An honest question for legal and constitution minded

[dismal]

He's not asking a hypothetical question.

So it's your belief that RVonse knows for a fact that the NSA has certain proof that Trump is a traitorous villain?

It seemed like more of a hypothesis to me.

Which of your many standards of proof would you use to describe the level of proof RVonse has about what the NSA knows?

Certain proof?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

He's not asking a hypothetical question.

So it's your belief that RVonse knows for a fact that the NSA has certain proof that Trump is a traitorous villain?

It seemed like more of a hypothesis to me.

Which of your many standards of proof would you use to describe the level of proof RVonse has about what the NSA knows?

Certain proof?

Hey Snippy McSnipplestein, if it's a hypothetical, then why does he bring it back to real questions about current reality while using it as an accepted premise? Does he think everyone operates on hypotheticals? As for "certain proof," I will go with mathematical proof which you can't submit as your entire case in court but it could be the framework of your prosecutorial argument. Any way, the NSA and CIA may have some sparse evidence of various contacts. The DOJ may have some others based on FISA warrants. Not all of the communications were electronic as a lot were in-person as well.

 

[dismal]

He's not asking a hypothetical question.

So it's your belief that RVonse knows for a fact that the NSA has certain proof that Trump is a traitorous villain?

It seemed like more of a hypothesis to me.

Which of your many standards of proof would you use to describe the level of proof RVonse has about what the NSA knows?

Certain proof?

Hey Snippy McSnipplestein, if it's a hypothetical, then why does he bring it back to real questions about current reality while using it as an accepted premise? Does he think everyone operates on hypotheticals? As for "certain proof," I will go with mathematical proof which you can't submit as your entire case in court but it could be the framework of your prosecutorial argument. Any way, the NSA and CIA may have some sparse evidence of various contacts. The DOJ may have some others based on FISA warrants. Not all of the communications were electronic as a lot were in-person as well.

What do you think a discussion about hypotheticals entails? You state a hypotheses and then ask questions about what would transpire or how people would behave if the hypothesis were true. RVonse notes examples of how certain people are not acting consistently with the hypothesis.

 

[Malintent]

Im just asking because none of it adds up to me....What am I missing here?

You are missing that there are laws that protect citizens from persecution. These laws are intended to ensure only the guilty are penalized. the result is that it takes time to properly conduct an investigation and determine results.
You are also missing that it takes a long time to perform a criminal investigation, especially a complicated financial / political one.

The group of people that tore after Bill Clinton for a financial fraud concern in Alabama, took 4 years to get to a point where they had collected enough evidence to charge him with lying to federal prosecutors over receiving a blowjob.

That bares repeating... IT TOOK 4 YEARS TO INDICT CLINTON Where were the republicans crying that after 3 months the investigation should have been ended as just a "witch hunt".

The pitiful excuses coming out of the Whitehouse are so poor that they could only appeal to the most uneducated, willfully ignorant fools. Which unfortunately is about 30% of the US... and in politics, that can be teased into an electoral college victory, using gerrymandering to get around small populations of sanity, and social media that lacks the same controls network television has, so underhanded things can be gotten away with.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Im just asking because none of it adds up to me....What am I missing here?

You are missing that there are laws that protect citizens from persecution. These laws are intended to ensure only the guilty are penalized. the result is that it takes time to properly conduct an investigation and determine results.
You are also missing that it takes a long time to perform a criminal investigation, especially a complicated financial / political one.

The group of people that tore after Bill Clinton for a financial fraud concern in Alabama, took 4 years to get to a point where they had collected enough evidence to charge him with lying to federal prosecutors over receiving a blowjob.

That bares repeating... IT TOOK 4 YEARS TO INDICT CLINTON Where were the republicans crying that after 3 months the investigation should have been ended as just a "witch hunt".

The pitiful excuses coming out of the Whitehouse are so poor that they could only appeal to the most uneducated, willfully ignorant fools. Which unfortunately is about 30% of the US... and in politics, that can be teased into an electoral college victory, using gerrymandering to get around small populations of sanity, and social media that lacks the same controls network television has, so underhanded things can be gotten away with.

And the indictment came about from testimony to the Grand Jury... ie during the investigation.

Mueller has already two under indictment and at least two plea deals (maybe at least three based on Gates behind the scene action). And among them, three members of Trump's campaign...

...and we hear it is a witch hunt. Based on the results, Mueller is finding plenty of witches.

The GOP wants to kill the investigation that has already made indictments and won guilty plea deals. Yeah, nothing but a witch hunt.

 

[coloradoatheist]

With the recent school shooting, wouldn't it be better if the NSA was spying to find this information?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Hey Snippy McSnipplestein, if it's a hypothetical, then why does he bring it back to real questions about current reality while using it as an accepted premise? Does he think everyone operates on hypotheticals? As for "certain proof," I will go with mathematical proof which you can't submit as your entire case in court but it could be the framework of your prosecutorial argument. Any way, the NSA and CIA may have some sparse evidence of various contacts. The DOJ may have some others based on FISA warrants. Not all of the communications were electronic as a lot were in-person as well.

What do you think a discussion about hypotheticals entails? You state a hypotheses and then ask questions about what would transpire or how people would behave if the hypothesis were true. RVonse notes examples of how certain people are not acting consistently with the hypothesis.

Then the hypothesis may be wrong but you implied it can't be challenged, right?

 

[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

In case the reader is paying attention, dismal is linking two similarly sounding words together. First, he gets after people saying it's a hypothetical so it can't be challenged. Later, he switches to say it's a hypothesis.

What will he post next? Stay tuned...