At this point, does collusion even matter?

[Opoponax]

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.

Yep. And as Jimmy Higgins pointed out, the extensive Benghazi investigations set precedent with respect to what, when, and how extensively even a relatively minor matter may be investigated. This Russia thing is no small matter.

The hypocrisy is breathtaking. But beyond that, it could be quite legitimately argued that Congress has a legal duty to investigate this at least as extensively as they investigated Hillary Clinton over Benghazi, and that they are willfully neglecting that duty.
If our border with Mexico is a national security concern, then this is what? Maybe what Trump would call a super-duper national security concern? An unfriendly, dangerous, despotic government, that is also a threat to our closest allies, may have had or still has access to our national security secrets and affected the outcome of a Presidential election. Every member of Congress and their staffs that have anything remotely to do with investigating this should be running around like their collective head is on fire to see just what the fuck, if anything, happened.

The problem gets worse each day because every day that goes by sees this thing practically unattended to. And who will the Republicans point their fingers at if and when it all becomes public?

 

[whichphilosophy]

You mean premature conclusions by WP.

Even when I agree you disagree.

 

[KeepTalking]

You mean premature conclusions by WP.

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

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

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

no evidence

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

there is no evidence, something tangible that is useful to proceed further.

The above quotes are just from the first 10 pages of this thread.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.?'

What you say is largely okay. However...

Then you insert blah blahs about bias with investigations when the Democrats don't control the CIA, FBI, House, or Senate. Hence red herrings.

 

[whichphilosophy]

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

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

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

no evidence

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

there is no evidence, something tangible that is useful to proceed further.

The above quotes are just from the first 10 pages of this thread.

So what?
I have pointed out there is insufficient information to form a conclusion. Therefore I cannot agree or disagree with the accusations. I can however assert a definite don't know.

 

[whichphilosophy]

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.?'

What you say is largely okay. However...

Then you insert blah blahs about bias with investigations when the Democrats don't control the CIA, FBI, House, or Senate. Hence red herrings.

I was agreeing with Elixir as he gave some avenues of investigation. If any one asserts a conclusion before it is achieved it is bias.

 

[KeepTalking]

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

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

no evidence

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

there is no evidence, something tangible that is useful to proceed further.

The above quotes are just from the first 10 pages of this thread.

So what?
I have pointed out there is insufficient information to form a conclusion. Therefore I cannot agree or disagree with the accusations. I can however assert a definite don't know.

You have repeatedly stated positively that there is no evidence, not that there is insufficient evidence, or no evidence that you have seen, but that there is no evidence. If all you had done was say that you have not seen enough evidence to form a conclusion, we wouldn't be talking about this. I am glad you have finally come around to making a sensible statement about evidence that may or may not exist, but until now you have been stating the positive conclusion that there is no evidence.

 

[whichphilosophy]

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

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

no evidence

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

there is no evidence, something tangible that is useful to proceed further.

The above quotes are just from the first 10 pages of this thread.

So what?
I have pointed out there is insufficient information to form a conclusion. Therefore I cannot agree or disagree with the accusations. I can however assert a definite don't know.

You have repeatedly stated positively that there is no evidence, not that there is insufficient evidence, or no evidence that you have seen, but that there is no evidence. If all you had done was say that you have not seen enough evidence to form a conclusion, we wouldn't be talking about this. I am glad you have finally come around to making a sensible statement about evidence that may or may not exist, but until now you have been stating the positive conclusion that there is no evidence.

There is no evidence is still correct because there is on evidence to proceed further or prove the point. Do I still need to explain further? Actually there are different meanings of evidence which are often used together.

The first relates to the data and type of data. Hence there is always evidence even if it is a line on a piece of paper.

http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=671

[I]evidence
n. every type of proof legally presented at trial (allowed by the judge) which is intended to convince the judge and/or jury of alleged facts material to the case. It can include oral testimony of witnesses, including experts on technical matters, documents, public records, objects, photographs and depositions (testimony under oath taken before trial).

It also includes so-called "circumstantial evidence" which is intended to create belief by showing surrounding circumstances which logically lead to a conclusion of fact. Comments and arguments by the attorneys, statements by the judge and answers to questions which the judge has ruled objectionable are not evidence.

Charts, maps and models which are used to demonstrate or explain matters are not evidence themselves, but testimony based upon such items and marks on such material may be evidence. Evidence must survive objections of opposing attorneys that it is irrelevant, immaterial or violates rules against "hearsay" (statements by a party not in court), and/or other technicalities.[/I]

Let's cut and paste from dictionary.com which defines the different uses and gives a less incontinent definition but the above is a more accurate definition in the legal sense



http://www.dictionary.com/browse/evidence?s=t

that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign:
His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

All parties in a case will present evidence. The Judge may in some cases exclude some and admit others.

 

[KeepTalking]

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

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

no evidence

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

there is no evidence, something tangible that is useful to proceed further.

The above quotes are just from the first 10 pages of this thread.

So what?
I have pointed out there is insufficient information to form a conclusion. Therefore I cannot agree or disagree with the accusations. I can however assert a definite don't know.

You have repeatedly stated positively that there is no evidence, not that there is insufficient evidence, or no evidence that you have seen, but that there is no evidence. If all you had done was say that you have not seen enough evidence to form a conclusion, we wouldn't be talking about this. I am glad you have finally come around to making a sensible statement about evidence that may or may not exist, but until now you have been stating the positive conclusion that there is no evidence.

There is no evidence is still correct because there is on evidence to proceed further or prove the point.

There you go again, right back to the positive statement that there is no evidence. This is something you could not possibly know without being involved in the investigation. Even at that, the best you could say if you were involved in the investigation would be that there is has been no evidence found at this point. I will note that no one involved in the investigation is actually saying that.

Do I still need to explain further?

No. First you need to figure out what your actual position is, as you keep vacillating between the position that you have insufficient evidence to form a conclusion (a perfectly acceptable position), and the position that there is no evidence (something you could not possibly know).

 

[whichphilosophy]

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

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

no evidence

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

there is no evidence, something tangible that is useful to proceed further.

The above quotes are just from the first 10 pages of this thread.

So what?
I have pointed out there is insufficient information to form a conclusion. Therefore I cannot agree or disagree with the accusations. I can however assert a definite don't know.

You have repeatedly stated positively that there is no evidence, not that there is insufficient evidence, or no evidence that you have seen, but that there is no evidence. If all you had done was say that you have not seen enough evidence to form a conclusion, we wouldn't be talking about this. I am glad you have finally come around to making a sensible statement about evidence that may or may not exist, but until now you have been stating the positive conclusion that there is no evidence.

If you want to say insufficient evidence that is correct, since there is always evidence but not to commence an impeachment trial etc.
Did you see my faux pas in the last sentence

 

[Elixir]

The existence of evidence sufficient to initiate impeachment proceedings is no guarantee that impeachment proceedings will be initiated. Especially when all three branches of government are dominated by the party whose president would be the subject of those proceedings.
The one-party setup we are under right now is also likely responsible for the fact that none of us are aware of the state of any of the investigations that are allegedly in process, let alone what evidence, if any, is under examination.

I'd like to see Cheato impeached because I know he's a lying two-faced (at minimum) low-life dumbbell who is unqualified to lead this country - regardless of whether he has done anything technically impeachable. WP apparently wishes he'd be left alone to wreak havoc upon our government because... well... who knows? Because he isn't effected by how messed up the US government is? Because he's a troll in the employ of Russians? Because he is ignorant of how our system works? Some combination of the above? Doesn't really matter. Nothing is going to happen to Cheato until one or more houses of Congress flips, or until it looks so certain that that will happen, that a significant number of Repugs start jumping ship.

 

[KeepTalking]

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

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

no evidence

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

there is no evidence, something tangible that is useful to proceed further.

The above quotes are just from the first 10 pages of this thread.

So what?
I have pointed out there is insufficient information to form a conclusion. Therefore I cannot agree or disagree with the accusations. I can however assert a definite don't know.

You have repeatedly stated positively that there is no evidence, not that there is insufficient evidence, or no evidence that you have seen, but that there is no evidence. If all you had done was say that you have not seen enough evidence to form a conclusion, we wouldn't be talking about this. I am glad you have finally come around to making a sensible statement about evidence that may or may not exist, but until now you have been stating the positive conclusion that there is no evidence.

If you want to say insufficient evidence that is correct, since there is always evidence but not to commence an impeachment trial etc.

It isn't about what I want to say, it is about what you are saying, and how you are saying it. Even after making the above statement that there was insufficient evidence to form a conclusion, you went back to making the positive assertion that there is no evidence, which is a conclusion.

 

[whichphilosophy]

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

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

no evidence

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

there is no evidence, something tangible that is useful to proceed further.

The above quotes are just from the first 10 pages of this thread.

So what?
I have pointed out there is insufficient information to form a conclusion. Therefore I cannot agree or disagree with the accusations. I can however assert a definite don't know.

You have repeatedly stated positively that there is no evidence, not that there is insufficient evidence, or no evidence that you have seen, but that there is no evidence. If all you had done was say that you have not seen enough evidence to form a conclusion, we wouldn't be talking about this. I am glad you have finally come around to making a sensible statement about evidence that may or may not exist, but until now you have been stating the positive conclusion that there is no evidence.

If you want to say insufficient evidence that is correct, since there is always evidence but not to commence an impeachment trial etc.

It isn't about what I want to say, it is about what you are saying, and how you are saying it. Even after making the above statement that there was insufficient evidence to form a conclusion, you went back to making the positive assertion that there is no evidence, which is a conclusion.

There is evidence but no evidence to form a conclusion. My disambiguation just earlier shows this. Hence we have the saying, innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

There is evidence but no evidence to form a conclusion. My disambiguation just earlier shows this. Hence we have the saying, innocent until proven guilty.

*whacks whichphilosophy on the side to try and stop the skipping*

 

[blastula]

You mean premature conclusions by WP.

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

YOU have made premature conclusions, like

Either way there is nothing at this point to form a case at this point despite months of hype.

There is no evidence established at this point to enable the presentation of any charges.

You're even wrong if we go by only what's publicly known, because it's looks likely there is good evidence that at least Flynn has engaged in illegal obstruction as well as disclosure failures.

 

[PyramidHead]

There's plenty of evidence available. Maybe not enough to convict in a legal sense. Plenty to inform a justified prediction, though. Evidence is anything that matches up with the hypothesis and is hard to call a coincidence. The ridiculous number of people in Trump's inner circle, his campaign, and even his extended family with political and financial ties to Russia is such evidence. The behavior of his administration when confronted with accusations that basically amount to treason (namely, lying about connections between individuals and the knowledge they had, constantly trying to change the subject to talk about Hillary or Obama, dragging out the Congressional investigation) are all consistent with having something to hide, and hard to accept as coincidental. It's also tough to swallow that he just so happens to be the only president in modern history who refuses to let his constituents see his tax returns. I could go on. But my point is that even without a full understanding of all the facts, the balance is already tipped way over to the corruption/collusion side purely by what's already known to the public. The evidence is circumstantial, but it's all circumstantial in the same direction. That counts for something, and to keep saying nobody has a clue one way or another is bizarre... again, unlikely to be a coincidence.

 

[Elixir]

There's plenty of evidence available. Maybe not enough to convict in a legal sense. Plenty to inform a justified prediction, though. Evidence is anything that matches up with the hypothesis and is hard to call a coincidence. The ridiculous number of people in Trump's inner circle, his campaign, and even his extended family with political and financial ties to Russia is such evidence. The behavior of his administration when confronted with accusations that basically amount to treason (namely, lying about connections between individuals and the knowledge they had, constantly trying to change the subject to talk about Hillary or Obama, dragging out the Congressional investigation) are all consistent with having something to hide, and hard to accept as coincidental. It's also tough to swallow that he just so happens to be the only president in modern history who refuses to let his constituents see his tax returns. I could go on. But my point is that even without a full understanding of all the facts, the balance is already tipped way over to the corruption/collusion side purely by what's already known to the public. The evidence is circumstantial, but it's all circumstantial in the same direction. That counts for something, and to keep saying nobody has a clue one way or another is bizarre... again, unlikely to be a coincidence.

IMHO we're already well beyond the "reasonable doubt" threshold. But this kind of thing does have a higher bar than your garden variety jaywalking case.

 

[whichphilosophy]

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

YOU have made premature conclusions, like

Either way there is nothing at this point to form a case at this point despite months of hype.

There is no evidence established at this point to enable the presentation of any charges.

You're even wrong if we go by only what's publicly known, because it's looks likely there is good evidence that at least Flynn has engaged in illegal obstruction as well as disclosure failures.

There is nothing wrong with concluding there is not enough to conclude upon.

 

[blastula]

Yes, there is when you keep saying the FBI doesn't have enough to conclude anything.

 

[whichphilosophy]

There's plenty of evidence available. Maybe not enough to convict in a legal sense. Plenty to inform a justified prediction, though. Evidence is anything that matches up with the hypothesis and is hard to call a coincidence. The ridiculous number of people in Trump's inner circle, his campaign, and even his extended family with political and financial ties to Russia is such evidence. The behavior of his administration when confronted with accusations that basically amount to treason (namely, lying about connections between individuals and the knowledge they had, constantly trying to change the subject to talk about Hillary or Obama, dragging out the Congressional investigation) are all consistent with having something to hide, and hard to accept as coincidental. It's also tough to swallow that he just so happens to be the only president in modern history who refuses to let his constituents see his tax returns. I could go on. But my point is that even without a full understanding of all the facts, the balance is already tipped way over to the corruption/collusion side purely by what's already known to the public. The evidence is circumstantial, but it's all circumstantial in the same direction. That counts for something, and to keep saying nobody has a clue one way or another is bizarre... again, unlikely to be a coincidence.

There is plenty of evidence available, but so far nothing which is concurs with the objective of the investigation.

If you cannot convict in a legal sense there is no way to convict. The US legal system is evidence based on weight of evidence and beyond a shadow of doubt. Things can match up without being a coincidence.

The nations have been trying to hack each other 24/7 every second. I quoted 10 million hack attempts on the Pentagon.

There is no balance to show anything is tipped anywhere. This is not even in circumstantial evidence.

There is no evidence that shows Russia and the Republicans conspired to somehow win the elections.

There is more evidence to show the media in many cases tried to influence the elections.

Trump himself bombed Syria before any investigation even took place (and still has not taken place) so it seems all sides are just as bad in failing to apply Justice in the evidence based manner in which its procedures are based upon.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, there is when you keep saying the FBI doesn't have enough to conclude anything.

It can conclude that it needs to investigate further. It has nothing to conclude inapproriateness to fit its investigation