But they keep finding witches...

[_canpakes]

WD, straight up, do you believe Putin when he asserts that Russia did not engage in any shenanigans, or do you believe US intel agencies that assert that Russia did?

I don't think you're framing the question in an accurate way.

When you say "Russia did not engage in shenanigans" what does this mean, specifically?

When you say, "US intel agencies that assert that Russia did," what does this mean?

I certainly acknowledge that Russia has denied things, and that certain accusations have been made on the US side, but I don't think those two things line up. If you're asking me if I trust Putin, the answer is, no. If you're asking me if I trust the US intel agencies, my answer is also, no.

I read this as you being skeptical about and not buying into any or all of the indictments, as far as they represent any claimed activities.

But I also read this as you interpreting that there’s a line somewhere between Putin’s assertion, and what US agencies assert, where something has happened. I’d like to know more about where you believe this convergence occurs and what the scope of Russian ‘interference’ activities includes.

You could refuse to answer on the basis of not being in a position to confirm any particular detail, but that option would seemingly be at
odds with some opinions that you’ve already freely shared.

[_DarkHelmet]

If you're asking me if I trust Putin, the answer is, no. If you're asking me if I trust the US intel agencies, my answer is also, no.

Well, at least that's better than Trump. Not only does he distrust US Intelligence agencies, he acts as if they are the enemy. Meanwhile, he totally trusts Putin.

[_canpakes]

I don't think you're framing the question in an accurate way.

When you say "Russia did not engage in shenanigans" what does this mean, specifically?

When you say, "US intel agencies that assert that Russia did," what does this mean?

I certainly acknowledge that Russia has denied things, and that certain accusations have been made on the US side, but I don't think those two things line up. If you're asking me if I trust Putin, the answer is, no. If you're asking me if I trust the US intel agencies, my answer is also, no.

I read this as you being skeptical about and not buying into any or all of the indictments, as far as they represent any claimed activities.

But I also read this as you interpreting that there’s a line somewhere between Putin’s assertion, and what US agencies assert, where something has happened. I’d like to know more about where you believe this convergence occurs and what the scope of Russian ‘interference’ activities includes.

You could refuse to answer on the basis of not being in a position to confirm any particular detail, but that option would seemingly be at
odds with some opinions that you’ve already freely shared.

Gone radio silent, now?

[_Themis]

That a grand jury was convinced is not proof that whatever "evidence" was presented is credible.

It arguments like the Dog is giving in this thread for why I realize bad people can get away with just about anything with their followers. Joseph Smith did it. Trump even boasted he could go out on the street and shoot someone and not lose any support. I think Trump was smart enough to realize how dumb people can be. Where there is smoke there is almost always fire, and with Trump and possible Russians connections and influence there is massive amount of smoke and I would say even some fire visible. Most decisions I make I cannot have all the available evidence or even proof. Especially with people and groups who are experts in hiding what they do. I look for available evidence including behavior, and Trump behaves a lot like I would expect for him if he was being influenced by Russia. If he wasn't I expect he would treat Russia in more then same way he does pretty much everyone he doesn't view as loyal followers.

[_Themis]

If you're asking me if I trust Putin, the answer is, no. If you're asking me if I trust the US intel agencies, my answer is also, no.

Well, at least that's better than Trump. Not only does he distrust US Intelligence agencies, he acts as if they are the enemy. Meanwhile, he totally trusts Putin.

WD is playing typical apologia. He will keep moving towards more proof to eventually asking for absolute proof.

[_Water Dog]

Where there is smoke there is almost always fire

Same stuff was said about Obama, tables were perfectly turned. Now here we are.

[_Water Dog]

Gone radio silent, now?

What gives you that impression?

[_Water Dog]

I read this as you being skeptical about and not buying into any or all of the indictments, as far as they represent any claimed activities.

But I also read this as you interpreting that there’s a line somewhere between Putin’s assertion, and what US agencies assert, where something has happened. I’d like to know more about where you believe this convergence occurs and what the scope of Russian ‘interference’ activities includes.

You could refuse to answer on the basis of not being in a position to confirm any particular detail, but that option would seemingly be at
odds with some opinions that you’ve already freely shared.

Depends on the indictment you're talking about. I'm extremely skeptical of the indictment of Russian military officers. Other indictments towards people like Flynn and Manafort, I'm not particularly skeptical of as far as the technical letter of the law is concerned. I'm sure Flynn did lie to the FBI. I don't think it's relevant though. It's a Scooter Libby situation that ultimately does not serve justice.

To your question of a line of convergence. You're asking for me to speculate. I don't have any issue with doing that, but should be kept in context. I believe Russia is engaged in normal intelligence activities like anyone else. It wouldn't surprise me if they were involved in some of the email leaks, even all of them. But I don't think there is any hard evidence to support this, based purely on analytical conjecture. Nonetheless, if they were involved, I don't believe they were specifically targeting democrats with the design of a kind of soft coup as its being made out to be. More likely they were just trying to gain access to whatever they could gain access to... democrats, republicans, you, me, anybody, everybody. In my mind it's not very likely that the Russian state was involved, but highly likely that private Russian citizens were involved. Then, those people may have sold that data to someone else... like the Russian govt, or anybody who was willing to pay for it. Also possible multiple parties were involved. Democrats could have had their systems infiltrated by multiple sources... at the same time. Whether Russians were involved I frankly don't care. We know who the emails came from... the democrats. It was not manufactured propaganda. To the extent that these emails did or didn't influence the election, it's the democrats own fault and well deserved. I really just don't think it even had much of an impact. The emails were barely reported on outside of right-wing circles. But again, I don't care. Because they were truthful. Was CNN running fake stories about Hillary thanks to these emails? No. But they were running fake stories about Trump during the same time period. In this respect it was already very much a rigged game.

[_honorentheos]

Suppose Trump had taken office in 2017 and let the world know he was supporting the US intelligence community in their efforts to protect the American electoral system...Seriously, Dog. Explain to me how the FBI doing their job is bad for America if we subtract out the resistance the Trump admin has shown towards it.

In my view Trump effectively did exactly as you suggest, but the process was very quickly shown to be political, toss in ignorance and incompetence, and it's been a ____ show since then.

No he didn't.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/16/us/p ... ation.html

Two weeks before Mr. Trump’s inauguration, senior American intelligence officials briefed him at Trump Tower in Manhattan on Russian hacking and deception. They reported that Mr. Putin had tried to sow chaos in the election, undermine Mrs. Clinton and ultimately help Mr. Trump win.

Then Mr. Comey met with Mr. Trump privately, revealing the Steele reports and warning that journalists had obtained them. Mr. Comey has said he feared making this conversation a “J. Edgar Hoover-type situation,” with the F.B.I. presenting embarrassing information to lord over a president-elect.

In a contemporaneous memo, Mr. Comey wrote that he assured Mr. Trump that the F.B.I. intended to protect him on this point. “I said media like CNN had them and were looking for a news hook,” Mr. Comey wrote of Mr. Steele’s documents. “I said it was important that we not give them the excuse to write that the F.B.I. had the material.”

Mr. Trump was not convinced — either by the Russia briefing or by Mr. Comey’s assurances. He made up his mind before Mr. Comey even walked in the door. Hours earlier, Mr. Trump told The Times that stories about Russian election interference were being pushed by his adversaries to distract from his victory.

And he debuted what would quickly become a favorite phrase: “This is a political witch hunt.”

Trump has done a very poor job of dealing with the situation, one blunder after another. In his shoes I don't think many would have done better, though.

I have a hard time imagining any other single candidate from any of the major parties in the last 20 years not coming out explicitly in support of the US intelligence agencies and their investigation.

Whatever his motives, Trump can't be said to be hugging the meaty part of the curve on possible responses.

ETA: There is another way to read your comment, taking a more narrow view of what it means to be in his shoes...in which case, perhaps you are right. If the hypothetical other person has ties to Russia they'd like to protect then perhaps what you said is accurate.

[Guest]

That a grand jury was convinced is not proof that whatever "evidence" was presented is credible.

Of course the fact that a grand jury was convinced is not proof more geometrico (look that up, I'm tired of dumbing down) that the evidence they considered was credible, in the sense of being likely to deserve being believed in by a reasonable person.

But to any reasonable person who does not have good cause to believe that the grand jury was bribed or coerced, the fact that the grand jury was convinced is a basis to conclude that a case has been made that the evidence was credible, and that it may well turn out to be just that.

And why the quote marks round the word "evidence"? Do you think you made a telling point by doing that?