At this point, does collusion even matter?

[whichphilosophy]

Believing has nothing to do with it. Whether what you say is correct, bears no worth unless there is evidence containing, times places, sequence of events and how they took place. .

So stop pretending that you know there is no evidence. Duh!

There is always evidence, documents, statements phone records, emails but whether this is of use to support a prosecution is another matter.

I have said there is no evidence presented to support the statements.

 

[Elixir]

So stop pretending that you know there is no evidence. Duh!

there is no evidence presented to me to support the statements.

FIFY.

 

[KeepTalking]

Yes, but you do this on a grand jury or arraignment hearing, after you have the person in handcuffs. Generally speaking you release as little evidence as possible to the public before doing this. You certainly don't give whichphilosophy a call to make sure he is aware of the evidence before arresting the suspect, and placing them in handcuffs.

My point is there is insufficient evidence to get to this point.

My point is that you don't know whether there is sufficient evidence to get to this point, or not, because you are not involved in the investigation. Those involved in then investigation are not going to release the evidence publicly until after they have made arrests.

 

[Elixir]

My point is there is insufficient evidence to get to this point.

My point is that you don't know whether there is sufficient evidence to get to this point, or not, because you are not involved in the investigation. Those involved in then investigation are not going to release the evidence publicly until after they have made arrests.

I have a feeling that your point went over his head. Just a feeling.... based on the hundred or so times I've pointed it out when he confuses what he knows with what is known, and he was unable to grasp the concept.

 

[KeepTalking]

My point is that you don't know whether there is sufficient evidence to get to this point, or not, because you are not involved in the investigation. Those involved in then investigation are not going to release the evidence publicly until after they have made arrests.

I have a feeling that your point went over his head. Just a feeling.... based on the hundred or so times I've pointed it out when he confuses what he knows with what is known, and he was unable to grasp the concept.

Must be one of those Thetans getting in the way of understanding. Nothing a few thousand dollars and another course or two wont fix.

 

[whichphilosophy]

there is no evidence presented to me to support the statements.

FIFY.

So what evidence am I missing?

 

[bleubird]

Rudy Giuliani is in this mess now?

 

[whichphilosophy]

I have a feeling that your point went over his head. Just a feeling.... based on the hundred or so times I've pointed it out when he confuses what he knows with what is known, and he was unable to grasp the concept.

Must be one of those Thetans getting in the way of understanding. Nothing a few thousand dollars and another course or two wont fix.

So here are some elements of a proper investigation where it is important to build up a case.


1. Examine all data received to formulate a theory for investigation
2. The investigator should know at what stages and levels of the investigations what evidence is required to build proof of allegations and suspicions. This is where many investigations are not conducted thoroughly/
3. Test it against the available facts and revise the theory where necessary as new data is received.
4. Exclude but keep available untested theories or unsupported statements and allegations.
5. Continue to analyse, refine and amend to the point that a theoretical model can be constructed.

There are a whole load of points before and a load afterwards. I believe the investigation is falling down on point 2.

 

[whichphilosophy]

My point is that you don't know whether there is sufficient evidence to get to this point, or not, because you are not involved in the investigation. Those involved in then investigation are not going to release the evidence publicly until after they have made arrests.

I have a feeling that your point went over his head. Just a feeling.... based on the hundred or so times I've pointed it out when he confuses what he knows with what is known, and he was unable to grasp the concept.

My point is in the post above. The investigation seems stalled at point 2. Whether the allegations are right or wrong cannot be established so easily as a result.

 

[KeepTalking]

Must be one of those Thetans getting in the way of understanding. Nothing a few thousand dollars and another course or two wont fix.

So here are some elements of a proper investigation where it is important to build up a case.


1. Examine all data received to formulate a theory for investigation
2. The investigator should know at what stages and levels of the investigations what evidence is required to build proof of allegations and suspicions. This is where many investigations are not conducted thoroughly/
3. Test it against the available facts and revise the theory where necessary as new data is received.
4. Exclude but keep available untested theories or unsupported statements and allegations.
5. Continue to analyse, refine and amend to the point that a theoretical model can be constructed.

There are a whole load of points before and a load afterwards. I believe the investigation is falling down on point 2.

So, one of the elements of a proper investigation isn't "immediately inform whichphilisophy of any and all evidence uncovered during the investigation"? Or did you just forget to include that bullet point?

 

[Opoponax]

So, one of the elements of a proper investigation isn't "immediately inform whichphilisophy of any and all evidence uncovered during the investigation"? Or did you just forget to include that bullet point?

There's also the "Must be presented within one news cycle or its false" bullet point that was missing.

 

[Elixir]

FIFY.

So what evidence am I missing?

I'd guess ... pretty much all of it. Just like everyone else who isn't part of the investigation.

 

[whichphilosophy]

So here are some elements of a proper investigation where it is important to build up a case.


1. Examine all data received to formulate a theory for investigation
2. The investigator should know at what stages and levels of the investigations what evidence is required to build proof of allegations and suspicions. This is where many investigations are not conducted thoroughly/
3. Test it against the available facts and revise the theory where necessary as new data is received.
4. Exclude but keep available untested theories or unsupported statements and allegations.
5. Continue to analyse, refine and amend to the point that a theoretical model can be constructed.

There are a whole load of points before and a load afterwards. I believe the investigation is falling down on point 2.

So, one of the elements of a proper investigation isn't "immediately inform whichphilisophy of any and all evidence uncovered during the investigation"? Or did you just forget to include that bullet point?

I didn't say that. There is a point where you must involve people in an investigation by questioning them. The questions asked will be drawn upon not only theories but available evidence. This can happen after between point 2 and 4 depending on the nature of the case.

If point 3 and 4 had been completed, then there could be a fledgling framework for a case to build.

Conflicts of interest and corruption will in all instances entail a satisfactory reciprocal relationship between the parties.

For this reason this is extremely difficult to investigate and prove in a court of course or an investigation. This supports the prescription I wrote above.

While it is essential an investigation into the government should be independent of the government control, pandering to the media before it has formulated what it hopes is a secure model concept of what appears to have taken place is just as foolish.

 

[whichphilosophy]

So what evidence am I missing?

I'd guess ... pretty much all of it. Just like everyone else who isn't part of the investigation.

Not relevant. See my reply above.

 

[whichphilosophy]

So here are some elements of a proper investigation where it is important to build up a case.


1. Examine all data received to formulate a theory for investigation
2. The investigator should know at what stages and levels of the investigations what evidence is required to build proof of allegations and suspicions. This is where many investigations are not conducted thoroughly/
3. Test it against the available facts and revise the theory where necessary as new data is received.
4. Exclude but keep available untested theories or unsupported statements and allegations.
5. Continue to analyse, refine and amend to the point that a theoretical model can be constructed.

There are a whole load of points before and a load afterwards. I believe the investigation is falling down on point 2.

So, one of the elements of a proper investigation isn't "immediately inform whichphilisophy of any and all evidence uncovered during the investigation"? Or did you just forget to include that bullet point?

See my reply but in reality investigations include a lot of digging and prodding to prise out bits and pieces here and to link a series of events and reciprocation that could involve several documents. For this reason claiming there is credible evidence without proof is poor investigation practice.

 

[Elixir]

So, one of the elements of a proper investigation isn't "immediately inform whichphilisophy of any and all evidence uncovered during the investigation"? Or did you just forget to include that bullet point?

See my reply but in reality investigations include a lot of digging and prodding to prise out bits and pieces here and to link a series of events and reciprocation that could involve several documents. For this reason claiming there is credible evidence without proof is poor investigation practice.

Reportedly there has been CONSIDERABLE digging and prodding to prise out bits and pieces here and to link a series of events and reciprocation, and it involves THOUSANDS of documents.
Why you think that your unawareness of any of it lends credence to the statement "there is no evidence", is a matter for your psychologist.

 

[whichphilosophy]

See my reply but in reality investigations include a lot of digging and prodding to prise out bits and pieces here and to link a series of events and reciprocation that could involve several documents. For this reason claiming there is credible evidence without proof is poor investigation practice.

Reportedly there has been CONSIDERABLE digging and prodding to prise out bits and pieces here and to link a series of events and reciprocation, and it involves THOUSANDS of documents.
Why you think that your unawareness of any of it lends credence to the statement "there is no evidence", is a matter for your psychologist.

It's poor investigation practice to issue claims to the press when there is no model structure of the alleged crime as established by points 3, 4 and possibly 5.
The theory of Trump being owned by Russia was not only substantiated but contradicted by the fact Trump went into direct conflict with Russia.

 

[blastula]

What statements to press?

The theory of Trump being owned by Russia was not only substantiated but contradicted by the fact Trump went into direct conflict with Russia.

False.

 

[whichphilosophy]

See my reply but in reality investigations include a lot of digging and prodding to prise out bits and pieces here and to link a series of events and reciprocation that could involve several documents. For this reason claiming there is credible evidence without proof is poor investigation practice.

Reportedly there has been CONSIDERABLE digging and prodding to prise out bits and pieces here and to link a series of events and reciprocation, and it involves THOUSANDS of documents.
Why you think that your unawareness of any of it lends credence to the statement "there is no evidence", is a matter for your psychologist.

The fact there is digging isn't in dispute. I believe they may have rooms full of this but the evidence they need is to support the premise, hence are bogged at point between 2 and 5. To that degree there is no evidence, something tangible that is useful to proceed further.

- - - Updated - - -

What statements to press?

The theory of Trump being owned by Russia was not only substantiated but contradicted by the fact Trump went into direct conflict with Russia.

False.

Are you saying Putin's bitch bit him However this action does put into doubt the assumption that Trump is owned by Putin. Bear in mind that assumption is still not substantiated.

Whether collusion did exist between Trump and Putin is not the issue in that evidence to show this was never produced and this escapade makes the likelihood less likely from a logical basis.

 

[Elixir]

Reportedly there has been CONSIDERABLE digging and prodding to prise out bits and pieces here and to link a series of events and reciprocation, and it involves THOUSANDS of documents.
Why you think that your unawareness of any of it lends credence to the statement "there is no evidence", is a matter for your psychologist.

The fact there is digging isn't in dispute. I believe they may have rooms full of this but the evidence they need is to support the premise, hence are bogged at point between 2 and 5. To that degree there is no evidence, something tangible that is useful to proceed further.

- - - Updated - - -

What statements to press?

The theory of Trump being owned by Russia was not only substantiated but contradicted by the fact Trump went into direct conflict with Russia.

False.

Are you saying Putin's bitch bit him

Nah - the bitch wouldn't dare.

Vlad: "Hey Bashar, I got an idea that can help us both"
Asshat: "Oh? Do tell!"
Vlad: "So you wanna terrorize some more people into submission, right?"
Asshat: "Of course!"
Vlad: "And I want to get the heat off my little American Happy Meal so he can do us some favors. So here's the deal - you go gas some people. Not too many, but enough to grab the news cycle and terrorize them a bit more. I'll let my little bitch know it's okay to bomb something in retaliation - you pick, I'll let him know when you're good to go. He sends in some bombs or missiles - whichever you prefer. The idiot Americans will call hm a brave hero for doing that - God knows his ratings need help. I'll act all upset about it, and the American fools will think we're having a little spat, so they're stop looking at this collusion thing, right? Then they'll think he's a great statesman when the time comes to 'patch things up' with a nice sweet oil deal!"
Asshat: "Brilliant!"