Tuesday, April 24, 2018

The newest new standard for Trump

Is 'can't prove untrue' new standard in Trump probe?
When a political figure is accused of wrongdoing, a conversation begins among journalists, commentators, and public officials. Are the charges true? Can the accusers prove it?
That's the way it normally works. But now, in the case of the Trump dossier – the allegations compiled by a former British spy hired by the Clinton campaign to gather dirt on presidential candidate Donald Trump – the generally accepted standard of justice has been turned on its head. Now, the question is: Can the accused prove the charges false? Increasingly, the president's critics argue that the dossier is legitimate because it has not been proven untrue.
Seriously? We now must consider the President guilty until proven innocent?

  • Sen. Dianne Feinstein - "Not a single revelation in the Steele dossier has been refuted." 
  • Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe - "Retweet if, like me, you're aware of nothing in the [Trump] dossier that has been shown to be false." 
  • NBC journalist Chuck Todd - "So far with this dossier, nothing yet has been proven untrue. How significant is that?" 
  • MSNBC journalist Nicolle Wallace - "The dossier has not been proven false."

Well technically, there is a lot of things in the dossier that have been proven to be untrue. Even Michael Steele has admitted some of what was in his dossier is probably not true. But let's not quibble over minor details like the truth.  Either way...

As has been pointed out by many, the idea of proving an allegation to be "untrue" is in many cases not even possible. The more improbable the allegation, sometimes the harder it is to actually disprove. Even James Comey (according to his own statements) told the President that it would be hard to "disprove" the salacious portions of the dossier, and that any attempts to do so would just make it look like the President was being "investigated". 

For instance, if a recovering alcoholic was accused of being back on the sauce, or accused of replacing his alcohol addiction with a pain killer addiction, should we assume that recovering alcoholic to be guilty as charged, unless he can otherwise prove the allegations to be false? What exactly would it take to prove the allegations false? A simple denial will not be good enough.

That is why our criminal justice system is set up for someone to be assumed innocent. It puts the burden on the prosecution to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. An allegation that is not proven would be considered (in a court of law) to hold no weight. Without any evidence that the allegation is true, the court would likely not even allow the information to be brought up in court.

The same general concept works for almost anything. It's literally considered a logical fallacy to make and allegation and demand the other person disprove it. We understand as even small kids that allegations need to be backed up with proof. 

But this is 2018 and this is Donald Trump. When it comes to Trump, liberals are willing to turn absolutely everything upside down in attempts to score their political point. Largely because conventional fairness doesn't further their cause.

152 comments:

James said...

Why does Trump keep acting like he's guilty?
Isn't it because he is?

When Trump says that the Russia probe investigators are not going to be able to "flip" Cohen, he is drawing attention to the fact that Cohen must have something he COULD flip over.

But how can that be, if the probe is nothing more than a "witch hunt" going after someone who is innocent?

An innocent person would assume that under no circumstance could Cohen possibly give the investigators anything incriminating in order to help himself, unless something incriminating does exist.

So there must be some incriminating evidence that Cohen has on Trump that he could flip.

This is just another instance in which Trump is acting like someone guilty.

Trump criticized the FBI for seizing Cohen’s records.
What does Trump want to hide?

Trump went to court to try to deny investigators access to his communications with Cohen.
What does Trump want to hide?

Trump threatened to fire Justice Department officials, protesting overreach.
What does Trump have to hide?

Why does Trump seem so anxious to cover up if he has nothing

. said...

to cover up?

Anonymous said...

CHT, jane proved your point.

JamesApril 24, 2018 at 2:58 PM
Why does Trump keep acting like he's guilty?
Isn't it because he is?"

. said...

You're seeing what you want to see. He's not acting guilty. He's being properly defensive because there's a deep state trying to get him out of office.

Anonymous said...

Wp said the DNC Lawsuit against Russia is forcing internal reform within the DNC.

He didn't say what those reforms are.

Anonymous said...

The Vermont senator joins two other possible 2020 contenders, Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Cory Booker (D-N.J.), who have also expressed support for similar proposals in recent weeks.

“The goal is to eliminate working poverty and involuntary unemployment altogether,” Darrick Hamilton, an economist at The New School, told the Post.

“This is an opportunity for something transformative, beyond the tinkering we've been doing for the last 40 years, where all the productivity gains have gone to the elite of society.”
Critics of federal jobs proposals say that government intervention to raise wages could lead to private businesses cutting costs in other areas, including hiring fewer employees. Sanders is a longtime advocate of "Fight for 15," the national movement aimed at raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour.

The proposal would have trouble gaining enough Democratic support to get real traction and conservatives have long said a jobs promise is unsustainable and unaffordable, citing costs, the effects on the private sector and the possibility of inflation.

wphamilton said...

It's probably a reaction to that drumbeat about the "fake" dossier that the "investigation is based on". You know, the constant proclamations that the whole thing was fictional, false, unfounded, disproved. Kind of like when I told you months ago (a year?) that the dossier could contain valid, verified elements and you rejected that out of hand because of the infamous "salacious and unverified" part.

Naw, Trump shouldn't have to disprove all of it. Or any of it. But if he could, it would behoove him to do so.

wphamilton said...

Blogger KD said...
Wp said the DNC Lawsuit against Russia is forcing internal reform within the DNC.


No I didn't. The people that the DNC are suing forced internal reform in the DNC.

Anonymous said...

24, 2018 at 7:45 AM
WikiLeaks should set up a funding site for donations. I'm no fan of Assange but exposing the truth did our nation a favor. Or is that what this is, "help us counter-sue"?

The Democrats, in fact, should be at least privately grateful that these controversies spurred reform within the party. "

The Above WAS NOT WP.

wphamilton said...

Why not? I said the same thing when the emails were first exposed, that illegal or not, Russian influence or not, it was doing a favor to American democracy.

Anonymous said...

Q, Wp didn't say what those reforms are.

Ok it was and wasn't WP.

Commonsense said...

The point is 18 months ago all the news organization knew about to dossier and didn't run with it because they couldn't verify any of the information in it.

Much has not changed since then. But now the media is trying to legitimize it but challenging Trump to prove a negative.

Not having information to disprove the dossier is not the right question.

But the media knows it.

Anonymous said...

#resist. Was funded by Hillary and launched at 3 am Nov. 9th, 2016.

IF, the 5 liberals stooges of CHT and Jill Hillary where not such poor losers.

Anonymous said...

Naw, Trump shouldn't have to disprove all of it. Or any of it. But if he could, it would behoove him to do so.

behoove him to do so?

right.

"mr. president, please stop what you're doing and also, cancel this evening's state dinner. a collection of liberals insist that you take time out of your busy schedule to disprove allegations that they themselves have made against you."

"no mr. president, i'm not kidding. why even wp hamilton is on the record as stating that it would behoove you to do so. you know, prove every democrat in congress, 99% of the mainstream media, and every other liberal in america wrong on the accusations that once again, THEY'VE made against YOU."

"what's that sir? "i can go... fuck myself?"

"very good sir." "straight away sir."

"thank you mr. president.'


wphamilton said...

The lawsuit against Wikileaks isn't forcing anything. It just maybe will force Wikileaks lawyers to show up in court, but I have my doubts about even that.

What they're suing them for, for exposing the truth about the DNC and the 2016 Democratic Primary, that's another story. If that hadn't happened, we'd still have the same corrupt people leading the DNC. They'd still have all the tools they used to force their anointed candidate on the party, the super-delegates, the funds, the rules ... and worse than that, there's a chance that it would have worked. They would be consolidating their power now, firmly convinced that an end-around the Democratic process was the way to retain power, and no one the wiser. At least, we wouldn't have known the full extent of it.

Nothing like Sander's proposal would have been possible. It wouldn't even be in the conversation. Agree with him or not, it's good for the party to have the churn of these ideas. New initiatives, new agenda. You don't get that with some secret committee choosing the candidates with only the pretense of a democratic selection.

Anonymous said...

Why not?


the burden of proof is on the accuser. not the accused.

that's why not.

geezus wp, not exactly one of your better trolls.

Anonymous said...

Commonsense said...
The point is 18 months ago all the news organization knew about to dossier and didn't run with it because they couldn't verify any of the information in it.



cnn ran with it. that was comey's and mccabe's sleight of hand that leaked it to the media. it was all part of the game they played to 'verify" the dossier, i believe.

i know one thing - i would sure love to hear from some of the FISC judges who were duped into believing a case against trump actually existed based upon the dossier.

wphamilton said...

Just pointing out the obvious, RRB. That dossier has been a problem for Trump, and by all reports he has been extremely concerned about portions of it. If Trump could disprove any of it, isn't it obvious to the most casual observer that it would be in his best interests to do so?

Perhaps he can't. Maybe it's mostly valid, factual. It's a valid question, why hasn't any of it been disproved, or if we agree with CH that there's been some disproved, why not enough to discredit the thing?

wphamilton said...

the burden of proof is on the accuser. not the accused.

that's why not.


RRB, "why not" as in why I couldn't have written the quoted post.

Don't be so quick on the trigger for your "gotchas". I don't hand them out that easy.

wphamilton said...

i would sure love to hear from some of the FISC judges who were duped

FISC is a secret court, so don't hold your breath. Accountable to no one. If you did hear from them you'd hear that they weren't duped, because they approve everything and are exempt from constitutional concerns. There's no reason to fool them.

I'd rather hear the politicians try to justify keeping the court in existence.

Anonymous said...

Cool

Anonymous said...

Democrats ended the use of "SUPER DELIGATES" WP

When?

No the DNC is lead by the most trusted political team Eva, another WP news flash.


Anonymous said...


2018 Economic Calendar
powered by econoday logo
Event Definitions
|
Today's Calendar
|

Consumer Confidence
Released On 4/24/2018 10:00:00 AM For Apr, 2018
Consumer Confidence - Level 128.7
Consensus Outlook
Getting a boost from this year's tax cut, the weekly consumer comfort index and bi-monthly consumer sentiment index have been hitting expansion highs as has the monthly consumer confidence index. Consensus for April confidence is for slight easing to 126.1 vs 127.7 in March.

C.H. Truth said...

It's a valid question, why hasn't any of it been disproved, or if we agree with CH that there's been some disproved, why not enough to discredit the thing.

Some of us have never given it any "credit" for being credible. It was paid unverified opposition research, and so far to our knowledge not any specific part of it (other than the general concept that the Russians were trying to meddle in the election) has been verified.

You should ask "yourself" the question as to why "you" still believe the dossier is credible? I believe that says a lot more about you and the manner in which your logic works with things related to Trump...

than it says anything about the dossier or Trump.

wphamilton said...

Democrats ended the use of "SUPER DELIGATES" WP

Not "ended". No longer the tool to install a pre-ordained candidate. The numbers are to be reduced by 60%, and of those that are left many are obligated to the State's choice.

wphamilton said...

Some of us have never given it any "credit" for being credible.

Well you wouldn't, that's a given. The question isn't why you wouldn't or I would, the question is how credible is it? Generally speaking, your opinion is a minority one.

"Opposition research" isn't the deal-killer that you think it is. It is plausible that it doesn't exist at all without the opposition funding it, and then by your reasoning there could never be a plausible dossier. It would either not exist, or not be credible. Most of us will reject that reasoning.

Commonsense said...

Generally speaking, your opinion is a minority one.

Maybe in your world.

But not the real world.

In the real world the dossier is still an unverified, slanderous document.

Anonymous said...

What are the names of the Hooker's?

Have they been deposed by the FBI?

Where is that transcript?

wphamilton said...

According to dedicated Trump supporters, sure. Then there's the rest of us ...
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-russia-dossier-christopher-steele-fake-true-mi6-putin-moscow-hotel-cohen-a8315046.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Russia_dossier

"Some of the dossier's allegations have been corroborated, while others "remain unverified".[12] Some claims may require access to classified information for verification.[13] The media, the intelligence community, and most experts have treated the dossier with caution, while Trump himself denounced the report as "fake news". In February 2017, some details related to conversations "solely between foreign nationals" were independently verified. Some of those individuals were known to be "heavily involved" in efforts to damage Clinton and help Trump. The conversations "took place between the same individuals on the same days and from the same locations as detailed in the dossier", giving US intelligence and law enforcement "greater confidence" in the credibility of parts of the document.[14]"

wphamilton said...

Who cares about the hookers (other than Trump)? It's the rest of it that's at issue.

C.H. Truth said...

Generally speaking, your opinion is a minority one.

Maybe, maybe not.

But it's certainly a logical one given the facts we know.


But, by all means WP... if you feel that way, better follow the crowd!!!

wphamilton said...

As much as I hate repeating myself, it's not about whether I "feel that way" or "follow the crowd". The question is, "is the dossier credible" and that does mean "the crowd". If it is indeed credible, then the point I've been making is the next logical step: it behooves Trump to disprove it, any of it. In fact, I submit that it's a matter of some urgency for Trump to ensure that the dossier is no longer credible.

From that basis, the question naturally arises: why hasn't he? One plausible answer is, he can't. There are other plausible answers, but they're less than flattering so I won't go there. For the moment.

C.H. Truth said...

"is the dossier credible"

Nope.

Anonymous said...

Exactly

Anonymous said...

It's the rest of it that's at issue."

Really, what Parts.

That Jill Hillary paid for it?

Anonymous said...

Or the fact Obama used Fusion GPS to dig for dirt on Mormon Mitt Romney?

C.H. Truth said...

One plausible answer is, he can't

Or a much more plausible answer is that he is too busy being the President and proving or disproving opposition research is not his job.

Last time I checked, the FBI, two congressional investigative committees, and special counsel have been working non-stop for 21 months to try to figure this out. The FBI admits it found nothing to prove collusion. The House Intelligence committee report found no evidence of collusion. The Senate Intelligence committee will no doubt offer a report (I suspect since they have the same information as the House, that their report will be similar).

And certainly we will get some sort of a report from special counsel sometime here in the future.


I'd say that the FBI, Two congressional investigation and a Special Counsel are better qualified than the President to investigate a little bit of opposition research.


But it's an interesting troll, WP...

Combination of:

Argument from ignorance
Argument from silence
Argumentum ad populum
Onus probandi or shifting the burden of proof

How many logical fallacies can WP toss into one argument?


Anonymous said...

One of the strangest incidents of the 2012 presidential campaign was when then-Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid accused then-Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney of having not paid any taxes over the past decade. That Reid made that allegation from the floor of the Senate made it even odder.

The problem with Reid's allegation? It's just not true. We know that, at least in 2011 and 2010, Romney did pay taxes. How do we know that? Because Romney released his tax returns for those years. In 2011, Romney paid $1.9 million in taxes; in 2010, he paid slightly more than $3 million in taxes.

Our own Fact Checker gave Reid Four Pinocchios for his "no taxes" claim. PolitiFact gave the claim a "Pants on Fire" rating.

Yet Reid (D-Nev.) not only refuses to retract the allegation but also seems to take great pride in it. When pressed by CNN's Dana Bash last year about continuing to defend a statement that is not true, Reid responded, "Romney didn't win, did he?"

Anonymous said...

Cable
Hannity leads all others, again.

Loretta said...

"How many logical fallacies can WP toss into one argument?"

He'll take that as a challenge, ya know.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

wp makes the logical fallacies that the host uses to support his propositions are not supported by the facts.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous wphamilton said...
Just pointing out the obvious, RRB.



your premise is absurd. to ask a sitting president to address a "when did you stop beating your wife?" issue is the height of hackery.

Commonsense said...

That succinctly rebuts WP's argument.

Anonymous said...

AZ Did the BLUE WAVE Win last night?

commie said...

KD ignores the data that trump won by +20 and the R carried by +5 ...Imagine if that 15 point swing in a deep red district happens across the country in November....Even a dumbass like you can see the ramifications.....I enjoy watching you squeal like the pig you are LOL

Commonsense said...

And she'll win by +20 this November.

People read too much in special elections.

wphamilton said...

I take it as utterly ridiculous, and an admission that he cannot rebut the argument but is reduced to rote listing of putative fallacies that he doesn't even try to demonstrate.

Because, like Trump, he can't. But, again like Trump, he can call names and make irrational claims.

commie said...

And she'll win by +20 this November.

I'll bet she won't.......Nothing to see in a 15 point swing, especially with the Al senate, that PA special election, Va......all have shown the same demo's....D's energized and R's showing disdain for donnie......Nothing to see there....LOLOLOL

commie said...

Republican political consultant Chuck Coughlin called Tuesday's special election margin "not good" for national Republicans looking at their chances in November.

"They should clean house in this election," said Coughlin, longtime adviser to former Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer. "There's a drag on the midterms for Republican candidates that's being created by the national narrative. And it would be very hard to buck that trend if you're in swing districts, much less close districts, if you can't change that narrative between now and November."

Lesko replaces former Rep. Trent Franks, a Republican who resigned in December amid sexual misconduct allegations. A former aide told The Associated Press that he pressed her to carry his child as a surrogate and offered her $5 million.

The district sprawls across western Phoenix suburbs, covering some of the most conservative areas of the red state, including the retirement community of Sun City.

Anonymous said...

Good morning dirty Fatty.

In 2016, the 5 liberal stooges of CHT Told us Obama Is not on the ballot.

Yet, with the loss in AZ and no blue puddle, Trump is on the Ballot.

Hypocrisy the foundation of liberals.

Anonymous said...



wp, there is no claim, or demand, more irrational than to insist that a sitting president address the content of the dossier.




Anonymous said...



But it's an interesting troll, WP...


'interesting' is not the word i'd use.

'weak' is more like it.

not his best troll by a long shot.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

WP, where are your demands for the Truth from Obama, Stien, polosi, Hillary?

Myballs said...

14 states report record low unemployment. Meanwhile the main stream media report what stormy daniels had for dinner.

commie said...

14 states report record low unemployment.

Which proves what???? They are liking the tax cuts for the elite and rich?????

As KD continues his unbridled stupidity.....good for him and his freemartin wife....LOL

commie said...

rational than to insist that a sitting president address the content of the dossier.

Just like his complete obsession with denying it.....Oh well.....

Myballs said...

It proves Trump is creating jobs.

Sigh.....we don't call you dopie for nothing

C.H. Truth said...

I take it as utterly ridiculous, and an admission that he cannot rebut the argument but is reduced to rote listing of putative fallacies that he doesn't even try to demonstrate.

Argument from ignorance (assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false) - That is essentially the argument that WP is defending. Suggesting that Trump should disprove the allegations for behoovement sake!

Argument from silence (assuming that a claim is true based on the absence of textual or spoken evidence) - WP stated that Trump hasn't debunked the claims against him because he cannot. This is meant to imply that the lack of Trump not debunking it, means it must be true.

Argumentum ad populum (a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because majority or many people believe it to be so) - WP made the suggestion that his belief that the dossier is credible is a majority opinion (and those who disagree with him are holding a minority position), thus implying that it must be the correct opinion because more people believe it. Of course WP never provides any data or references as to why he even believes that his position on the dossier is mainstream. We are just to take his word for it.

Onus probandi or shifting the burden of proof - WP has offered that Trump should disprove the dossier, and has defended that suggestion from numerous criticism throughout this thread. As a fundamental point of logic, you cannot make an unfounded accusation and then demand the subject of your accusation disprove it.

commie said...

It proves Trump is creating jobs.

And precisely how did he do that???? Or is it a continuation of the 80 plus months of job growth from the end of the busch recession....And we wonder why you still don't have any ballz.....LOL

wphamilton said...

Nice try, but too easy to refute and not credible enough to make it feel like I should.

And in truth, if Trump providing an alibi for instance, proving that a meeting couldn't have happened, and you think he doesn't because "it's impossible to prove a negative" or "shouldn't need to" or some other slogan, then I'm not likely to persuade you otherwise.

wphamilton said...

"And precisely how did he do that? (Trump is creating jobs)"

Trump tweeted the stock market into record highs, because "confidence". All that extra investor money went into new hires. Or so I was told around the beginning of the year.

Strange, we're not hearing that argument much now. I wonder why?

C.H. Truth said...

Nice try, but too easy to refute and not credible enough to make it feel like I should.

argumentum ad lapidem – (dismissing a claim as absurd without demonstrating proof for its absurdity)

Myballs said...

He did it by

removing the obama regulatory red tape.

By allowing the repatriation of all the corporate capital that had been sitting overseas.

By easing the business stifling obamacare burdens.

By creating a business environment more condusive to capital spending.

Trump is not new to job creation. He's been doing it for 40 years

C.H. Truth said...

WP...

Perhaps you should stop to consider why you suddenly have become so reliant on logical fallacies to make your arguments?

In reasoning to argue a claim, a fallacy is reasoning that is evaluated as logically incorrect and that undermines the logical validity of the argument and permits its recognition as unsound.

Loretta said...

"All that extra investor money went into new hires. Or so I was told around the beginning of the year."

Federal unemployment status isn't "really" 4.1%, eh.

commie said...

Myballs said...
He did it by

For someone who allegedy has an MBA....you cannot point to a single job created by any of those actions...The capitol coming back is going to buy back of stock....Which burden stopped a single job...Your list is a compendium of R talking points which proves nothing but you being a gullible trumpite!!!!

He's been doing it for 40 years

By screwing those doing work for him by not paying them letting the workers finance his empire.....LOLOLOL

Loretta said...

"GOP hits the field at 1st congressional ball game practice since 2017 shooting"

https://wtop.com/alexandria/2018/04/gop-hits-field-1st-congressional-ball-game-practice-since-2017-shooting/slide/1/

Hope they're safe from another Trump hating liberal.

Myballs said...

Dopie you're talking out your ass. Just research manufacturing.

Business capital spending is up significantly. For you to just blindly claim that it isn't happening is......well....dopie.

commie said...

"GOP hits the field at 1st congressional ball game practice since 2017 shooting"

The country burns and the R's play ball....makes me feel good!!!!!

Cue the I forgot something stupidity....idiot...

commie said...

Just research manufacturing.

Hey asshole, I defy you to post a single job created by your bullshit response....YOU CANNOT SO YOU KICK THE CAN LIKE THE GOOD LIDDLE IDIOT YOU ARE!!!! And your statement about spending is not supported by facts....nice try loser...

Loretta said...

"Dopie you're talking out your ass. Just research manufacturing."

He thinks what he's told to think.

Liberals here are Soros globalists.

Loretta said...

You forgot LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL, Dennis.

wphamilton said...

Perhaps you should stop to consider why you suddenly have become so reliant on logical fallacies to make your arguments?

Now behave Coldheart, you know that I've made no logical fallacies.

You're just mad because when you say this, "argumentum ad lapidem – (dismissing a claim as absurd without demonstrating proof for its absurdity)"

you know that I can ask why you dismiss the dossier as absurd, without demonstrating proof of its absurdity.

Myballs said...

I told you. Manufacturing.

Fabricated metal products and machinery aline to name two have added about 90k jobs.

So piss off.

commie said...


You forgot LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL,

Your stupidity is so predictable, asshole....


"Dopie you're talking out your ass. Just research manufacturing."

He thinks what he's told to think.

Sure lezbo.....our friend no ballz claims business capital spending in 2018 created jobs......being an MBA, he knows that is an impossibility.....Idiots, both of you

commie said...

metal products and machinery aline to name two have added about 90k jobs.
Really?

Which policy you posted created those????? Idiot...Or is it the continuation of the 80 plus months of job growth since the busch lost years???? I'm not going to hold my breath genius.....

C.H. Truth said...

I can ask why you dismiss the dossier as absurd,

You could if the dossier was an "argument".

But it's not an argument. It's a document expressing belief of a variety of allegations (without providing tangible proof of the allegations).

In any logical argument, the person making the allegations owns the responsibility to prove those allegations.

Shifting the burden of proof is a logical fallacy that of course "undermines the logical validity of the argument and permits its recognition as unsound".

Anonymous said...

MyballsApril 25, 2018 at 7:23 AM
14 states report record low unemployment. Meanwhile the main stream media report what stormy daniels had for dinner."

Yep, I see your post cause fatty McDopie to dump in his diaper.

Anonymous said...

All that extra investor money went into new hires. Or so I was told around the beginning of the year. "

"All" really. I would ask who told you "All".

Some, yes. In a balance of saving, investing in plant and equipment and as need for more hands, hiring. In publicly held companies, stock buy backs.


Myballs said...

I already told you which policies. Stop being so damn stupid.

Anonymous said...

Roger said, when President Elect Trump is sworn in we conservatives would stop reporting on the U6.

So to prove him wrong, again.

Lost years ended U 6 = 9.4 %

Trump Economy. 8.0 %

Anonymous said...


MyballsApril 25, 2018 at 9:45 AM
I already told you which policies. Stop being so damn stupid."


It is all he has, stupidity.

Yesterday he called the Bush Years = Economic Depression.

Anonymous said...

Trump $1 Trillion deficit
Obama $1.65 Trillion deficit

Take a guess at which deficit has the 5 liberal stooges of CHT Triggered?

wphamilton said...

But it's (the dossier) not an argument.

What's the point of it then, if it's not an argument that Trump is guilty of something? Embarrassing, unethical, illegal, but guilty. "it's not an argument", Man you just keep digging.

wphamilton said...

Some, yes. In a balance of saving, investing in plant and equipment and as need for more hands, hiring. In publicly held companies, stock buy backs.

So out all of that money that's now leaving the stock market, you'd say that some of it is costing jobs now, and it's because the investors no longer have "confidence" in Trump? Or does that only work one way and not the other?

commie said...

Obama $1.65 Trillion deficit

A bullshit number asshole.....which of the trump sycophants turns is it to kiss the kings ass???? I'm betting that KD will slurp with the lezbo.....Idiot..

Anonymous said...

Nope.

You're saying it.

Anonymous said...

And fatty, that 12 Trillion your magic boy added has to be serviced.

commie said...

I already told you which policies. Stop being so damn stupid."

You opined the policy...you cannot provide a single concrete link that can verify your claim...now smarten up and show us the jobs...asshole slurping trumpite....all talk, no proof....LOL

commie said...

12 Trillion your magic boy added has to be serviced.

The asshole once again makes shit up.....as trump breaks the bank with wild abandon...Remember .....who are the deficit hawks as trump spends like a drunken sailor.....LOL....and your side wants to run on tax cuts....BWAAAAAAAAAA!!!!

Myballs said...

Yes i did. Easing the obamacare burdens had tangible results. So did the repatriation tax policy. Like i said.

This right here is why you're not taken seriously. Im giving you legitimate answers. But you choose to shout la la la la la with your hands over your ears.

commie said...

The closet racist finally comes out into the light with

your magic boy added has to be serviced.

Try servicing bessie....Idiot....LOL

BTW you really are a pig in republicon clothes.....

C.H. Truth said...

What's the point of it then, if it's not an argument that Trump is guilty of something?

It's not an argument. It's an allegation.

If I were to make the claim that someone in this thread has a history of having sex with underage unconscious boys... would that be an argument that by nature needs to be taken seriously?

Of course not. It would be me talking out of my ass, and would require me to show evidence that my claim had credibility. Certainly, I don't get to say it's an argument that this person is a pedophile and demand that this person repute it or accept that it's true.


It would be prudent, smart, logical, ethical, and wise for anyone reading my allegations to not take them seriously unless I was able to offer concrete evidence that those allegations are true.

It would likewise be irrational, stupid, unethical, and unwise to simply accept those allegations as the truth, pending the person being accused of disproving them.

wphamilton said...

How about a for-instance, which Obamacare burden, how was it relieved by Trump, and how did that relief provide a job?

Anonymous said...

Fatty, are you forgetting the 2 Trillion in lost years debt the Fed took on?

wphamilton said...

It's not an argument. It's an allegation.

And in your opinion therefore, "argumentum ad lapidem – (dismissing a claim as absurd without demonstrating proof for its absurdity)" does not apply to the dossier because it contains "allegations" rather than "claims" or "arguments"

LOL, keep digging CH.

wphamilton said...

You realize that I knew you'd jump all over it, with that "ad lapidem" stuff right? Just to see you make the case against your own argument. There's no way out.

C.H. Truth said...

WP...

Nope. My argument isn't a matter of dismissal based on absurdity.

My argument is that we have seen no actual evidence that the underlying claim (that the Trump campaign and Russia colluded) is true. In fact, the only official report from an investigation found no evidence of collusion.

The premise of the dossier an unproven allegation. That's an actual rebuttal based entirely on fact. I provide it (at this point) with the degree of respect it deserves.

That's not the same as dismissing an argument as being absurd without providing any basis for why you feel it is absurd.





C.H. Truth said...

In fact...

Ignoring the fact that there is no evidence that the underlying allegations of the dossier (collusion) are true (and that I have stated that multiple times)... and demanding that my argument is that I simply dismiss it as absurd for no reason.

(as if the lack of evidence that a claim is true is not a factual rebuttal)

Is actually a straw man logical fallacy.

Commonsense said...

But it's (the dossier) not an argument.

What's the point of it then, if it's not an argument that Trump is guilty of something?


I thought that should be obvious.

The point of the dossier was to get Hillary Clinton elected.

The accusations in it was to paint Trump as unfit for office. They don't really have to be particularly credible or accurate. Just believable enough to sway the simple-minded.

And judging from the liberal posts around here, it succeeded.

Anonymous said...


The point of the dossier was to get Hillary Clinton elected.


precisely. and just think about that for a moment. it's effectively a tacit admission by the clinton campaign that the only way clinton gets elected is alleging that trump is guilty of something. not that clinton deserves to be president on her merits, but that trump DOESN'T deserve to be president because he's guilty of a crime or misdeed.

so yeah...

no wonder wp, roger, and the rest of the 'resistance!' are so insistent that trump now disprove the dossier allegations. they continue to be embarrassed by the defeat of their shitty candidate and need a perpetual diversion.



James said...

Why does Trump keep acting like he's guilty?
Isn't it because he is?

When Trump says that the Russia probe investigators are not going to be able to "flip" Cohen, he is drawing attention to the fact that Cohen must have something he COULD flip over.

But how can that be, if the probe is nothing more than a "witch hunt" going after someone who is innocent?

An innocent person would assume that under no circumstance could Cohen possibly give the investigators anything incriminating in order to help himself, unless something incriminating does exist.

So there must be some incriminating evidence that Cohen has on Trump that he could flip.

This is just another instance in which Trump is acting like someone guilty.

Trump criticized the FBI for seizing Cohen’s records.
What does Trump want to hide?

Trump went to court to try to deny investigators access to his communications with Cohen.
What does Trump want to hide?

Trump threatened to fire Justice Department officials, protesting overreach.
What does Trump have to hide?

Why does Trump seem so anxious to cover up if he has nothing to cover up?

Anonymous said...

Jane, re-posting all threads.

Anonymous said...




fuck off, pederast.


wphamilton said...

"Ignoring the fact that there is no evidence that the underlying allegations of the dossier (collusion) are true"

Why can't Trump demonstrate that an "underlying allegation" is untrue? Why can't you? Why do you insist on dismissing all of these claims as "untrue", an absurdity funded by the opposition party, without a demonstration of the untruthfulness? argumentum ad lapidem, as you like to say.

When you call that a logical fallacy, but you keep doubling down with it, you're just digging a deeper hole. Too funny.


But you keep digging by making wilder and less a factual statements. Not at all true that "there is no evidence" that the dossier claims are true. Please note CH, we can demonstrate by providing known facts and not just repeating the same claim over and over again, such as "unverified", "no evidence exists", "not credible", "untrue" and so on.

Major portions of the documents have been verified by the investigation.

Page met with officials from Rosneft (Russian state oil company) for instance - verified.

What those officials wanted (ease sanctions, refrain from arming Ukraine army) - verified, and in fact implemented. It was the ONLY change made by Trump's team to the Republican platform.

Kremlin cyber-attacks, and the main targets - verified.

Trump ties to Azerbaijan businessmen - verified.

Russian Diplomat Kalugin an undercover intelligence officer - verified.

Russian botnets, hackers planting stories, verified.

wphamilton said...

"Anonymous James said...when Trump says that the Russia probe investigators are not going to be able to "flip" Cohen, he is drawing attention to the fact that Cohen must have something he COULD flip over. "

Normally you'd think that no one could be dumb enough to talk like the TV gangsters trying to outwit the authorities, and you'd generously allow that an unfortunately dim person might not be able to express himself without borrowing stereotypes like that. But this is Trump, and given the context of his whole body of Tweets he IS that dumb.

No one that is innocent is concerned that a subordinate will flip and cooperate with Federal investigators. Even the really dumb ones who admit their concern in public.

C.H. Truth said...

Why can't Trump demonstrate that an "underlying allegation" is untrue? Why can't you?

And around and around and around we go! Right back to square one!



WP is like the guards in the tower guarding the princess in the Holy Grail movie. After all of the explanation is over and you might think he gets it...

He's coming with me!

wphamilton said...

I know, it's not like you need facts or anything, because the dossier "is just not true". The parts that ARE true, well those are just "their facts", not important because they're "allegations" and not "claims" or "arguments".

And sure, it's unfair to actually expect someone to disprove or discredit the evidence which implies that he was colluding with the enemy to subvert democracy. Just declare it "not credible" and pay no mind that it really is credible to most everyone else. It's not like the President is accountable to all those people, cuz he's the Boss!

Commonsense said...

Why can't Trump demonstrate that an "underlying allegation" is untrue?

Vladimir Putin likes the way you think WP.

Anonymous said...

"Evidence" Jill Stien

Commonsense said...

Shocked yet remain unsurprised.

Former FBI Director James Comey has hired his close friend and former U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald as one of his personal lawyers.

Anonymous said...

IF not for the Corrupt DNC.

This guy could have won


Sen. Bernie Sanders' new job plan would guarantee employment for every American who is willing and able to work. It might sound like a big promise to make, but he suggests the government would be smart to back it. And he's not the only one saying so.

Sanders' team has underscored that the plan is in its earliest stages, and that certain logistics haven't yet been worked out. For instance, they haven't finalized a proposal for funding, and they also haven't quite worked out how to discipline workers who violate employment rules. But, all in all, the plan represents an eagerness to explore greater government intervention in the economy and job market.

According to The Washington Post, Sanders' plan would divide the United States into 12 regional districts. Within those areas, governments at the state and local level, plus American Indian tribes, would submit project proposals to the district offices. Those offices would be tasked with reviewing these proposals and sending the ones they approve to the Department of Labor.


The idea, according to the Post, is that coordinators for approved projects would then hire Americans to do the work. Under the proposal draft, they would not hire any worker for less than $15 an hour, and the jobs would include basic employment benefits, like medical leave and retirement options, the Post reports.


The program would also team up with job training centers, working to train those willing to work who do not yet have the skills to do so. Many job training centers already exist in the United States, so it appears that much of the plan's success would require connecting those training centers with the new employment opportunities.


In the current political moment, a universal employment plan may be a moot point. With a Republican-held Congress and White House, a socialized jobs bill stands little to no chance of moving forward, even if it were lucky enough to make it to debate. However, the midterm elections are fast approaching, and the contest is expected to be fierce.

caliphate4vr said...

guards in the tower guarding the princess in the Holy Grail movie.

your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries

C.H. Truth said...

WP... for example

Mikhail Kalugin had been accused of being a spy going back to 2013 by news outlets. This wasn't information that Steele (who by the way, didn't even spell the name correctly) provided as anything new that was corroborated upon subsequent investigation.

I suppose you could also argue that Steele successfully identified Carter Page as a foreign policy adviser, thus that portion of his dossier was also "verified".

You could also argue that he identified Donald Trump as a Presidential Candidate... and that was "verified".

Most of the other stuff you claim is "verified" is not at all verified, or only small portions of the claims are "verified". Carter Page was in Russia when Steele said he was (it was not a secret), but there is no verification that he was meeting with the people Steele claimed and that he was provided with offers from for a stake in the company if he could get Trump to lift sanctions... etc... etc.

Commonsense said...

These are the parts of the dossier that have been "verified":

Former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page met with representatives of Russian state-owned oil giant Rosneft.

This was publically known and Page testified he met with represenatives of Rosneft, but not Igor Sechin himself. The dossier specified he met with Igor Sechin. This "verification" strains credibility.

The Kremlin targeted educated youth and swing state voters during its cyber attacks in the 2016 campaign.

Duh, in other news the sun rises in the east.

Trump maintains ties to rich businessmen from Azerbaijan.

They worked togather on the miss universe pagent.

All the other parts are outright falsehoods and unverify accusations. So WP do you really want to run with this?

wphamilton said...

Ah, so it was already suspected to be true, and therefore not an "allegation" and ... excluded from the "there is no evidence" that the dossier is true claim.

Following your train of thought, anything previously alleged in the news doesn't count as "evidence". If it hasn't been verified in the news, then it's "not validated" and "there's no evidence". And from what I can tell, anything subsequently verified in the news (like Page's meeting and who he met with) is "fake news" and therefore "not evidence". Got it.

Keep digging.

Commonsense said...

Ah, so it was already suspected to be true

"Suspected" is not a finding of fact.

Just because you suspect something is true doesn't make it so.

WP you forgot the first law of holes.

When you're in one, stop digging.

wphamilton said...

Vladimir Putin likes the way you think WP.

Yeah, cuz Putin HATES it when the Russian sanctions are lifted, and when we decide not to help Ukraine fight against "insurgents" who are Russian soldiers "on vacation". And when people take it seriously that Russia was interfering in our election, he just loves that doesn't he CS?

Oh I get your reasoning. If Putin's goal was to sow discord, and questioning Trump is discordant, then Putin must like that. It's dumb, authoritarian and anti-democratic, but I get it.

wphamilton said...

"Suspected" is not a finding of fact.

Just because you suspect something is true doesn't make it so.


It was Coldheart claiming that it was a known fact, reported in the news that I said was "suspected", Ace.

Please follow along or refrain from chiming in.

C.H. Truth said...

WP...

So if someone provides you with a report of ten claims about an individual.

Nine of those claims are previously known claims that could be ascertained by a typical google search or remedial research available to most anyone. Might be nothing more than age, address, marital status.

The tenth claim is a salacious allegation of criminal behavior that is not previously know, has not been verified, and there is no actual evidence.


Are you the type who is willing to believe the tenth claim, simply because the other nine were verified?

Or is that logic strictly apply to things having to do with Trump?

Commonsense said...

Please follow along or refrain from chiming in.

Sure Ace, just as soon are you start making sense again.

I'm only too happy to sit back and let CH take apart you asinine arguments.

Anonymous said...

Wait, Snow White Comey layered up.

Shocked yet remain unsurprised.

Former FBI Director James Comey has hired his close friend and former U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald as one of his personal lawyers."

Anonymous said...

WP, are you employed or retired?

Anonymous said...

Weirdly, the plan also includes dividing the country into 12 separate "districts" within the United States, each with a specialized area of industry, that would develop service projects and major infrastructure job plans, which they would then forward to the Department of Labor for approval.

Sanders and his staff, weirdly, did not seem to notice that their draft "guarantee" program was pulled straight from the dystopian "Hunger

C.H. Truth said...

Former FBI Director James Comey has hired his close friend and former U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald as one of his personal lawyers.

If we are following the logic of some people here, innocent people do not need attorneys. So hiring a lawyer makes Comey seem guilty. He must be guilty.

Anonymous said...

Report, McCabe and Stroak attempted to have other FBI Field Agents :stand down" on investigating Hillary Emails.

Commonsense said...

Anonymous wphamilton said...
Vladimir Putin likes the way you think WP.
Yeah, cuz Putin HATES it when the Russian sanctions


Na. You just make him nostalgic for the KGB in the old Soviet Union,

That's how things were done then.

wphamilton said...

As I've said several times, for the record, forget "number 10". Who cares what Trump did with some prostitutes, or whether he did anything.

The dossier puts together research of various events and relationships in the context of illicit behavior of the Russians. It doesn't actually matter whether some of the research, or any or all of it, was previously reported on, speculated about or validated by news reports. Some of it I'm sure, was already known to the FBI and formed some of the basis for their investigation(s)

Here you have gone from "no evidence to support the dossier" to a hypothetical supposing that all of it, other than the blackmail for Melania material, is true. Are you wondering if it makes the dossier more credible that some of it was known fact, and other portions validated later? If so, your answer is yes, it does lend credence to the dossier.

wphamilton said...

I'm only too happy to sit back and let CH take apart you asinine arguments.

I'd rather you actually try to follow the arguments ... but then you'd know better than that fantasy and want to chime in to defend him. Which is fine if you're not wasting bandwidth by castigating me for something CH said again.

wphamilton said...

C.H. Truth: Mikhail Kalugin had been accused of being a spy going back to 2013 by news outlets. This wasn't information that Steele (who by the way, didn't even spell the name correctly) provided as anything new

WPhamilton: Ah, so it was already suspected to be true, and therefore not an "allegation" (referring to a previous CH gaffe)

commonsense:"Suspected" is not a finding of fact. Just because you suspect something is true doesn't make it so. "

dumbass.

Commonsense said...

Well sport, by your own admission you where the one using the word "suspected".

So the question is; who's the real dumbass here.

C.H. Truth said...

The dossier puts together research of various events and relationships in the context of illicit behavior of the Russians.

No, the dossier supposedly puts together research of various events and relationships in context of illicit, illegal, or unethical behavior of Trump and his campaign. Steele was hired to investigate Trump, not Russia.

But your overall logic here is faulty. The issue isn't whether he gets a few names and dates correct. If there is information in the report was something that was previously known, public knowledge, easily obtained... that information does nothing to add any credibility to the other claims that are otherwise unverified.

By a similar logic, spelling your name correctly on the top of your math exam, does not suggest that your answers to those tests questions are going to be correct.

When someone suggests that the main allegations in the dossier are unverified, unproven, and unlikely... they are specifically referring to the allegations of collusion. I don't care if Carter Page was in Russia when everyone knew he was in Russia or that a known spy is a known spy. I see none of that as relevant to the credibility of the report. Stating the obvious does not "verify" a dossier.


- The fact that Steele suggests that Carter Page was in Russia on a particular date does not lend any credibility to the more specific allegations that he cut deals to garner a share of the company for promises of sanction relief. Especially if Carter Page was in Russia for a public reason (as he was).

- The fact that Steele declares that a known spy is a known spy does not lend any credibility to the allegations that this spy was colluding with the Trump administration.

In other words, offering a fairly known general fact, does not add credibility to a more specific unverified claim that is associated with it.

But this "seems" to be what you are falling for here?

commie said...

Mick Mulvaney.....I only spoke to lobbyists that donated to my office.....That should help the D's with a great sound bite for not draining the swamp......another example of the most corrupt administration evah!!! Now we have Ronny dolling out pvrcacets like candy.....he won't make the week....how sad another embarrassment for the liar in chief that the sycophants will defend until he bleeds out....LOLOLOL

commie said...

CH pontificated with...

we are following the logic of some people here, innocent people do not need attorneys. So hiring a lawyer makes Comey seem guilty. He must be guilty.

So all the WH staff members who have hired a lawyer must be guilty per your own logic is most amusing CH. Thanx for the chuckle liddle scotty....

commie said...

Another example of not draining the swamp....Pruitt planning to blame everyone but himself for his ethical failings.....

April 25, 2018
WASHINGTON — As Scott Pruitt, the embattled head of the Environmental Protection Agency, prepares to testify before Congress on Thursday amid a series of spending and ethics investigations, an internal E.P.A. document indicates that he may blame his staff for many of the decisions that have put a cloud over his tenure at the agency.

The document, known as the “hot topics” list, appears to lay out talking points for Mr. Pruitt’s two sessions before the House of Representatives. It suggests that Mr. Pruitt is prepared to say that he now flies coach when traveling; that others were responsible for giving two close aides who used to work for him in Oklahoma substantial pay raises; and that E.P.A. officials who were reassigned or demoted after challenging his spending all had performance issues.

The document, which The New York Times has reviewed and the veracity of which the E.P.A. did not dispute, seemed to be a work in progress. Mr. Pruitt’s responses may change on Thursday when he appears before a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee in the morning, and a House Appropriations Committee panel in the afternoon.

wphamilton said...

You DON'T think that the dossier attempts to connect events associated with Trump with illicit behavior by Russia??? And it doesn't really matter if the dossier gets the facts right, because it's not "credible" and apparently that's not what "it's about". Interesting ... and you conclude from that tortured reasoning that "there is no evidence" supporting "allegations" of the dossier.

What exactly do you think the dossier "alleges" Coldheart? And if the facts contained therein don't support that allegation, aren't "evidence" for it, then what actually COULD support it in your view?

wphamilton said...

So all the WH staff members who have hired a lawyer must be guilty ...

Hiring lawyers just means that they expect to face allegations and legal challenges ... but now that Cohen is pleading the 5th that does make him look guilty.

Trump needs to hurry up with his pardon, or else his most trusted lawyer is liable to lose a lawsuit to Trump's porn star fling ... and who knows what she might say then.

wphamilton said...

"liable to lose a lawsuit to Trump's porn star fling" heh, it couldn't be funnier if you made something up. Though CH is trying hard, with all that flailing about over the dossier.

Why did you pick such a loser to elect President? Don't say "Hillary", she wasn't running in your primary. Oh well, maybe Trump can turn it around, trade closing that nuclear test site - the mountain that collapsed and is too radioactive to enter - for our alliance with South Korea, call that de-nuclearized NK, and have a "win" there.

C.H. Truth said...

And it doesn't really matter if the dossier gets the facts right, because it's not "credible" and apparently that's not what "it's about". Interesting

I sometimes belief you are being deliberately obtuse.

The fact that a diplomat is accused of being a spy (or even is a spy) doesn't provide a shred of evidence that he colluded with the Trump campaign in regards to the election. Someone associated with the Trump campaign being in Russia doesn't mean he colluded with anyone regarding the election.

You want to know what will convince me that allegations of collusion are true?

How about someone actually can verify any of those specific "collusion" claims? Not verification of otherwise known facts that don't prove collusion. Not Steele repeating the allegations that some Russian diplomat is a spy (and he couldn't even spell his name correctly). I will believe the "collusion" claims when there is some actual EVIDENCE of collusion.

Because according to the FBI agents (including Stzrok) working on the case, the "collusion investigation" was a dead end. According to the House intelligence report no evidence of collusion was offered to them. According to what Special Counsel has offered in their indictments of 18 individuals, nobody from the Trump campaign has been accused of colluding with the Russians regarding the election.


I don't know, WP... maybe I am missing something. But this whole Steele Dossier, FBI investigation, two congressional investigations, and Special Counsel was all supposedly put into play largely to determine whether or not the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians to undermine the election.

So far all we have is the sort of obvious concept that one of our geopolitical adversaries attempted to cause problems with our elections and create discord and wreak havoc. You know, just like we do all over the world with other country's elections.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

The cheapest shot upon a semi regular commentator on the blog is a clear violation of the standards for the blog is futher proof that the credibility of S.Scott is in the Trump swampland.

For instance, if a recovering alcoholic was accused of being back on the sauce, or accused of replacing his alcohol addiction with a pain killer addiction, should we assume that recovering alcoholic to be guilty as charged, unless he can otherwise prove the allegations to be false? What exactly would it take to prove the allegations false? A simple denial will not be good enough.

I have not replaced my addiction to alcohol with an addiction to opioid drugs.

You're a supporter of those who sou discord and wreak havoc upon the most sacred constitutional right to choose those who govern the country and defend the Constitution against harm.

You're partisanship has replaced your analytical principles.

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

"According to the house intelligence committee."

Has absolutely no credibility except for those who replaced analysis with partisanship.

Commonsense said...

It is for WP.

Is ‘Guilty Until Proven Innocent’ the New Standard?

Byron York’s Washington Examiner column takes up the question of whether, where Donald Trump is concerned, the “generally accepted standard of justice has been turned on its head.” The matter at issue is the so-called Steele dossier, the Clinton-campaign-sponsored compilation of opposition-research memos that the author, former British spy Christopher Steele, masqueraded as intelligence reports. Byron collects commentary from left-leaning political, academic, and media doyens, all arguing that the dossier’s sensational allegations carry a degree of credibility because, though unverified, they have not been proven untrue.

We’ll come to the law in a moment. First, it’s worth observing how even the facts are corrupted by political narrative. The dossier did not drop out of the sky five minutes ago. Many media outlets had it long before it was finally published 17 months ago, refusing to run with it because they well knew that doing so would be irresponsible. The FBI has had Steele’s reports for nearly two years. As former deputy director Andrew McCabe told the House Intelligence Committee, the bureau made elaborate efforts to corroborate it. What’s more, the FBI and Justice Department have come in for fierce criticism for failing to verify dossier allegations that were included in the surveillance applications to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court). They have great incentive to show corroboration if it exists, but they haven’t.

The provenance of the document (about which the FISA Court was kept in the dark) strongly counsel against crediting its assertions. It is partisan opposition research generated for the purposes of a heated, acrimonious election campaign. Its allegations were leaked to the media for partisan purposes, and journalists, notwithstanding their unabashed anti-Trump biases, have not been able to corroborate it, either. We know that Steele, who is banned from entering Russia, relied on third- and fourth-hand hearsay from Russian sources who, for the most part, have not even been identified. And (as I’ve recounted here), Steele himself does not stand behind what he has written. In court proceedings, he has taken the position that the dossier is a collection of bits of “raw intelligence” that are “unverified” and “warranted further investigation” before anyone should have publicized or relied on them.

So the proponent of uncorroborated assertions, upon being sued for libel, has not just declined to defend them but has undercut their reliability. How could fair-minded people, then, repeat these allegations as if they had standing?

wphamilton said...

I don't know, WP... maybe I am missing something. But this whole Steele Dossier, FBI investigation, two congressional investigations, and Special Counsel was all supposedly put into play largely to determine whether or not the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians to undermine the election.

Perhaps you are missing something. You seem to be a whole host of assumptions when you say "all supposedly put into play largely to ...", very vague, some kind of generalization about everything that's happened in these investigations. If I take that statement literally then yes, you are missing something. If I guess at your implicit assumptions, to account for the mistakes in that statement maybe not, but I don't think I'm going to do that.

wphamilton said...

CH: "You want to know what will convince me that allegations of collusion are true? "

You think there might be a gap between "no verified evidence in the dossier" and "convince the most adamant Trump partisan"?

Actually that's a serious question. I know that in the past you have exhibited an eccentric viewpoint which holds that evidence of something is synonymous with proof of it. You use the words, it seems, interchangeably.

I would say that certain forms of evidence can constitute proof, and sometimes evidence needs to be placed in the context of other evidence to remove reasonable doubt, and other times evidence can even be contradictory with other evidence and you can only judge the preponderance of evidence.

Steele was not commissioned to produce a dossier that would convince you Coldheart, nor people like you. It was, and is, a report on Trump's activities and of his associates, in the context of illicit behavior of the Russians among others. The information described therein became evidence in the investigation, probably several investigations, because it was relevant and credible.

If you want absolute proof from the dossier that Trump is a traitor under Russia's thumb, then I think that will not happen. If you want to see evidence that Trump and his associates were involved in things that they shouldn't have been, you might take a closer look at it.

wphamilton said...

Is ‘Guilty Until Proven Innocent’ the New Standard? ... Byron collects commentary from left-leaning political, academic, and media doyens, all arguing that the dossier’s sensational allegations carry a degree of credibility because, though unverified, they have not been proven untrue.

We’ll come to the law in a moment.


Classic partisan misdirection. None of this is in the context of criminal prosecution in the courtroom. Yet.

The standard in civil issues is preponderance of evidence. The true significance of "none proven untrue" is that the allegations are still plausible after extended, in depth investigation. The circumstantial evidence which supports even the as-yet unproven elements supply a measure of credibility to them, because the evidence weighs more in their favor.

If Trump is facing prosecution, or is being prosecuted in a criminal court, then by all means innocent until proven guilty. Prove it beyond all doubt, or let him walk. Hopefully if it comes to that drastic point, he'll no longer be President.

C.H. Truth said...

You think there might be a gap between "no verified evidence in the dossier" and "convince the most adamant Trump partisan"?

I think we will get a report from Robert Mueller sometime in the future...

and I believe (as I am sure you are starting to believe as well) that it will not point to any tangible evidence that there was any collusion between the Trump administration and the "Russians".

If the investigation shows actual tangible evidence of collusion, then that's what I think most everyone will believe.



I can answer that it's my opinion that a "reasonable" person would not assume that the main allegations of collusion from the political Steele dossier are legitimate unless they are corroborated by our own intelligence. Certainly, four different investigations into this should be able to corroborate anything that is actually true.

I certainly would argue strongly that it would be "unreasonable" to continue to believe the allegations from a paid political operative, if those allegations cannot be corroborated by actual intelligence.


You obviously believe differently. You apparently belive that a prudent objective person should believe the allegations (short of Trump apparently disproving them in his spare time) even if no corroboration of these allegations are found through four different investigations.

wphamilton said...

How quickly you forget. I'm the guy who went out on a thin limb way back in 2016 when the suggestion first arose, that it would be exceedingly improbable. As I recall, I opined that no American politician would even want the help of rank amateurs like the Russians, and the potential downside was ridiculous.

"You obviously believe differently." That's a laugh, since I have "obviously" stated many times that Mueller will not be charging any Trump conspiracy with the Russians. Obstruction, probably. Russian leverage against Trump, possible. Trump's closest advisers seeking favors from Russians, sure. None of that adds up to conspiracy.

I can hear the mental wheels turning already (kind of a grinding noise, as if there's grit slowing them down), you want to ask why Trump would obstruct justice if he wouldn't be charged. Well in the first place, Trump isn't bright enough to know either way. Secondly, the confirmed facts are 1. There WERE Russian efforts to help Trump and 2. Trump and his people downplayed it, knowing more about it than they let on. That plays poorly for Trump regardless. And third, it is very plausible that the Special Investigation has documented past Trump business dealings which are morally atrocious or perhaps illegal, and whether or not Mueller would use those Trump would want to head it off.

C.H. Truth said...

"You obviously believe differently." That's a laugh, since I have "obviously" stated many times that Mueller will not be charging any Trump conspiracy with the Russians.

So then you believe that the dossier suggesting collusion is true, but that the FBI, Mueller, and whoever else will not be able to actually prove any of it?

Interesting.


As far as obstruction. I know that many on the left would "like" to see Trump charged or impeached for pretty much anything (or even nothing). There may even be some truth to your assertion that Mueller definitely wants to charge (or at least allege in his report that he could be charged) with obstruction.

But the truth is that such a charge (if made) isn't going to stick. Even if the Democrats win back the House and Senate, there is no chance you get a claim like that to get to 67 Senate votes.

If you actually attempted to charge him and take him to court, there is no way you get 12 of 12 Americans to believe what would be a once in a lifetime made up obstruction charge. A decent proportion would reject the concept of a President firing a subordinate as grounds for "obstruction" right off the bat. Couple that with the fact that Comey has very limited credibility. Even head up against Trump, at least a third trust the President over the former FBI director. In his own words, no reasonable prosecutor would believe they can get that charge to stick.

The rub is that Mueller doesn't necessarily need to do anything other than "alleges" something. Like the indictments of the Russians (which he could probably never prove), he doesn't have to worry about actually going to court if he "alleges" that Trump broke the law.

wphamilton said...

But the truth is that such a charge (if made) isn't going to stick. Even if the Democrats win back the House and Senate, there is no chance you get a claim like that to get to 67 Senate votes.

If Trump looks culpable enough, even if he's only charged with obstruction, sure it's *possible* that you could see 67 Senate votes. Both of the modern era presidents facing impeachment proceedings were accused of obstruction of justice, so it's not such a reach for the charge itself. Neither of them were convicted, but Nixon resigned and Clinton was crippled. In both cases, obstruction was the accusation but that's just the tip of the iceberg. Watergate, Whitewater, the WH travel office.

Impeachment is quasi-political, and I think that you're relying on political cover from Republican Senators but what happens if the final results are too toxic for a politician to be identified with? Whether or not you get 67 votes, if that were the case then Trump would be done.

C.H. Truth said...

Clinton was hardly crippled by the actual impeachment. In fact he became more popular after his impeachment/acquittal and hit approvals into the sixties.

Clinton may have (as Trump already has been) crippled by the entire circus of the investigation. But once that investigation was over, he was provided with partisan cover, and was able to continue without much issue.

If Mueller ends this investigation with no finding of collusion or conspiracy by Trump or his campaign with regards to Russia, that will be a win. With over a quarter of Americans have literally "no trust" in Mueller and well over half have either "no trust" or only trust him "somewhat" - Mueller would have to come up with something more than just his "opinion" about something like obstruction.

If it is a bona-fide obvious obstruction that is garden variety and well known (destruction of evidence, witness tampering, perjury) and well proven, then I agree that it would be a rough road for Trump (although the Clinton precedent looms large here)

But if it is (as we both suspect it to be) one of those hypothetical philosophical attempt to prove a legal action is illegal based on Mueller's "opinion" regarding intent... then it won't fly with Republicans in either chamber or with Republicans and Independents.

I don't believe that Mueller's "opinion" if it comes to that... is going to carry the weight you suspect it will. It would(in my humble opinion) only convince those who are already convinced or want to be convinced.

wphamilton said...

Clinton's bump in ratings is only part of the story, and not what I'm talking about.

For one thing, at that time the approval polls were split into two portions, job approval and personal approval. While Clinton was riding high in job approval, personal approvals were abysmal. And if you'll recall, that job approval bump coincided with his sudden bombing campaign in Iraq, subsequent to a long tour of international diplomacy. You've actually got the cart before the horse - Congress wasn't going to convict a President with 73% approval, not when the public perception was that it was all about his sexual dalliances with subordinates. Nixon approval was 25%. Trump, 40% plus or minus.

There was a lot of reporting at the time about a sympathy bump, but the timing doesn't add up. The point of that was to disparage the Republicans. But what did Clinton accomplish post-impeachment, other than continuing to bomb Iraq? Nothing, he had no political power left. Clinton was done.

If Trump is impeached, and if the various allegations of abuse are toxic, then Trump will be done. Whether or not he resigns or sticks it out.