An honest question for legal and constitution minded

[beero1000]

This is a seriously silly point. If they have some sort of proof Trump is an actual traitor they just need to send it to one of the myriad Trump-hating newspaper reporters out there.

A smear campaign would be nearly worthless and is totally counter to what the NSA actually does. They do data collection and analysis. What they really would be doing is collecting intelligence for the investigation. Just because it's inadmissible in court doesn't mean it isn't incredibly useful in finding more evidence that is admissible in court. Since the investigation hasn't released anything yet, we have no idea if they are actually doing that or not.

My guess is that they are.

Sending actual concrete facts proving Trump is a traitor to a reporter is not "a smear campaign". And if you are in possession of these facts, you don't need to use them to gain other facts that would help in the investigation.

When you have proof the need for investigating is over.

Why would the government need to release evidence to a reporter? Not so the reporter can rerelease the evidence for the government to use, right? Is it just to alter public opinion? How is that not a smear campaign? Investigations can last for years, they don't just stop once they find evidence for a crime. Sometimes they're even *gasp* thorough.

You really didn't think that through at all.

 

[dismal]

Sending actual concrete facts proving Trump is a traitor to a reporter is not "a smear campaign". And if you are in possession of these facts, you don't need to use them to gain other facts that would help in the investigation.

When you have proof the need for investigating is over.

Why would the government need to release evidence to a reporter? Not so the reporter can rerelease the evidence for the government to use, right? Is it just to alter public opinion? How is that not a smear campaign? Investigations can last for years, they don't just stop once they find evidence for a crime. Sometimes they're even *gasp* thorough.

You really didn't think that through at all.

I didn't argue government would "need" to do anything.

The hypothetical question here boils down to "if they had proof Trump was a traitor, why don't we know about it?"

Do you actually have an answer for that?

 

[beero1000]

Sending actual concrete facts proving Trump is a traitor to a reporter is not "a smear campaign". And if you are in possession of these facts, you don't need to use them to gain other facts that would help in the investigation.

When you have proof the need for investigating is over.

Why would the government need to release evidence to a reporter? Not so the reporter can rerelease the evidence for the government to use, right? Is it just to alter public opinion? How is that not a smear campaign? Investigations can last for years, they don't just stop once they find evidence for a crime. Sometimes they're even *gasp* thorough.

You really didn't think that through at all.

I didn't argue government would "need" to do anything.

The hypothetical question here boils down to "if they had proof Trump was a traitor, why don't we know about it?"

Do you actually have an answer for that?

FFS, it wasn't even an hour ago.

Then I would say you are focusing on the wrong part of the question. No, the NSA is not reading every bit sent electronically, but that has no relevance on the actual heart of the post - they most certainly are trying to read every bit sent electronically by people in contact with entities that are of national security concern.

It would be inadmissible in a court.

This is a seriously silly point. If they have some sort of proof Trump is an actual traitor they just need to send it to one of the myriad Trump-hating newspaper reporters out there.

The investigation is still ongoing because it's large and complex and probably involves multiple intelligence agencies. They also know they will only have one shot at this and it needs to be airtight. If you come at the king, you best not miss.

 

[dismal]

I didn't argue government would "need" to do anything.

The hypothetical question here boils down to "if they had proof Trump was a traitor, why don't we know about it?"

Do you actually have an answer for that?

FFS, it wasn't even an hour ago.

Then I would say you are focusing on the wrong part of the question. No, the NSA is not reading every bit sent electronically, but that has no relevance on the actual heart of the post - they most certainly are trying to read every bit sent electronically by people in contact with entities that are of national security concern.

It would be inadmissible in a court.

This is a seriously silly point. If they have some sort of proof Trump is an actual traitor they just need to send it to one of the myriad Trump-hating newspaper reporters out there.

The investigation is still ongoing because it's large and complex and probably involves multiple intelligence agencies. They also know they will only have one shot at this and it needs to be airtight. If you come at the king, you best not miss.

See, you keep doing it. If they have proof why is there an ongoing investigation?

Why didn't they bring the proof forward back when Obama was the king?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

If they have proof why is there an ongoing investigation?

You're right. The govt should never do investigations, prosecutions, charges, trials. Proof means the government can do whatever it wants.

We don't need to consider things like probable cause, reasonable suspicion, warrants, fair trials.

Or is that a dismal view of how civil society should operate?

 

[dismal]

If they have proof why is there an ongoing investigation?

You're right. The govt should never do investigations, prosecutions, charges, trials. Proof means the government can do whatever it wants.

We don't need to consider things like probable cause, reasonable suspicion, warrants, fair trials.

Or is that a dismal view of how civil society should operate?

For those who missed it earlier: the hypothetical is THEY HAVE PROOF

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Thanks for the out loud laugh! Well, I see at least one person read thru my post, even if the humor wasn't recognized.

Hmm... a folder called "encrypted data".

I just put those files in a folder called Bablyon 5. No risk of anyone looking there.

The tool I was using to copy it encrypted it in transit.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Thanks for the out loud laugh! Well, I see at least one person read thru my post, even if the humor wasn't recognized.

Hmm... a folder called "encrypted data".

I just put those files in a folder called Bablyon 5. No risk of anyone looking there.

The tool I was using to copy it encrypted it in transit.

Geesh, some people are sensitive about their ‘encrypted data’.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

If they have proof why is there an ongoing investigation?

You're right. The govt should never do investigations, prosecutions, charges, trials. Proof means the government can do whatever it wants.

We don't need to consider things like probable cause, reasonable suspicion, warrants, fair trials.

Or is that a dismal view of how civil society should operate?

For those who missed it earlier: the hypothetical is THEY HAVE PROOF

There are different levels of proof. When one is talking in an Internet forum and uses the word "proof" they could mean any variation of burden of proof:
rhetorical argument,
clear and convincing evidence,
beyond a reasonable doubt,
rigorous, mathematical proof.

Moreover, once again, just because someone has proof doesn't mean there is not an investigation or a trial.

An investigation leads to a greater scope of accomplices and other possible wrongdoings or the exact, very specific charge.

Regarding the whole issue, I'd say there was proof that multiple persons from the campaign was willing to discuss collusion with Russia. It isn't obvious that Trump knew entirely about absolutely everything his campaign did. This investigation is more like going after a mafia kingpin by starting from the bottom where some of the underlings are getting convicted and there are warrants etc applied to CAPOs. So we have to see what happens to the CONSIGLIERE Jared Kushner and then ORANGEFATHER Trump himself.

Finally, let's look at a specific concrete example:
Suppose Trump was on the phone with Russian spies saying, "Hey it's a good thing they didn't figure out I'm guilty of collusion. Man, that was close. Who else should I fire other than Comey?"

Well, that's proof. Is it a rigorous, mathematical proof? No, maybe he was being sarcastic, like .0001% chance, let's say, for example.

It still deserves an investigation for the reasons stated above:
An investigation leads to a greater scope of accomplices and other possible wrongdoings or the exact, very specific charge.

It'd also be unconstitutional not to follow due process.

So, basically, everything I wrote before remains valid.

 

[Elixir]

For those who missed it earlier: the hypothetical is THEY HAVE PROOF

There are different levels of proof. When one is talking in an Internet forum and uses the word "proof" they could mean any variation of burden of proof:
rhetorical argument,
clear and convincing evidence,
beyond a reasonable doubt,
rigorous, mathematical proof.

Moreover, once again, just because someone has proof doesn't mean there is not an investigation or a trial.

An investigation leads to a greater scope of accomplices and other possible wrongdoings or the exact, very specific charge.

Regarding the whole issue, I'd say there was proof that multiple persons from the campaign was willing to discuss collusion with Russia. It isn't obvious that Trump knew entirely about absolutely everything his campaign did. This investigation is more like going after a mafia kingpin by starting from the bottom where some of the underlings are getting convicted and there are warrants etc applied to CAPOs. So we have to see what happens to the CONSIGLIERE Jared Kushner and then ORANGEFATHER Trump himself.

Finally, let's look at a specific concrete example:
Suppose Trump was on the phone with Russian spies saying, "Hey it's a good thing they didn't figure out I'm guilty of collusion. Man, that was close. Who else should I fire other than Comey?"

Well, that's proof. Is it a rigorous, mathematical proof? No, maybe he was being sarcastic, like .0001% chance, let's say, for example.

It still deserves an investigation for the reasons stated above:
An investigation leads to a greater scope of accomplices and other possible wrongdoings or the exact, very specific charge.

It'd also be unconstitutional not to follow due process.

So, basically, everything I wrote before remains valid.

We don't have "proof" of that conversation, but we DO have proof that the Cheato campaign received overtures from Russian agents and failed to report that fact to the FBI as required by law.
Only Mueller knows what else the FBI has "proof" of, but I think it's a good bet that it ain't pretty.

 

[dismal]

For those who missed it earlier: the hypothetical is THEY HAVE PROOF

There are different levels of proof. When one is talking in an Internet forum and uses the word "proof" they could mean any variation of burden of proof:
rhetorical argument,
clear and convincing evidence,
beyond a reasonable doubt,
rigorous, mathematical proof.

Moreover, once again, just because someone has proof doesn't mean there is not an investigation or a trial.

An investigation leads to a greater scope of accomplices and other possible wrongdoings or the exact, very specific charge.

Regarding the whole issue, I'd say there was proof that multiple persons from the campaign was willing to discuss collusion with Russia. It isn't obvious that Trump knew entirely about absolutely everything his campaign did. This investigation is more like going after a mafia kingpin by starting from the bottom where some of the underlings are getting convicted and there are warrants etc applied to CAPOs. So we have to see what happens to the CONSIGLIERE Jared Kushner and then ORANGEFATHER Trump himself.

Finally, let's look at a specific concrete example:
Suppose Trump was on the phone with Russian spies saying, "Hey it's a good thing they didn't figure out I'm guilty of collusion. Man, that was close. Who else should I fire other than Comey?"

Well, that's proof. Is it a rigorous, mathematical proof? No, maybe he was being sarcastic, like .0001% chance, let's say, for example.

It still deserves an investigation for the reasons stated above:
An investigation leads to a greater scope of accomplices and other possible wrongdoings or the exact, very specific charge.

It'd also be unconstitutional not to follow due process.

So, basically, everything I wrote before remains valid.

The OP used two words: proof certain.

When you're done blathering on for a few more pages about how proof isn't proof maybe you can deal with what was actually posed.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

For those who missed it earlier: the hypothetical is THEY HAVE PROOF

There are different levels of proof. When one is talking in an Internet forum and uses the word "proof" they could mean any variation of burden of proof:
rhetorical argument,
clear and convincing evidence,
beyond a reasonable doubt,
rigorous, mathematical proof.

Moreover, once again, just because someone has proof doesn't mean there is not an investigation or a trial.

An investigation leads to a greater scope of accomplices and other possible wrongdoings or the exact, very specific charge.

Regarding the whole issue, I'd say there was proof that multiple persons from the campaign was willing to discuss collusion with Russia. It isn't obvious that Trump knew entirely about absolutely everything his campaign did. This investigation is more like going after a mafia kingpin by starting from the bottom where some of the underlings are getting convicted and there are warrants etc applied to CAPOs. So we have to see what happens to the CONSIGLIERE Jared Kushner and then ORANGEFATHER Trump himself.

Finally, let's look at a specific concrete example:
Suppose Trump was on the phone with Russian spies saying, "Hey it's a good thing they didn't figure out I'm guilty of collusion. Man, that was close. Who else should I fire other than Comey?"

Well, that's proof. Is it a rigorous, mathematical proof? No, maybe he was being sarcastic, like .0001% chance, let's say, for example.

It still deserves an investigation for the reasons stated above:
An investigation leads to a greater scope of accomplices and other possible wrongdoings or the exact, very specific charge.

It'd also be unconstitutional not to follow due process.

So, basically, everything I wrote before remains valid.

The OP used two words: proof certain.

When you're done blathering on for a few more pages about how proof isn't proof maybe you can deal with what was actually posed.

Maybe you could deal with all of what I wrote. Proof doesn't mean no investigation. One must get full evidence, scope of the crime, exact charge(s) and accomplices and give due process.

And it ought to be clear i do not agree with tbe premises of the op as i showed the author misquoted the cia oath. Right?

 

[bilby]

Whether a given 'proof' will stand up in court is unknown until it is tested in court.

It is common for investigators to take plenty of time to test their proof before going to court, in the hope of spotting any flaws before the defence does, and finding the appropriate evidence or argument to eliminate those flaws.

Nevertheless, proof beyond reasonable doubt is often not achieved by prosecutors, despite their belief prior to the trial that they have a watertight case.

Only someone completely unfamiliar with how trials work in an adversarial legal system would expect a prosecutor to go to court as soon as they have what they consider to be positive proof against the defendant.

Experienced prosecutors take their time, to ensure the best possible chance of a conviction. Rushing to trial because you think you have proof that the defendant is guilty is a good way to lose cases on technicalities, or through evidence that the judge or jury does not find as compelling as you do.

What's the rush? Slow and steady wins the case.

 

[dismal]

Whether a given 'proof' will stand up in court is unknown until it is tested in court.

It is common for investigators to take plenty of time to test their proof before going to court, in the hope of spotting any flaws before the defence does, and finding the appropriate evidence or argument to eliminate those flaws.

Nevertheless, proof beyond reasonable doubt is often not achieved by prosecutors, despite their belief prior to the trial that they have a watertight case.

Only someone completely unfamiliar with how trials work in an adversarial legal system would expect a prosecutor to go to court as soon as they have what they consider to be positive proof against the defendant.

Experienced prosecutors take their time, to ensure the best possible chance of a conviction. Rushing to trial because you think you have proof that the defendant is guilty is a good way to lose cases on technicalities, or through evidence that the judge or jury does not find as compelling as you do.

What's the rush? Slow and steady wins the case.

Maybe you could start another thread that discusses different levels of proof.

This thread was started to discuss what would happen if the intelligence community had certain proof.

That Trump was an evil traitor, if I recall correctly. Sorry, "treasonous villain".

It seems to me if you're an Obama administration intelligence official sitting on certain proof Trump is a traitor some harm could come from taking the "slow and steady" approach -- which allows Trump to become President.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Whether a given 'proof' will stand up in court is unknown until it is tested in court.

It is common for investigators to take plenty of time to test their proof before going to court, in the hope of spotting any flaws before the defence does, and finding the appropriate evidence or argument to eliminate those flaws.

Nevertheless, proof beyond reasonable doubt is often not achieved by prosecutors, despite their belief prior to the trial that they have a watertight case.

Only someone completely unfamiliar with how trials work in an adversarial legal system would expect a prosecutor to go to court as soon as they have what they consider to be positive proof against the defendant.

Experienced prosecutors take their time, to ensure the best possible chance of a conviction. Rushing to trial because you think you have proof that the defendant is guilty is a good way to lose cases on technicalities, or through evidence that the judge or jury does not find as compelling as you do.

What's the rush? Slow and steady wins the case.

Maybe you could start another thread that discusses different levels of proof.

This thread was started to discuss what would happen if the intelligence community had certain proof.

The fuck it was. You are taking two words out of context of the op.

RVonse used premises to reach an intermediate conclusion that the NSA and CIA would have proof--a vague term. That entire argument can be explored and challenged.

He then used such vague intermediate conclusion to discuss the reality of the current investigation and "Pelosi." This makes it a near reality in his mind, not a hypothetical.

Reading comprehension fail on your part.

So here he is at the end mapping such things back to reality:

Im just asking because none of it adds up to me.

How can anyone (including the democrats and Nancy Pelosi) possibly believe the Russia scandal is real? The NSA would have had him in irons before he even took the oath of office if a Russia threat was real wouldnt they? What am I missing here?

He's not asking a hypothetical question. He's making a large multi-part argument. With questions at the end that are either honest because he wants to know where his premises and arguments fail in the entire process OR they are rhetorical. He claims it's an "honest" question and so a dutiful reader will tell him everywhere he is significantly wrong. Not pretend everything is correct up to the last reality-based question.

ETA: Can someone else please explain to dismal his error?

 

[ZiprHead]

ETA: Can someone else please explain to dismal his error?

This is a joke, right?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

ETA: Can someone else please explain to dismal his error?

This is a joke, right?

No, I'm just lazy.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The tool I was using to copy it encrypted it in transit.

Geesh, some people are sensitive about their ‘encrypted data’.

There's nothing in there I care if someone could read. However, such tools are usually built with encryption because sometimes you're moving sensitive stuff.

 

[bilby]

ETA: Can someone else please explain to dismal his error?

This is a joke, right?

No, I'm just lazy.

A refusal to attempt the impossible isn't laziness.

Indeed I prefer to be given impossible goals, because you can achieve the optimum possible result with zero effort.

 

[Testy Calibrate]

Through Julian Assange we know virtually every form of electronic communications is bugged by the NSA. Even this post I am writing today will be stored by the government somewhere. We've known this for at least 6 years and long before Trump took office

So the NSA almost certainly has records and proof certain of any wrongdoing Trump may have been involved.

So here is what I dont get. Isn't the main charter of the NSA, CIA, etc to protect the nation from all enemies both foreign and domestic? And wouldn't the director of those same organizations know about the Trump Russia probe by now? If Trump was an evil treasonous villian that his enemies claim.... why would not one of these organizations do something about it? In order to protect the nation and fulfill their purpose for existing?

Im just asking because none of it adds up to me.

How can anyone (including the democrats and Nancy Pelosi) possibly believe the Russia scandal is real? The NSA would have had him in irons before he even took the oath of office if a Russia threat was real wouldnt they? What am I missing here?

They don't store the content. They store the social network analysis info which is actually more important. Who it's from and to. The resulting map has more info than the content which would be impossible for humans to read because of volume.