• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump may be criminally liable for covering up for Putin

jnug said:
I understand completely. You are setting a standard you are NEVER going to see in a US Government agency assessment because they do not use Certainty Based Scoring. They use Confidence Based Scoring. So you are ranting on because you are not finding words in the Assessment that you are NEVER going to find in a US Government assessment. You are not going to find High or Low level of Certainty as a rating in those Assessments. You are going to find High or Low or Moderate levels of Confidence used because THAT IS WHAT THEY USE. They don't use Certainty Based Scoring. The highest rating in a US Government Assessment you are ever going to see is "High Confidence".

Your point is nonsensical.
Click to expand...
Wrong as usual and clearly you do not understand.
It is like you haven't read the information I posted for you.

Intelligence Community judgments often include two important elements: judgments of how likely it is that something has happened or will happen (using terms such as “likely” or “unlikely”) and confidence levels in those judgments (low, moderate, and high) that refer to the evidentiary basis, logic and reasoning, and precedents that underpin the judgments. ​

The first of those elements, "that something has happened or will happen" has a percentage chart. The 90 to 100% range is labeled as "Almost certainly" or "Nearly certain".
So stop with the bs that certainty isn't used.


And then we have this that says High confidence does not imply a certainty.

High confidence generally indicates that judgments are based on high-quality information from multiple sources. [highlight]High confidence in a judgment does not imply that the assessment is a fact or a certainty[/highlight]; such judgments might be wrong.​


The OP claims "hard forensic proof". There is no assessing "hard forensic proof". It is either "proof" or it isn't. Such would be spoken to as fact, just as many other things are spoken to as fact in the assessment.
Secondly, a moderate assessment, as made by the NSA (in regards to a specific supposed Putin involvement) would preclude a claim of "hard forensic proof" existing in that regards.
So no, the OP is an absurd claim.



And frankly, in regards to the hacking ... (Not the campaign to sew discord.)
the lack of actually examining the servers,
that a foreign Government such as Russia isn't likely to leave avoidable traces,
the fact that we know that hacking can be made to look like it came from a different specific party
and that our own Government has tools (that they lost control of) to make it look like a hack came from another party

Those are legitimate reasons that no one should have any confidence in any assessment that Russia was behind the hacking.
 
OscarLevant said:
In this article it is revealed that Trump was given hard forensic proof Putin ordering interference campaign 2016. After all Trump's lying about Putin soft pedaling covering up for Putin does it make him criminally liable.


accessory after the fact? Aiding and abetting ?
Click to expand...

Read Trumps oath of office and
His news conference and you get near treason or treason.
Certainly Unamerican and a embarrassment to the world!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom