At this point, does collusion even matter?

[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

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.

If you want to know Tillerson's history of dealing with Russia as CEO of EXXON, it's widely reported in the Media.
The stupidity of this was the imposition of sanctions on Russia in the first place.

http://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2016/12/14/13940866/trump-rex-tillerson-sanctions-russia

Exxon, the world’s largest oil company, has long had its eye on Russia’s vast oil and gas deposits. Between 2011 and 2013, Exxon signed a series of deals with the Russian state-owned oil giant Rosneft to explore the Black Sea, develop shale resources in western Siberia, and — most importantly — drill for oil in the Arctic, one of the biggest untapped fossil fuel resources left in the world.

For Exxon, which famously missed out on the massive US fracking boom, these deals were crucial for the company’s future. “Arctic oil in particular would’ve been a game changer for Exxon,” says Fadel Gheit, an oil analyst at Oppenheimer & Co. The company hoped this would be a decades-long investment worth many billions.

But Exxon’s Arctic dreams fell apart in 2014, after the Obama administration slapped sanctions on Russia’s oil industry over Russian incursions into Ukraine. Despite having just made a tantalizing oil discovery in the Kara Sea, Exxon was forced to stop work — and exploration in the Russian Arctic has been on hold ever since.

It looks like sanctions were an example of the US cutting its nose off to spite its face.


Anyway there is also a possibility that China will look at working with the Russians. The likely companies are CNPC, Sinopec and the main contractors would be CPECC (Contractors) and possibly CNOOC (Mostly offshore). CNPC doesn't need to borrow for any start ups.
I met one international accountant who advised CNPC has US$1 trillion in its account (while officially this was supposed to be US$800m)
It employs around one million staff. It is already operating world wide and in difficult locations such as Iraq and Sudan. It has present and past partnerships with ONGC, Petronas, BP, Petrobas, SUDAPET, in Africa, Latin America and the Middle East as well as own operations in China.

I worked for several years in China and CNPC and its overseas subsidiary CNPCC can rapidly set up anywhere in the world.

They will be very happy if US sanctions remain because of Obama's ideology

 

[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.

If you want to know Tillerson's history of dealing with Russia as CEO of EXXON, it's widely reported in the Media.

Thank you for that invaluable information. </facetious>
I give up. It's not worth trying to educate someone who doesn't want to learn. I'll leave you with this thought:

How do you know the moon is not made of green cheese?

 

[funinspace]

How do you know the moon is not made of green cheese?

It is clearly not green.

 

[Playball40]

Bleu cheese isn't blue either.

How do you know the moon is not made of green cheese?

It is clearly not green.

 

[Elixir]

How do you know the moon is not made of green cheese?

It is clearly not green.

Evidence please.
"there is no evidence"
-WP

 

[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

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.

If you want to know Tillerson's history of dealing with Russia as CEO of EXXON, it's widely reported in the Media.

Thank you for that invaluable information. </facetious>
I give up. It's not worth trying to educate someone who doesn't want to learn. I'll leave you with this thought:

How do you know the moon is not made of green cheese?

That's my point. The 'investigators' are not following the correct procedure where they expect people to disprove a negative.

 

[Elixir]

The 'investigators' are not following the correct procedure where they expect people to disprove a negative.

Q: How do YOU know?
A: You don't.

I have positive evidence that the moon is not made of green cheese. You don't.
Go ahead, ask me how I know.

 

[blastula]

What fevered delusion is he talking about now?

 

[whichphilosophy]

It is clearly not green.

Evidence please.
"there is no evidence"
-WP

Samples taken from the Moon have not provided indications of green cheese, or how this could possibly have been formed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_17_lunar_sample_display

See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_basalt_70017

The team landed on the moon and obtained samples.
The likelihood of cheese of any colour is very slim since the probably of cows as we know them surviving on the moon is remote due to a lack of vegetation and oxygen.

However the burden of proof is generally placed upon the person asserting to provide evidence of a claim (green cheese on the moon).

 

[whichphilosophy]

The 'investigators' are not following the correct procedure where they expect people to disprove a negative.

Q: How do YOU know?
A: You don't.

I have positive evidence that the moon is not made of green cheese. You don't.
Go ahead, ask me how I know.

I have reliable evidence that it is not made of green cheese as quoted above.

 

[Elixir]

What fevered delusion is he talking about now?

I think it's some kind of disorder, likely related to superstitious beliefs in a faux-religion.
But let's take it at face value...
I "know" that the moon is not made of green cheese, because I know it is made of other material. I have inspected a moon rock. Of course I didn't go to the moon, and neither did my friend who has that moon rock. But Gene Cernan, R.I.P. (reportedly) did, and my friend was his life-long friend and was his roommate in carrier flight school. (I only met Eugene once briefly, and didn't actually SEE him gather the rock that I inspected.)
So sure - If I was determined to deny that the moon is made of something other than green cheese, I could be WP, and disbelieve my own eyes and ears, my friend, his friend and the entire scientific community and claim "there is no evidence". But to do that, I'd have to be afflicted with something similar to whatever effects our pro-Russia friend.

- - - Updated - - -

Q: How do YOU know?
A: You don't.

I have positive evidence that the moon is not made of green cheese. You don't.
Go ahead, ask me how I know.

I have reliable evidence that it is not made of green cheese as quoted above.

Let's see it, WP. You have presented no evidence. Taking your word for it would be like taking the FBI's word that there is direct and corroborative evidence of collusion between Cheato's campaign and Russia's attempt to sway the US election. Well, except for the fact that the FBI has some credibility and you ... not so much.

 

[Elixir]

Evidence please.
"there is no evidence"
-WP

Samples taken from the Moon have not provided indications of green cheese

Have YOU been to the moon? NO. You simply believe what "they" tell you. Why is that?

The team landed on the moon and obtained samples.

Were you THERE?

The likelihood of cheese of any colour is very slim since the probably of cows as we know them surviving on the moon is remote due to a lack of vegetation and oxygen.

While I tend to agree, again you have no direct evidence - you're just believing what "they" tell you.

However the burden of proof is generally placed upon the person asserting to provide evidence of a claim (green cheese on the moon).

Or "the composition of the lunar surface by weight is roughly 43 percent oxygen, 20 percent silicon, 19 percent magnesium, 10 percent iron, 3 percent calcium, 3 percent aluminum, 0.42 percent chromium, 0.18 percent titanium and 0.12 percent manganese."

Let's see the EVIDENCE WP!
I'll warrant that you could provide more "evidence" for the existence of Xenu.
The real question is "why the double standard?" You are more than willing to take the word of the people most likely to know about the composition of the moon, but not the word of those most likely to know how Cheato's campaign colluded with the Russians. Could it be that you WISH to believe the moon experts, but WISH to disbelieve the collusion experts?

 

[whichphilosophy]

Samples taken from the Moon have not provided indications of green cheese

Have YOU been to the moon? NO. You simply believe what "they" tell you. Why is that?

The team landed on the moon and obtained samples.

Were you THERE?

The likelihood of cheese of any colour is very slim since the probably of cows as we know them surviving on the moon is remote due to a lack of vegetation and oxygen.

While I tend to agree, again you have no direct evidence - you're just believing what "they" tell you.

However the burden of proof is generally placed upon the person asserting to provide evidence of a claim (green cheese on the moon).

Or "the composition of the lunar surface by weight is roughly 43 percent oxygen, 20 percent silicon, 19 percent magnesium, 10 percent iron, 3 percent calcium, 3 percent aluminum, 0.42 percent chromium, 0.18 percent titanium and 0.12 percent manganese."

Let's see the EVIDENCE WP!
I'll warrant that you could provide more "evidence" for the existence of Xenu.
The real question is "why the double standard?" You are more than willing to take the word of the people most likely to know about the composition of the moon, but not the word of those most likely to know how Cheato's campaign colluded with the Russians. Could it be that you WISH to believe the moon experts, but WISH to disbelieve the collusion experts?

Your confusing science with law

Science doesn't generally make a claim for a theory to be factual but most probable as supported by evidence.In other cases it is true to the degree it can be tested replicated experiments to obtain empirical evidence.

Courts and Investigations will look at:

Weight of evidence (Civil)
Beyond a shadow of doubt as achieved by the accuser (Criminal)

If you read what I actually said and implied, the investigation fell down on the fact that it did not establish

What you are saying about the Moon would have to be based on current scientific knowledge. I can't comment on the estimated composition.

What an investigation into collusion must do is establish a case to proceed further until there is sufficient evidence which it believes is reliable enough for a prosecution, impeachment or whatever.

In the case of accusing someone of collusion; the accuser must provide evidence of the claim.

- - - Updated - - -

What fevered delusion is he talking about now?

You would have to read my posts to understand.

 

[blastula]

 

[whichphilosophy]

Well some of the less incontinent ones

 

[whichphilosophy]

Well some of the less incontinent ones

The scientific evidence is evaluated on the basis we science which I mentioned earlier.
In Law its a matter of weight of evidence or in criminal matters beyond any shade of doubt

I think we should the FBI should investiage Trump's fading tan.
https://www.yahoo.com/style/apos-going-donald-trump-apos-170207462.html

 

[Elixir]

Your confusing science with law

So - no evidence then.
QED

 

[whichphilosophy]

Your confusing science with law

So - no evidence then.
QED

What evidence. You want Scientific evidence to relate to legal evidence. However a court can accept scientific evidence such as forensic etc... The evidence for evidence of collusion rests on those who assert this to produce something visible

 

[Elixir]

So - no evidence then.
QED

What evidence. You want Scientific evidence to relate to legal evidence. However a court can accept scientific evidence such as forensic etc... The evidence for evidence of collusion rests on those who assert this to produce something visible

False dichotomy. If you wish to claim that YOU have insufficient evidence in hand to legally prosecute anyone for collusion, I won't arguing with that.

 

[Elixir]

I think we should the FBI should investiage Trump's fading tan.
https://www.yahoo.com/style/apos-going-donald-trump-apos-170207462.html

So does he, I'm sure. ANYTHING but collusion with Russia.