January 6th Commission Thread

[DougBH]

@Borgia_dude

@Smyrna

@Jezcoe

Dude… we have done this many times. Yes there were 17 errors… a good portion of those errors were not including documents to support things that were true, The seven errors that were falsehoods were not done with criminal intent.

It is all in the Horowitz report.

Then stop regurgibleating falsities. It is mathematically impossible for all 17 to go one way and it be accidental. Do you understand how math works?

That depends on the nature of the errors. Can you describe them?

Why would you ask him to describe them when the report is equally available to you, on line? It seems a number of people in this forum use a tactic of requiring the poster to go search for information that they themselves have equal access to. Tends to cut off a losing argument at times, doesn’t it?
If I go to a clerk and 17 times in a row they miscount, and each time that miscount goes against me, do I have proof that they are cheating me? Probably not. But common sense tells me something different.

[Borgia_dude]

@DougBH

If I go to a clerk and 17 times in a row they miscount, and each time that miscount goes against me, do I have proof that they are cheating me? Probably not. But common sense tells me something different.

Is that the nature of the errors?

[Smyrna]

@Borgia_dude

Is that the nature of the errors?

The nature mathematically is that if they are an honest error and the possible outcomes are for or against, this equates to a 50/50 probability. If the errors go one way, multiply .5 seventeen times and that will give you the probability it was honest. I am glad we could share this honest discussion.

[DougBH]

Yes, unless there is some evidence that this rule should not apply here. What is the nature of the errors that this common sense rule would not apply?

[Borgia_dude]

@Smyrna

@Borgia_dude

Is that the nature of the errors?

The nature mathematically is that if they are an honest error and the possible outcomes are for or against, this equates to a 50/50 probability. If the errors go one way, multiply .5 seventeen times and that will give you the probability it was honest. I am glad we could share this honest discussion.

I’m well aware of how to calculate probability (your calculation is a wee bit off btw). You are assuming all errors have a 50/50 chance of “going either way”. I’m not sure that is true which is why I asked for the nature of the errors.

[Smyrna]

@Borgia_dude

I’m not sure that is true which is why I asked for the nature of the errors.

…which is why I prefaced; the possible outcomes are for or against.

[Borgia_dude]

@Smyrna

@Borgia_dude

I’m not sure that is true which is why I asked for the nature of the errors.

…which is why I prefaced; the possible outcomes are for or against.

That doesn’t tell me anything about the nature of the errors.

[Jezcoe]

@Borgia_dude

@Smyrna

@Borgia_dude

I’m not sure that is true which is why I asked for the nature of the errors.

…which is why I prefaced; the possible outcomes are for or against.

That doesn’t tell me anything about the nature of the errors.

One of the major errors is that the assertion that Burykov was sentenced to 30 months in prison … which is true… the error lay in that they failed to provide the documents that back that claim up.

[Borgia_dude]

@Jezcoe

@Borgia_dude

@Smyrna

@Borgia_dude

I’m not sure that is true which is why I asked for the nature of the errors.

…which is why I prefaced; the possible outcomes are for or against.

That doesn’t tell me anything about the nature of the errors.

One of the major errors is that the assertion that Burykov was sentenced to 30 months in prison … which is true… the error lay in that they failed to provide the documents that back that claim up.

Prime example of why I asked the nature. How does Smyrna apply his 50/50 criteria on this one? I can’t see which way it is biased.

That’s one down.

[Jezcoe]

@Borgia_dude

@Jezcoe

@Borgia_dude

@Smyrna

@Borgia_dude

I’m not sure that is true which is why I asked for the nature of the errors.

…which is why I prefaced; the possible outcomes are for or against.

That doesn’t tell me anything about the nature of the errors.

One of the major errors is that the assertion that Burykov was sentenced to 30 months in prison … which is true… the error lay in that they failed to provide the documents that back that claim up.

Prime example of why I asked the nature. How does Smyrna apply his 50/50 criteria on this one? I can’t see which way it is biased.

That’s one down.

Another one was “Source 2 was compensated in excess of (redacted) since 2008”

True Statement… the error is that they failed to provide the documents to back it up.

[Borgia_dude]

@Jezcoe

@Borgia_dude

@Jezcoe

@Borgia_dude

@Smyrna

@Borgia_dude

I’m not sure that is true which is why I asked for the nature of the errors.

…which is why I prefaced; the possible outcomes are for or against.

That doesn’t tell me anything about the nature of the errors.

One of the major errors is that the assertion that Burykov was sentenced to 30 months in prison … which is true… the error lay in that they failed to provide the documents that back that claim up.

Prime example of why I asked the nature. How does Smyrna apply his 50/50 criteria on this one? I can’t see which way it is biased.

That’s one down.

Another one was “Source 2 was compensated in excess of (redacted) since 2008”

True Statement… the error is that they failed to provide the documents to back it up.

Another error which has no 50/50 discernment for bias.

[Jezcoe]

@Borgia_dude

Another error which has no 50/50 discernment for bias.

Another error

The Statement “Steele is a former (redacted) and has been an FBI source since in or about October 2013. [Steele’s] reporting has been corroborated and used in criminal proceedings and the FBI assesses [Steele] to be reliable. [Steele] has been compensated approx. $95,000 by the FBI and the FBI is unaware of any derogatory information pertaining to [Steele]”

Also a true statement. The error was once again they did not provide the documentation to back it up.

[WorldWatcher]

@Jezcoe

One of the major errors is that the assertion that Burykov was sentenced to 30 months in prison … which is true… the error lay in that they failed to provide the documents that back that claim up.

@Jezcoe

Another one was “Source 2 was compensated in excess of (redacted) since 2008”

True Statement… the error is that they failed to provide the documents to back it up.

@Jezcoe

Another error

The Statement “Steele is a former (redacted) and has been an FBI source since in or about October 2013. [Steele’s] reporting has been corroborated and used in criminal proceedings and the FBI assesses [Steele] to be reliable. [Steele] has been compensated approx. $95,000 by the FBI and the FBI is unaware of any derogatory information pertaining to [Steele]”

Also a true statement. The error was once again they did not provide the documentation to back it up.

Could you explain these in terms of mathematics for the mathematically inclined amongst us please.

Thank you.

WW.

[Smyrna]

@Borgia_dude

How does Smyrna apply his 50/50 criteria on this one?

Does it work for or against Trump?

[Borgia_dude]

@Smyrna

@Borgia_dude

How does Smyrna apply his 50/50 criteria on this one?

Does it work for or against Trump?

That they didn’t provide documentation? Seriously?

[Smyrna]

@Borgia_dude

That they didn’t provide documentation? Seriously?

Every error…did it work for or against Trump? This is ezpz…let’s not get complicated.

[Borgia_dude]

@Smyrna

@Borgia_dude

That they didn’t provide documentation? Seriously?

Every error…did it work for or against Trump? This is ezpz…let’s not get complicated.

You are dividing things into 50/50. Them not providing documentation of a claim is neutral to the claim. Either the claim is true and they claimed it is true or false, or it is false and they claimed it was true or false. Those are the choices and how you would construct your probability tree.

[Jezcoe]

@Smyrna

@Borgia_dude

That they didn’t provide documentation? Seriously?

Every error…did it work for or against Trump? This is ezpz…let’s not get complicated.

Neither.

Since the errors I brought forth were not ones of fact but of documentation.

Here is another error.

“Since that time, Source #2 has routinely provided reliable information that has been corroborated by the FBI.”

No supporting documentation was the error for that one.

[Jezcoe]

@Borgia_dude

@Smyrna

@Borgia_dude

That they didn’t provide documentation? Seriously?

Every error…did it work for or against Trump? This is ezpz…let’s not get complicated.

You are dividing things into 50/50. Them not providing documentation of a claim is neutral to the claim. Either the claim is true and they claimed it is true or false, or it is false and they claimed it was true or false. Those are the choices and how you would construct your probability tree.

This imo… is the worse error in the initial FISA application

“Although Page did not provide any specific details to refute, dispel, or clarify the media reporting, he made vague statements that minimized his activities.”

That error was that documentation provided show that that assertion to be not factual.

[Smyrna]

@Borgia_dude

You are dividing things into 50/50.

@Jezcoe

Neither.

Yes…it did and they all worked against Trump’s best interests in some form or fashion at the time it happened. Since then…the truth is coming out but back then, it was full steam ahead to get Trump out.