At this point, does collusion even matter?

[barbos]

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!"

I still don't see how it benefits Putin or even "Asshat".
I do remember that just before gas attack happened US bombs killed 400 civilians in Mosul though.
I don't generally believe in conspiracies but if you do then this is a good one to consider.

 

[whichphilosophy]

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!"

What you say could be feasible, though the suggestion is really a grasping at straws after Trump's action in Syria threw his opponents into disarray but he did get a clap from McCain (who knows maybe more under the bedsheets

The formula I provided may assist to obtain a basis in fact. I'm not saying what you suggest did not happen. Also when investigating the most outlandish theories can sometimes hit gold. This is why I believe that disparity in views is more healthy than total agreement each time of course.

 

[KeepTalking]

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.

What you keep saying is that there is no evidence, which is something you could not possibly know without being involved in the investigation. At best you can say "I have seen no credible evidence", in which case few here would disagree with you. This is why we keep calling your bullshit when you positively state that there is no evidence.

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.

It is every bit as foolish to state unequivocally that there is no evidence when you are not a part of the investigation, and the investigation has not concluded.

 

[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.

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.

I have no clue what you're trying to say, but neither do you.

And you still haven't explained your comment about claims to the press.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I didn't say that.

What you keep saying is that there is no evidence, which is something you could not possibly know without being involved in the investigation. At best you can say "I have seen no credible evidence", in which case few here would disagree with you. This is why we keep calling your bullshit when you positively state that there is no evidence.

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.

It is every bit as foolish to state unequivocally that there is no evidence when you are not a part of the investigation, and the investigation has not concluded.

I am using the legal definition of EVIDENCE, which differs from the standard one and for convenience I cut and pasted this here:

Information drawn from personal testimony, a document, or a material object, used to establish facts in a legal investigation or admissible as testimony in a law court. ‘without evidence, they can't bring a charge’

For a comprehensive meaning
http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=671

For phrases using evidence

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=520

direct evidence
n. real, tangible or clear evidence of a fact, happening or thing that requires no thinking or consideration to prove its existence, as compared to circumstantial evidence.

A pile of evidence that does not produce a clear case cannot be regarded as indefeasible, hence is insufficient to charge someone.
Reasoning in accordance to our principles of justice where one is innocent until proven guilty, is hardly foolish.

Making public accusations before an investigation has been concluded or where the line of such is shown is not the way we should administer justice for anyone. Hence we have the story of the 'Boy who cried Wolf.' He shouted Wolf but no wolf appeared.

So since I am highlighting our proper way of doing things in accordance to proper legal practice, I am simply the humble postman

 

[Opoponax]

What you keep saying is that there is no evidence, which is something you could not possibly know without being involved in the investigation. At best you can say "I have seen no credible evidence", in which case few here would disagree with you. This is why we keep calling your bullshit when you positively state that there is no evidence.

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.

It is every bit as foolish to state unequivocally that there is no evidence when you are not a part of the investigation, and the investigation has not concluded.

I am using the legal definition of EVIDENCE, which differs from the standard one and for convenience I cut and pasted this here:

Information drawn from personal testimony, a document, or a material object, used to establish facts in a legal investigation or admissible as testimony in a law court. ‘without evidence, they can't bring a charge’

For a comprehensive meaning
http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=671

For phrases using evidence

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=520

direct evidence
n. real, tangible or clear evidence of a fact, happening or thing that requires no thinking or consideration to prove its existence, as compared to circumstantial evidence.

A pile of evidence that does not produce a clear case cannot be regarded as indefeasible, hence is insufficient to charge someone.
Reasoning in accordance to our principles of justice where one is innocent until proven guilty, is hardly foolish.

Making public accusations before an investigation has been concluded or where the line of such is shown is not the way we should administer justice for anyone. Hence we have the story of the 'Boy who cried Wolf.' He shouted Wolf but no wolf appeared.

So since I am highlighting our proper way of doing things in accordance to proper legal practice, I am simply the humble postman

We don't know what all the evidence is yet. So you can whip out definitions all day, but you're failing to understand the process of discovery. Discovery takes time. No one goes to court and tells the judge they're ready to argue their case when there's months of discovery left to do.

In this case though, the facts indicate that discovery is being hampered, as was evidenced by the fact of Devin Nunes's monkey business and subsequent recusal as well as the GOP dragging its feet on the whole matter.

So we don't have all the evidence yet, but we're not supposed to because discovery isn't complete and because the discovery process has been fucked with.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So since I am highlighting our proper way of doing things in accordance to proper legal practice, I am simply the humble postman

Except you're not.
You CAN say that 'evidence has not been shown to me' with a lot more justification than you can say 'there is no evidence.'

Because "our proper way of doing things in accordance to proper legal practice" does not include the prosecution publishing all their evidence before they finish collecting evidence.

 

[Elixir]

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!"

I still don't see how it benefits Putin or even "Asshat".

Of course you don't, little one. Of course you don't.

 

[PyramidHead]

whichphilosophy, have you encountered the concept of time before? It explains why things don't all happen right now, all at once. In particular, there are things that have not yet happened, about which we know very little. I submit that the public disclosure of all the evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia is one such future event. You might be under the impression that there is no evidence because, after all, it's not in front of your face right now. Do not despair: armed with the conceptual tool known as 'time', you can now grasp that not all things are taking place right now. Many things, perhaps an infinite number of them, have already happened, but that's just one of at least two ways that things may not be happening right now in front of your face. The other, as I alluded to before, is the idea that it might happen at a later date, and when it does, it might not even be in front of your face. It could be somewhere you can't even see, and then you'd never know about it. To appreciate this latter point, you'll also need to bone up on the notion of space. Good luck in your research.

 

[Elixir]

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!"

I still don't see how it benefits Putin or even "Asshat".

Of course you don't, little one. Of course you don't.

But... funny you should ask:

Exxon Seeks U.S. Waiver to Resume Russia Oil Venture
Exxon Mobil applied to Treasury for exemption to resume venture with Rosneft forged in 2012 by Rex Tillerson

This could never have happened without greater outcry had Uncle Vlad not helped Cheato assuage fears of his Russian bitchhood.

 

[whichphilosophy]

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!"

I still don't see how it benefits Putin or even "Asshat".

Of course you don't, little one. Of course you don't.

But... funny you should ask:

Exxon Seeks U.S. Waiver to Resume Russia Oil Venture
Exxon Mobil applied to Treasury for exemption to resume venture with Rosneft forged in 2012 by Rex Tillerson

This could never have happened without greater outcry had Uncle Vlad not helped Cheato assuage fears of his Russian bitchhood.

The US and Russia are regular trading partners though recently this declined. The problem throughout is the US imports more from Russia than it exports.

https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c4621.html

 

[Elixir]

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!"

I still don't see how it benefits Putin or even "Asshat".

Of course you don't, little one. Of course you don't.

But... funny you should ask:

Exxon Seeks U.S. Waiver to Resume Russia Oil Venture
Exxon Mobil applied to Treasury for exemption to resume venture with Rosneft forged in 2012 by Rex Tillerson

This could never have happened without greater outcry had Uncle Vlad not helped Cheato assuage fears of his Russian bitchhood.

The US and Russia are regular trading partners

Ah, so - nothing to look at here... move right along.
Fat chance. And you ignored that this was a response to our resident ruski's pretense to not know how Vlad, Bashar and Cheato all benefited from the US "attack" in Syria.
But deflect, divert and distract are all you can do when you can't mount a rational argument.

 

[barbos]

With all this manufactured hysteria I wonder what contacts with foreigners Clinton Campaign had?
I remember Ukrainian nationals running around Hillary, does that warrant investigation or it's only about Russia?
What about Israel? or even foreigners from EU? Do they warrant investigation? Saudi Arabia?

 

[blastula]

With all this manufactured hysteria I wonder what contacts with foreigners Clinton Campaign had?
I remember Ukrainian nationals running around Hillary, does that warrant investigation or it's only about Russia?
What about Israel? or even foreigners from EU? Do they warrant investigation? Saudi Arabia?

Sure, if they also may have made deals over cyberattacks on the US.

 

[barbos]

With all this manufactured hysteria I wonder what contacts with foreigners Clinton Campaign had?
I remember Ukrainian nationals running around Hillary, does that warrant investigation or it's only about Russia?
What about Israel? or even foreigners from EU? Do they warrant investigation? Saudi Arabia?

Sure, if they also may have made deals over cyberattacks on the US.

How do you know they did not? You need an investigation to know.

 

[blastula]

If you have any information that merits further investigation, call Comey.

 

[barbos]

If you have any information that merits further investigation, call Comey.

That would be violation of the law cause I am not an american. It is probably illegal for me to talk to you

 

[blastula]

Just don't lie to the FBI later that we never met.

 

[barbos]

Just don't lie to the FBI later that we never met.

I wonder how paranoid FBI and other three lettter agencies are. I know russian ones are still or already pretty paranoid. I would hate to you cause you troubles with the FBI.

 

[whichphilosophy]

What you keep saying is that there is no evidence, which is something you could not possibly know without being involved in the investigation. At best you can say "I have seen no credible evidence", in which case few here would disagree with you. This is why we keep calling your bullshit when you positively state that there is no evidence.

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.

It is every bit as foolish to state unequivocally that there is no evidence when you are not a part of the investigation, and the investigation has not concluded.

I am using the legal definition of EVIDENCE, which differs from the standard one and for convenience I cut and pasted this here:

Information drawn from personal testimony, a document, or a material object, used to establish facts in a legal investigation or admissible as testimony in a law court. ‘without evidence, they can't bring a charge’

For a comprehensive meaning
http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=671

For phrases using evidence

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=520

direct evidence
n. real, tangible or clear evidence of a fact, happening or thing that requires no thinking or consideration to prove its existence, as compared to circumstantial evidence.

A pile of evidence that does not produce a clear case cannot be regarded as indefeasible, hence is insufficient to charge someone.
Reasoning in accordance to our principles of justice where one is innocent until proven guilty, is hardly foolish.

Making public accusations before an investigation has been concluded or where the line of such is shown is not the way we should administer justice for anyone. Hence we have the story of the 'Boy who cried Wolf.' He shouted Wolf but no wolf appeared.

So since I am highlighting our proper way of doing things in accordance to proper legal practice, I am simply the humble postman

We don't know what all the evidence is yet. So you can whip out definitions all day, but you're failing to understand the process of discovery. Discovery takes time. No one goes to court and tells the judge they're ready to argue their case when there's months of discovery left to do.

In this case though, the facts indicate that discovery is being hampered, as was evidenced by the fact of Devin Nunes's monkey business and subsequent recusal as well as the GOP dragging its feet on the whole matter.

So we don't have all the evidence yet, but we're not supposed to because discovery isn't complete and because the discovery process has been fucked with.

So until the evidence is known and there is sufficient to proceed further in the investigation we cannot make and conclusions.