krypto2000 said:

To point #1 I'm not sure, nor am I sure how that relates.

---

krypto2000 said:

To #2 yes, do you think it's not evidence? Do you think the FBI should have dismissed that as opposed to investigating it? To me even if they think it along with the steel dossier are both fake they should investigate why they were faked.

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

Enlil said:

So you believe the only type of proof is beyond a shadow of a doubt? There's no discussion to be had when you've adopted an absurd standard.

---

Did krypto or I say that anywhere?

---

Enlil said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

Enlil said:

So you believe the only type of proof is beyond a shadow of a doubt? There's no discussion to be had when you've adopted an absurd standard.

---

Did krypto or I say that anywhere?

---

Yes. 

krypto2000 said:

No, it is specifically evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt because evidence is a lower standard than proof. Proof is evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt.

---

---

Enlil said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

Enlil said:

So you believe the only type of proof is beyond a shadow of a doubt? There's no discussion to be had when you've adopted an absurd standard.

---

Did krypto or I say that anywhere?

---

Yes. 

krypto2000 said:

No, it is specifically evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt because evidence is a lower standard than proof. Proof is evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt.

---

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

krypto2000 said:

We know there was evidence, but your definition of evidence is what most people use to mean proof...

We knoe there was the steel dossier and the australian diplomat off the top of my head. There's a slee of evidence (not proof). You don't start an investigation without evidence.

---

Enlil or krypto:

- Is Hillary claiming she believes she lost the election as a result of Russian interference due to Trump collusion with Russia evidence?
- Is an Austalian diplomat (Alexander Downer) telling American officials that Papadopoulos told him that a British professor (Joseph Mifsud) told him that the Russian ambassador to the U.K. (Alexander Yakovenko) told him that someone in Russia told him they had dirt on Hillary evidence?

PS - I'm on krypto's side regarding the proof vs evidence discussion.

---

koods said:

The criminal act of hacking and releasing the DNC emails changed the outcome of the election. To claim otherwise you would have to argue that less than 1% of democratic voters decided to not vote for hillary or not vote at all. You have to argue that the outrage over DNC corruption expressed within the party had no effect on voters.

---

koods said:

I never understood why Clinton was tarnished by the imaginary corruption of the DNC. The DNC hacks revealed the normal machinations of a political party. Wow they scheduled debates on Saturday and one time hillary found out about a question in a debate.

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

krypto2000 said:

To point #1 I'm not sure, nor am I sure how that relates.

---

It relates more to Enlil, as he's argued that Theresa May blaming Russia for the Skripal poisoning is proof enough, since he could think of a make believe motive (that the Russians wanted him dead).  It's the very lowest level of evidence.

krypto2000 said:

To #2 yes, do you think it's not evidence? Do you think the FBI should have dismissed that as opposed to investigating it? To me even if they think it along with the steel dossier are both fake they should investigate why they were faked.

---

That's no more than reasonable suspicion.  If we let Enlil derail this with semantics, there may be some definition somewhere where that counts as proof.

---