Trump Advisor Chump of Russian Spies

[whichphilosophy]

The above means there is not enough evidence to bring any charges of any sort.

No, no it does not mean that. That's a pretty sweeping conclusion based only on not being personally briefed on all the evidence that exists.

If that is the case, CNN didn't provide this evidence. If the CNN article were presented to a court of law it would be rejected. The article however makes clear that the evidence it received is assumption.


The CNN article is making conclusions on the basis of maybe's and don't know. Thus any conclusion is based on maybe's and don't knows. which is don't know and maybe not.

 

[Keith&Co.]

If that is the case, CNN didn't provide this evidence.

Quite correct. And that fact does not support your claim that there is no evidence.

If the CNN article were presented to a court of law it would be rejected.

Do you have any reason to think that ANY CNN report is what the justice department would present as a legal case?
You have an interesting fantasy life...

The CNN article is making conclusions on the basis of maybe's and don't know. Thus any conclusion is based on maybe's and don't knows. which is don't know and maybe not.

Yes. But your conclusion is based on rejecting this story and leaping far ahead of what the story can support.

You could have said, 'the above is not sufficient evidence to indict' but you said 'there is not enough evidence.' You're at least two steps away from whoever is collecting the evidence in the case, and looking only at what CNN chose to publish out of what they chose to release...

 

[whichphilosophy]

Quite correct. And that fact does not support your claim that there is no evidence.

If the CNN article were presented to a court of law it would be rejected.

Do you have any reason to think that ANY CNN report is what the justice department would present as a legal case?
You have an interesting fantasy life...

The CNN article is making conclusions on the basis of maybe's and don't know. Thus any conclusion is based on maybe's and don't knows. which is don't know and maybe not.

Yes. But your conclusion is based on rejecting this story and leaping far ahead of what the story can support.

You could have said, 'the above is not sufficient evidence to indict' but you said 'there is not enough evidence.' You're at least two steps away from whoever is collecting the evidence in the case, and looking only at what CNN chose to publish out of what they chose to release...

The claim is that no evidence to support CNN claims was presented. This is evident by its own reporting headed by a misleading title.

 

[bleubird]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States
There a rumblings .High crimes and misdemeanor? Not known,yet.

 

[Elixir]

Quite correct. And that fact does not support your claim that there is no evidence. Do you have any reason to think that ANY CNN report is what the justice department would present as a legal case?
You have an interesting fantasy life...

The CNN article is making conclusions on the basis of maybe's and don't know. Thus any conclusion is based on maybe's and don't knows. which is don't know and maybe not.

Yes. But your conclusion is based on rejecting this story and leaping far ahead of what the story can support.

You could have said, 'the above is not sufficient evidence to indict' but you said 'there is not enough evidence.' You're at least two steps away from whoever is collecting the evidence in the case, and looking only at what CNN chose to publish out of what they chose to release...

The claim is that no evidence to support CNN claims was presented to me.

FIFY.
Again.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The claim is that no evidence to support CNN claims was presented.

No, that's not what you claimed. You stated quite sweepingly that there was no evidence.
That's a misleading statement, which is odd in your effort to prove that the headline is a misleading statement...
Kind of 'shoot in own foot' stuff.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Quite correct. And that fact does not support your claim that there is no evidence. Do you have any reason to think that ANY CNN report is what the justice department would present as a legal case?
You have an interesting fantasy life...

The CNN article is making conclusions on the basis of maybe's and don't know. Thus any conclusion is based on maybe's and don't knows. which is don't know and maybe not.

Yes. But your conclusion is based on rejecting this story and leaping far ahead of what the story can support.

You could have said, 'the above is not sufficient evidence to indict' but you said 'there is not enough evidence.' You're at least two steps away from whoever is collecting the evidence in the case, and looking only at what CNN chose to publish out of what they chose to release...

The claim is that no evidence to support CNN claims was presented to me.

FIFY.
Again.

A judge in a court would say the same thing.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The claim is that no evidence to support CNN claims was presented.

No, that's not what you claimed. You stated quite sweepingly that there was no evidence.
That's a misleading statement, which is odd in your effort to prove that the headline is a misleading statement...
Kind of 'shoot in own foot' stuff.

No evidence presented to support the statements. If you speak to a judge over a few Gin and Tonics he/she would use the same reasoning. Otherwise anyone can assume or say anything and it becomes fact until disproven, hence the term disproving a negative as in Russel's teapot.

 

[fromderinside]

Yes, and Page seems like he's really starting to shit his pants about now also, and is describing a more in depth relationship with the Trump campaign than I'm sure the campaign would like.

The article is deceptive and not conclusive

It states the following (with capitalisation provided by myself):

The FBI gathered intelligence last summer that SUGGESTS Russian operatives TRIED TO USE TRUMP ADVISERS, including Carter Page, to infiltrate the Trump campaign, according to US officials.

AND LATER

These officials made clear they DON'T KNOW whether Page was aware the Russians MAY HAVE BEEN USING HIM. Because of the way Russian spy services operate, Page COULD HAVE unknowingly talked with Russian agents.

There more comments but the above are sufficient to laugh a case of this sort out of a court of law.

The above means there is not enough evidence to bring any charges of any sort.

Oh, snap. I'm back.

This material isn't in a court, it is being used to further investigate one who has been found to have opportunity, by circumstances in the least, probable cause for being further investigated. What we don't know is what further evidence the FISA judge had before him that lead him/her to permit the tapping surveillance to the FBI. CNN was entirely within their legitimate domain to speculate about further evidence and about consequences current evidence might indicate or suggest.

Your lawyer playing simply isn't appropriate given the status of the case.

Your prattle with others about your post is just bad herring being dragged about. Is there any wonder by anyone, including you, about my pointing to you as a Fake news source?

 

[blastula]

No, that's not what you claimed. You stated quite sweepingly that there was no evidence.
That's a misleading statement, which is odd in your effort to prove that the headline is a misleading statement...
Kind of 'shoot in own foot' stuff.

No evidence presented to support the statements. If you speak to a judge over a few Gin and Tonics he/she would use the same reasoning. Otherwise anyone can assume or say anything and it becomes fact until disproven, hence the term disproving a negative as in Russel's teapot.

You can't read well and don't know what evidence means. The headline was "Sources: Russia tried to use Trump advisers to infiltrate campaign." Are you denying they have sources? CNN is merely attributing claims to their sources. But as we have seen so far in this topic, CNN's anonymous sourcing has been proven credible.

 

[Elixir]

A judge in a court would say the same thing.

Maybe - if YOU were the judge.
An actual judge would have reviewed the actual evidence. You have not.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The article is deceptive and not conclusive

It states the following (with capitalisation provided by myself):

The FBI gathered intelligence last summer that SUGGESTS Russian operatives TRIED TO USE TRUMP ADVISERS, including Carter Page, to infiltrate the Trump campaign, according to US officials.

AND LATER

These officials made clear they DON'T KNOW whether Page was aware the Russians MAY HAVE BEEN USING HIM. Because of the way Russian spy services operate, Page COULD HAVE unknowingly talked with Russian agents.

There more comments but the above are sufficient to laugh a case of this sort out of a court of law.

The above means there is not enough evidence to bring any charges of any sort.

Oh, snap. I'm back.

This material isn't in a court, it is being used to further investigate one who has been found to have opportunity, by circumstances in the least, probable cause for being further investigated. What we don't know is what further evidence the FISA judge had before him that lead him/her to permit the tapping surveillance to the FBI. CNN was entirely within their legitimate domain to speculate about further evidence and about consequences current evidence might indicate or suggest.

Your lawyer playing simply isn't appropriate given the status of the case.

Your prattle with others about your post is just bad herring being dragged about. Is there any wonder by anyone, including you, about my pointing to you as a Fake news source?

I take by material you mean a body of evidence to form a case. Or do you mean evidence to proceed further. Either way there is nothing at this point to form a case at this point despite months of hype.

Further approval of by the FISA Judge is not difficult.

The lodged application requires that the court is finds probable cause that the target of the surveillance is a foreign power or its confirmed agent and that stated locations are used or will be used by the said parties. So you are talking about an investigation into a foreign power or its agent.

While establishing possible espionage it is then expanded to those who are suspected to be colluding.

The CNN wrote a piece titled
Sources: Russia tried to use Trump advisers to infiltrate campaign.

The first paragraph then states

The FBI gathered intelligence last summer that suggests Russian operatives tried to use Trump advisers, including Carter Page, to infiltrate the Trump campaign, according to US officials.

So there is also a contradiction between the two statements. CNN is entitled to make a Jack Ass by making a positive statement pursued by a speculative one. It's not good reporting.

What is certain is no conclusive body of evidence to form charges has been produced.

 

[whichphilosophy]

A judge in a court would say the same thing.

Maybe - if YOU were the judge.
An actual judge would have reviewed the actual evidence. You have not.

It's not rocket science. He would have reviewed the evidence presented to him then thrown it out for lack of substance.

 

[blastula]

I take by material you mean a body of evidence to form a case. Or do you mean evidence to proceed further. Either way there is nothing at this point to form a case at this point despite months of hype.

How would you possibly know this? Where's your evidence?

 

[whichphilosophy]

I take by material you mean a body of evidence to form a case. Or do you mean evidence to proceed further. Either way there is nothing at this point to form a case at this point despite months of hype.

How would you possibly know this? Where's your evidence?

There is no evidence established at this point to enable the presentation of any charges. This is inferred by the fact the investigation is still ongoing and that no clear links with anyone to anyone have been established.

 

[Elixir]

Maybe - if YOU were the judge.
An actual judge would have reviewed the actual evidence. You have not.

It's not rocket science. He would have reviewed the evidence presented to him then thrown it out for lack of substance.

Once again you pretend to knowledge you don't have. If he "would have" done that. why has it not been "thrown out"? It seems that it is being covered up, distracted from, attention diverted at every opportunity etc.
Cheato's taxes are still a mystery, both the House and Senate investigations are being stonewalled and the FBI is still investigating. If there were no evidence (such as is the case with Cheato's "OBAMA WIRETAPPED ME" red herring) it would have long since died.
But again, you fancy yourself privy to things of which you know nothing.
Shameless, or stupid?

 

[blastula]

How would you possibly know this? Where's your evidence?

There is no evidence established at this point to enable the presentation of any charges. This is inferred by the fact the investigation is still ongoing and that no clear links with anyone to anyone have been established.

I see, you believe that because you base it on the idiotic premise that the FBI has made public all their evidence and that once they have a single piece of prosecutable evidence on anyone they must proceed to prosecution. Your wide variety of peculiar delusions continues to amaze.

 

[whichphilosophy]

It's not rocket science. He would have reviewed the evidence presented to him then thrown it out for lack of substance.

Once again you pretend to knowledge you don't have. If he "would have" done that. why has it not been "thrown out"? It seems that it is being covered up, distracted from, attention diverted at every opportunity etc.
Cheato's taxes are still a mystery, both the House and Senate investigations are being stonewalled and the FBI is still investigating. If there were no evidence (such as is the case with Cheato's "OBAMA WIRETAPPED ME" red herring) it would have long since died.
But again, you fancy yourself privy to things of which you know nothing.
Shameless, or stupid?

I'm just saying before any case is presented to the courts/impeachment a proper case needs to be presented. One is not available yet. We shouldn't assume that any unsupported statements or supposed evidence exists until it is presented.

Sounds like the investigation is still plodding along.

- - - Updated - - -

There is no evidence established at this point to enable the presentation of any charges. This is inferred by the fact the investigation is still ongoing and that no clear links with anyone to anyone have been established.

I see, you believe that because you base it on the idiotic premise that the FBI has made public all their evidence and that once they have a single piece of prosecutable evidence on anyone they must proceed to prosecution. Your wide variety of peculiar delusions continues to amaze.

Where did I say that? There are possibly the equivalent of hundreds of boxes of if evidence but so for nothing has been forwarded to present a case. If the investigation is still going on then there is nothing to conclude.

 

[Elixir]

Once again you pretend to knowledge you don't have. If he "would have" done that. why has it not been "thrown out"? It seems that it is being covered up, distracted from, attention diverted at every opportunity etc.
Cheato's taxes are still a mystery, both the House and Senate investigations are being stonewalled and the FBI is still investigating. If there were no evidence (such as is the case with Cheato's "OBAMA WIRETAPPED ME" red herring) it would have long since died.
But again, you fancy yourself privy to things of which you know nothing.
Shameless, or stupid?

I'm just saying before any case is presented to the courts/impeachment

Courts don't do impeachment proceedings. Sheesh. Add it to the list of things of which you are unaware I suppose.

Sounds like the investigation is still plodding along.

Yeah it took more than 780 days for Nixon to resign... and it would have taken longer if his impeachment had proceeded.

 

[blastula]

Once again you pretend to knowledge you don't have. If he "would have" done that. why has it not been "thrown out"? It seems that it is being covered up, distracted from, attention diverted at every opportunity etc.
Cheato's taxes are still a mystery, both the House and Senate investigations are being stonewalled and the FBI is still investigating. If there were no evidence (such as is the case with Cheato's "OBAMA WIRETAPPED ME" red herring) it would have long since died.
But again, you fancy yourself privy to things of which you know nothing.
Shameless, or stupid?

I'm just saying before any case is presented to the courts/impeachment a proper case needs to be presented. One is not available yet. We shouldn't assume that any unsupported statements or supposed evidence exists until it is presented.

Sounds like the investigation is still plodding along.

- - - Updated - - -

There is no evidence established at this point to enable the presentation of any charges. This is inferred by the fact the investigation is still ongoing and that no clear links with anyone to anyone have been established.

I see, you believe that because you base it on the idiotic premise that the FBI has made public all their evidence and that once they have a single piece of prosecutable evidence on anyone they must proceed to prosecution. Your wide variety of peculiar delusions continues to amaze.

Where did I say that? There are possibly the equivalent of hundreds of boxes of if evidence but so for nothing has been forwarded to present a case. If the investigation is still going on then there is nothing to conclude.

FFS. "Nothing has been forwarded to present a case" ≠ "there is nothing at this point to form a case."

Is spewing bullshit fun for you?