At this point, does collusion even matter?

[whichphilosophy]

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.

I thought you would say that's a sign of the collusion wearing off after he bombed Syria
You could also suggest Putin likes his bitches sun tanned.

 

[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.

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

I agree with that. There may very well be nothing there. All that's wanted is an honest, reasonably expeditious investigation into the matters at issue. But because that's not happening, it fuels public speculation, which is understandable.

If Trump has nothing to hide, he should make a primetime statement to the American people that he wants an independent investigation and will do everything in his power to expedite it. But Trump isn't doing that and the GOP is hamstringing this thing at every opportunity. It looks really bad. And even if it turns out there's nothing there, the way it's been handled by Trump and the GOP will have bee anything but honorable. However, if turns out to be the other extreme, e.g. purposeful and knowing collusion, then it means that the highest office in the land will have been compromised for months and months and possibly even longer, and the GOP will have played a major role in allowing that to happen.

 

[Elixir]

If Trump has nothing to hide, he should...

Mighty big if, there Opoponax.

But IF that were the case, he would have released his tax returns, appointed a special prosecutor and refrained from doing every single thing that can be done to make it look like a cover-up. He would not create red herrings like "OBAMA WIRETAPPED ME!", and his co-conspirators in congress wouldn't be dragging their feet in the investigation and pretending that leaks and whistleblowing are worse crimes than treason.

There's basically NO CHANCE that El Cheato has nothing to hide. He spends most of his time trying to keep anyone from finding out what he is hiding.

Of course neither you nor I nor whichphilosophy is privy to whatever evidence exists, so it would be silly at this point for us to contend that we know what Cheato or his comrades did. But it's a thousand times sillier for WP to come out and flatly state that "there is no evidence", like a little kid with his hands over his eyes.

 

[Opoponax]

If Trump has nothing to hide, he should...

Mighty big if, there Opoponax.

But IF that were the case, he would have released his tax returns, appointed a special prosecutor and refrained from doing every single thing that can be done to make it look like a cover-up. He would not create red herrings like "OBAMA WIRETAPPED ME!", and his co-conspirators in congress wouldn't be dragging their feet in the investigation and pretending that leaks and whistleblowing are worse crimes than treason.

There's basically NO CHANCE that El Cheato has nothing to hide. He spends most of his time trying to keep anyone from finding out what he is hiding.

Of course neither you nor I nor whichphilosophy is privy to whatever evidence exists, so it would be silly at this point for us to contend that we know what Cheato or his comrades did. But it's a thousand times sillier for WP to come out and flatly state that "there is no evidence", like a little kid with his hands over his eyes.

Tremendously true. Even someone cautioning restraint on speculation should have their bullshit detector going off like a fire alarm. After all, fire alarms do malfunction, but when one goes off, no one rolls over and goes back to sleep thinking "Hey, sometimes those things go off for no reason." They get the fuck out of bed and make sure the house isn't burning down.

 

[whichphilosophy]

If Trump has nothing to hide, he should...

Mighty big if, there Opoponax.

But IF that were the case, he would have released his tax returns, appointed a special prosecutor and refrained from doing every single thing that can be done to make it look like a cover-up. He would not create red herrings like "OBAMA WIRETAPPED ME!", and his co-conspirators in congress wouldn't be dragging their feet in the investigation and pretending that leaks and whistleblowing are worse crimes than treason.

There's basically NO CHANCE that El Cheato has nothing to hide. He spends most of his time trying to keep anyone from finding out what he is hiding.

Of course neither you nor I nor whichphilosophy is privy to whatever evidence exists, so it would be silly at this point for us to contend that we know what Cheato or his comrades did. But it's a thousand times sillier for WP to come out and flatly state that "there is no evidence", like a little kid with his hands over his eyes.

There is always evidence per one of its definitions.
Maybe I can turn the question around a bit.

If you were conducting an investigation, what information do you require to present to ensure impeachment proceedings can commence?

 

[whichphilosophy]

Mighty big if, there Opoponax.

But IF that were the case, he would have released his tax returns, appointed a special prosecutor and refrained from doing every single thing that can be done to make it look like a cover-up. He would not create red herrings like "OBAMA WIRETAPPED ME!", and his co-conspirators in congress wouldn't be dragging their feet in the investigation and pretending that leaks and whistleblowing are worse crimes than treason.

There's basically NO CHANCE that El Cheato has nothing to hide. He spends most of his time trying to keep anyone from finding out what he is hiding.

Of course neither you nor I nor whichphilosophy is privy to whatever evidence exists, so it would be silly at this point for us to contend that we know what Cheato or his comrades did. But it's a thousand times sillier for WP to come out and flatly state that "there is no evidence", like a little kid with his hands over his eyes.

Tremendously true. Even someone cautioning restraint on speculation should have their bullshit detector going off like a fire alarm. After all, fire alarms do malfunction, but when one goes off, no one rolls over and goes back to sleep thinking "Hey, sometimes those things go off for no reason." They get the fuck out of bed and make sure the house isn't burning down.

In itself speculation is not wrong. It can lead an investigation in a new or additional direction. Speculation should have something feasible and tangeable.

However if there are too many false alarms, less people would believe it when the alarm goes off for a reason, hence also the story of the Boy who cried wolf.

Re my question to Elixir about what is your solution.

 

[Elixir]

Tremendously true. Even someone cautioning restraint on speculation should have their bullshit detector going off like a fire alarm. After all, fire alarms do malfunction, but when one goes off, no one rolls over and goes back to sleep thinking "Hey, sometimes those things go off for no reason." They get the fuck out of bed and make sure the house isn't burning down.

In itself speculation is not wrong. It can lead an investigation in a new or additional direction. Speculation should have something feasible and tangeable.

However if there are too many false alarms, less people would believe it when the alarm goes off for a reason, hence also the story of the Boy who cried wolf.

Re my question to Elixir about what is your solution.

The solution is to permit an un-hampered investigation with an outside bi-partisan commission. But the administration won't let that happen. Why? PROBABLY (which does not mean probably not) because they know that impeachment would follow any full reveal of their shenanigans.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Tremendously true. Even someone cautioning restraint on speculation should have their bullshit detector going off like a fire alarm. After all, fire alarms do malfunction, but when one goes off, no one rolls over and goes back to sleep thinking "Hey, sometimes those things go off for no reason." They get the fuck out of bed and make sure the house isn't burning down.

In itself speculation is not wrong. It can lead an investigation in a new or additional direction. Speculation should have something feasible and tangeable.

There is so much smoke on this issue, yet there hasn't been a single complete House or Senate investigation. The Senate investigation has been stalled right out of the gate. Roberto Guerrero's Indy 500 from his "start" at the pole was more impressive that the Senate investigation!

Yet, you don't seem to be whining about how the Republicans aren't investigating this (in fact are obstructing the investigation), while complaining about how there needs to be an investigation before coming to a conclusion. We had a handful of investigations against Clinton and Benghazi, with nothing new coming out. Clearly the Republicans are hiding something. The House uncovered something and the Republicans hit the emergency brakes.

 

[Elixir]

...you don't seem to be whining about how the Republicans aren't investigating this (in fact are obstructing the investigation), while complaining about how there needs to be an investigation before coming to a conclusion.

The hypocrisy is stunning.

We had a handful of investigations against Clinton and Benghazi, with nothing new coming out. Clearly the Republicans are hiding something. The House uncovered something and the Republicans hit the emergency brakes.

I have seen no other explanation for the facts at hand. And certainly WP has offered none.
The tax returns issue alone reveals that there is much that the Cheato cabal wishes to keep hidden. His co-conspirators in Congress keep squelching any effort to make him release them. These are the same people who were willing to hold investigation upon investigation into Hillary's emails, Beghazi and anything else they thought they could use to smear the Democrats. Why such disinterest? I don't believe they know much more about what Cheato is hiding than the rest of us. But unlike the rest of us, they don't want to know. They might get some shit on their own shirts, and can sense intuitively that their party would be made to look bad no matter what the outcome of any investigation into Trump's collusion, his taxes, his real-estate "pay-the-pres" legal bribery scheme, or his myriad other conflicts of interest.

 

[funinspace]

Elixir, so what is the difference between the 2 points

 

[Elixir]

Elixir, so what is the difference between the 2 points

You mean the distance between them?

 

[funinspace]

Elixir, so what is the difference between the 2 points

You mean the distance between them?

If it fits, it shits...

 

[Elixir]

You mean the distance between them?

If it fits, it shits...

Can points overlap?

 

[Elixir]

If you were conducting an investigation, what information do you require to present to ensure impeachment proceedings can commence?

That question doesn't parse very well WP.
If I were conducting an investigation, I'd infuckingvestigate. You know, subpoena relevant documents (like Cheato's taxes, bankin iformation etc.) and people who might have information (like Roger Stone, Jeff Sessions, Carter Page, Gorkhov, Manafort, Kislyak, Rosneft, Gazprom - there's plenty to keep a real investigation going) and see what emerges and where it leads. As far as we know, nobody has even taken depositions from people like Sally Yates who are eager to testify.

Other than reporting directly to whichphilosophy, which you seem to think is an essential component, that's what investigations do.

And that's what is either not being done due to Republican obstruction, or is being done behind closed doors where Republican obstruction hopefully can't hinder it.
What part of that process don't you understand?

 

[whichphilosophy]

If you were conducting an investigation, what information do you require to present to ensure impeachment proceedings can commence?

That question doesn't parse very well WP.
If I were conducting an investigation, I'd infuckingvestigate. You know, subpoena relevant documents (like Cheato's taxes, bankin iformation etc.) and people who might have information (like Roger Stone, Jeff Sessions, Carter Page, Gorkhov, Manafort, Kislyak, Rosneft, Gazprom - there's plenty to keep a real investigation going) and see what emerges and where it leads. As far as we know, nobody has even taken depositions from people like Sally Yates who are eager to testify.

Other than reporting directly to whichphilosophy, which you seem to think is an essential component, that's what investigations do.

And that's what is either not being done due to Republican obstruction, or is being done behind closed doors where Republican obstruction can't hinder it.
What part of that process don't you understand?

What you say is largely okay. However investigations done by one party in secrecy runs the risk of cherry picking and producing a distorted result. To take this to extremes a KKK investigation into racial abuse cannot be trusted to produce an accurate report.

Independent parties involved sounds okay in principle. So far we have had snippets here and there followed by premature conclusions by the media.

 

[blastula]

You mean premature conclusions by WP.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That question doesn't parse very well WP.
If I were conducting an investigation, I'd infuckingvestigate. You know, subpoena relevant documents (like Cheato's taxes, bankin iformation etc.) and people who might have information (like Roger Stone, Jeff Sessions, Carter Page, Gorkhov, Manafort, Kislyak, Rosneft, Gazprom - there's plenty to keep a real investigation going) and see what emerges and where it leads. As far as we know, nobody has even taken depositions from people like Sally Yates who are eager to testify.

Other than reporting directly to whichphilosophy, which you seem to think is an essential component, that's what investigations do.

And that's what is either not being done due to Republican obstruction, or is being done behind closed doors where Republican obstruction can't hinder it.
What part of that process don't you understand?

What you say is largely okay. However investigations done by one party in secrecy runs the risk of cherry picking and producing a distorted result. To take this to extremes a KKK investigation into racial abuse cannot be trusted to produce an accurate report.

Independent parties involved sounds okay in principle. So far we have had snippets here and there followed by premature conclusions by the media.

Oh goody! I love red herring soup!

 

[funinspace]

If it fits, it shits...

Can points overlap?

Only if they are flaccid

 

[whichphilosophy]

What you say is largely okay. However investigations done by one party in secrecy runs the risk of cherry picking and producing a distorted result. To take this to extremes a KKK investigation into racial abuse cannot be trusted to produce an accurate report.

Independent parties involved sounds okay in principle. So far we have had snippets here and there followed by premature conclusions by the media.

Oh goody! I love red herring soup!

I was actually agreeing with Elixir (independent parties) where I illustrated (extreme) scenarios of a biased investigation thus supporting his statement. So where is the 'Red Herring.?'

 

[whichphilosophy]

You mean premature conclusions by WP.

Nothing has been concluded yet.Where are the premature conclusions?