusation is Trump's team was dealing with the Russians. High ranking member of Trump team resigns after talking to Russians before Inauguration. But that isn't evidence.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Wasn't there a Trump campaign guy that said there was a big issue for Hillary coming and the next day was a big document dump on Wikileaks? The only way he could have known that is if he was in communication with the leakers, the Russians.

Or the fat guy in the basement. We don't know it was the Russians.

 

[Elixir]

You forgot to answer the question again. You really need some help with that kind of thing. Try again:

How confident should a person who is in possession of all the evidence- i.e. NOT YOU - have to be before they raise the alarm?

If they were in possession of the evidence we would see it.

Arrogant evasive bullshit. Three weeks ago you would have said that about Flynn!! Now answer the question, if you want any meaningful dialog about this (which seems pretty doubtful):

How confident should a person who is in possession of all the evidence- i.e. NOT YOU - have to be before they raise the alarm?

 

[whichphilosophy]

If they were in possession of the evidence we would see it.

Arrogant evasive bullshit. Three weeks ago you would have said that about Flynn!! Now answer the question, if you want any meaningful dialog about this (which seems pretty doubtful):

How confident should a person who is in possession of all the evidence- i.e. NOT YOU - have to be before they raise the alarm?

It's obvious he would raise 'the alarm.' However apart from the noisy alarm there was silence. Of course I would have said that about Flynn even though he wasn't mentioned.
The topic you raised was Trump for which there is still nothing. Flynn is a different topic.

 

[Elixir]

Arrogant evasive bullshit. Three weeks ago you would have said that about Flynn!! Now answer the question, if you want any meaningful dialog about this (which seems pretty doubtful):

How confident should a person who is in possession of all the evidence- i.e. NOT YOU - have to be before they raise the alarm?

It's obvious he would raise 'the alarm.'

How confident should he be before doing that? A responsible person (IMHO of course) would not make a fuss if all he had was a sneaking suspicion that "X" has occurred. Somewhere between there and 99% confidence based on supporting evidence, lies the point where it is that person's ethical duty to raise an alarm.

What is that point, WP?

You have refused to render an opinion FOUR TIMES now. And I know why - there are alarms being raised that you wish to decry as unwarranted because 100% certainty has not been attained. If they were alarms against Hillary based on fake news stories, you wouldn't be complaining.

Right now, some things are 100% certain:

• Flynn violated the Logan Act.
• Flynn was vulnerable to manipulation by the Russians because they had recordings and transcripts of his illegal conversation(s)
• Trump knew it, and appointed him anyway.

Is there any reason that people shouldn't be screaming for Cheato to be deposed, in order to determine his motive for going forward with a compromised Head of Security?

This is just one example...

 

[whichphilosophy]

It's obvious he would raise 'the alarm.'

How confident should he be before doing that? A responsible person (IMHO of course) would not make a fuss if all he had was a sneaking suspicion that "X" has occurred. Somewhere between there and 99% confidence based on supporting evidence, lies the point where it is that person's ethical duty to raise an alarm.

What is that point, WP?

You have refused to render an opinion FOUR TIMES now. And I know why - there are alarms being raised that you wish to decry as unwarranted because 100% certainty has not been attained. If they were alarms against Hillary based on fake news stories, you wouldn't be complaining.

Right now, some things are 100% certain:

• Flynn violated the Logan Act.
• Flynn was vulnerable to manipulation by the Russians because they had recordings and transcripts of his illegal conversation(s)
• Trump knew it, and appointed him anyway.

Is there any reason that people shouldn't be screaming for Cheato to be deposed, in order to determine his motive for going forward with a compromised Head of Security?

This is just one example...

It's your only'example'. What was the actual security breach.

So what was the actual security breach.


Democrats demanded an independent investigation into Flynn’s phone calls with the Russian ambassador, what Trump knew about them and when. A senior Republican promised to examine the matter “exhaustively”, but others in the party were reluctant.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/14/democrats-russia-trump-investigation-michael-flynn

Conclusion: An investigation has been requested not an investigation has been concluded.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

How confident should he be before doing that? A responsible person (IMHO of course) would not make a fuss if all he had was a sneaking suspicion that "X" has occurred. Somewhere between there and 99% confidence based on supporting evidence, lies the point where it is that person's ethical duty to raise an alarm.

What is that point, WP?

You have refused to render an opinion FOUR TIMES now. And I know why - there are alarms being raised that you wish to decry as unwarranted because 100% certainty has not been attained. If they were alarms against Hillary based on fake news stories, you wouldn't be complaining.

Right now, some things are 100% certain:

• Flynn violated the Logan Act.
• Flynn was vulnerable to manipulation by the Russians because they had recordings and transcripts of his illegal conversation(s)
• Trump knew it, and appointed him anyway.

Is there any reason that people shouldn't be screaming for Cheato to be deposed, in order to determine his motive for going forward with a compromised Head of Security?

This is just one example...

It's your only'example'. What was the actual security breach.

So what was the actual security breach.


Democrats demanded an independent investigation into Flynn’s phone calls with the Russian ambassador, what Trump knew about them and when. A senior Republican promised to examine the matter “exhaustively”, but others in the party were reluctant.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/14/democrats-russia-trump-investigation-michael-flynn

Conclusion: An investigation has been requested not an investigation has been concluded.

only according to urinalysis.

 

[whichphilosophy]

It's your only'example'. What was the actual security breach.

So what was the actual security breach.


Democrats demanded an independent investigation into Flynn’s phone calls with the Russian ambassador, what Trump knew about them and when. A senior Republican promised to examine the matter “exhaustively”, but others in the party were reluctant.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/14/democrats-russia-trump-investigation-michael-flynn

Conclusion: An investigation has been requested not an investigation has been concluded.

only according to urinalysis.

I'm just the postman who quoted some of the media which reported it.
If you have conclusions in reports about this, feel free to post them.
Should I wait with excitement.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You are assuming we can't make an assessment ourselves, like the one presented and that for some reason we need to wait for the govt. That is like saying people should not have believed evolution was fact until AFTER the outcome of the Scopes Trial. This is especially relevant since conservatives rule the govt right now.

 

[Elixir]

How confident should he be before doing that? A responsible person (IMHO of course) would not make a fuss if all he had was a sneaking suspicion that "X" has occurred. Somewhere between there and 99% confidence based on supporting evidence, lies the point where it is that person's ethical duty to raise an alarm.

What is that point, WP?

You have refused to render an opinion FOUR TIMES now. And I know why - there are alarms being raised that you wish to decry as unwarranted because 100% certainty has not been attained. If they were alarms against Hillary based on fake news stories, you wouldn't be complaining.

Right now, some things are 100% certain:

• Flynn violated the Logan Act.
• Flynn was vulnerable to manipulation by the Russians because they had recordings and transcripts of his illegal conversation(s)
• Trump knew it, and appointed him anyway.

Is there any reason that people shouldn't be screaming for Cheato to be deposed, in order to determine his motive for going forward with a compromised Head of Security?

This is just one example...

It's your only'example'. What was the actual security breach.

So what was the actual security breach.


Democrats demanded an independent investigation into Flynn’s phone calls with the Russian ambassador, what Trump knew about them and when. A senior Republican promised to examine the matter “exhaustively”, but others in the party were reluctant.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/14/democrats-russia-trump-investigation-michael-flynn

Conclusion: An investigation has been requested not an investigation has been concluded.

Still stating the obvious as if it were some fantastic revelation. .... I guess it would be - to you.

And no answer to the question I asked. (That makes 5 evasions and 0 answers to the same question I keep repeating. Reading comprehension problems?)

You have a real problem WP, whether it is reading comprehension or some other kind of deficit - you prattle on, pretending to have answered a question which, if answered, would make a fool of you.
You still can't say that 100% certainty is required for alarms to be raised, nor can you pick a degree of certainty that should be required for such.
IOW, your nonsense is useless for all purposes other than diversion.

 

[whichphilosophy]

It's your only'example'. What was the actual security breach.

So what was the actual security breach.


Democrats demanded an independent investigation into Flynn’s phone calls with the Russian ambassador, what Trump knew about them and when. A senior Republican promised to examine the matter “exhaustively”, but others in the party were reluctant.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/14/democrats-russia-trump-investigation-michael-flynn

Conclusion: An investigation has been requested not an investigation has been concluded.

Still stating the obvious as if it were some fantastic revelation. .... I guess it would be - to you.

And no answer to the question I asked. (That makes 5 evasions and 0 answers to the same question I keep repeating. Reading comprehension problems?)

You have a real problem WP, whether it is reading comprehension or some other kind of deficit - you prattle on, pretending to have answered a question which, if answered, would make a fool of you.
You still can't say that 100% certainty is required for alarms to be raised, nor can you pick a degree of certainty that should be required for such.
IOW, your nonsense is useless for all purposes other than diversion.

Your questions are based that assumptions are facts. There is very little to evaluate and certainly insufficient to form a conclusion.

In the last point you stated Trump knew it, and appointed him anyway.

There is no indication that he knew anything which is based on the same sources which made such assumptions.

 

[bleubird]

There is no indication that he knew anything,ect....

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I guess he's just another conservative rogue agent like Colonel Ollie North. Those conservative rogue agents in the military certainly don't know how to follow orders!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Still stating the obvious as if it were some fantastic revelation. .... I guess it would be - to you.

And no answer to the question I asked. (That makes 5 evasions and 0 answers to the same question I keep repeating. Reading comprehension problems?)

You have a real problem WP, whether it is reading comprehension or some other kind of deficit - you prattle on, pretending to have answered a question which, if answered, would make a fool of you.
You still can't say that 100% certainty is required for alarms to be raised, nor can you pick a degree of certainty that should be required for such.
IOW, your nonsense is useless for all purposes other than diversion.

Your questions are based that assumptions are facts. There is very little to evaluate and certainly insufficient to form a conclusion.

In the last point you stated Trump knew it, and appointed him anyway.

There is no indication that he knew anything which is based on the same sources which made such assumptions.

And here we get to the best part. Someone had Flynn contact the Russians. So we are left with two options.
1) Trump knew
2) Someone did this behind Trump's back

Neither option is a good one.

 

[Elixir]

Your questions are based that assumptions are facts.

Are you really an idiot, or just acting that way?
I asked for an opinion - no assumptions required whatsoever.
I suspect that despite evidence to the contrary, you are not an idiot, but rather a chicken-shit who is too cowardly to offer an honest opinion, where it would put you afoul of your previous assertions.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Isnt this an obvious quid pro quo? I mean, how can flynn make promises on behalf of trump without trump knowing? And why would they give flynn a job unless they had something to gain? This is like Ronnie Raygun and the Iranians all over again.