Well... NOW he's under investigation.

[whichphilosophy]

No, the burden of proof is upon the person making a positive claim.
You claim that the investigation has run aground. Support that.
You claim 'there is no evidence of collusion,' so the burden is o you to support that.

If you were to state something more rational, reflecting reality, such as 'the investigations have not published any evidence where I can evaluate it' that would probably not be challenged, as claims go. Your claims, on the other hand, are absolute and would require quite a high level of access in an ongoing investigation, or an active position within the investigation itself, to be worth two shits.
As it is, you appear not to have shit.

Exactly, and this is also the reason that so many of us easily pick up on your bias with regards to this issue. Also that you repeat this shit constantly, even as more and more trouble piles on top of Trump.

The accused doesn't generally have to prove anything. That is a case the accuser has to compile. The accuser can't make a statement with no support and ask the accused to disprove an unsubstantiated statement.

The claim is collusion. Nothing indefeasible has been produced to point to this so the claim is unsupported. No one has to disprove an unsubstantiated statement.

- - - Updated - - -

... you appear not to have shit.

QFT
Maybe WP can learn something from an actual qualified statement.
But probably not, if form holds.

Nobody has shit. The accuser needs to produce the case which it has failed miserably to do so far.

Forming a conclusion prematurely is in itself an extension of bias.

 

[RavenSky]

I was in my early twenties when Nixon was under investigation. It took about two years to get to the bottom of things. This investigation is just beginning. But, I don't expect the Republicans to do anything to Trump as long as he has a 35% or more approval rating. The Republicans are a bunch of snowflakes that have no integrity. They are more concerned about holding onto their seats than they are what's in the best interest of the country and its citizens. I actually heard a Republican Congress critter say that they wouldn't do anything as long as Trump had so many supporters. I don't remember his name because I'm old and I was multi tasking at the time. So, it's probably all going to depend on the results of the 2018 midterms as to whether anything is done to remove this maniac from office or not.

Republicans will not do anything to remove this narcissistic buffoon from office because he creates a useful distraction while they dismantle everything that was ever good about this country.

 

[Toni]

I was in my early twenties when Nixon was under investigation. It took about two years to get to the bottom of things. This investigation is just beginning. But, I don't expect the Republicans to do anything to Trump as long as he has a 35% or more approval rating. The Republicans are a bunch of snowflakes that have no integrity. They are more concerned about holding onto their seats than they are what's in the best interest of the country and its citizens. I actually heard a Republican Congress critter say that they wouldn't do anything as long as Trump had so many supporters. I don't remember his name because I'm old and I was multi tasking at the time. So, it's probably all going to depend on the results of the 2018 midterms as to whether anything is done to remove this maniac from office or not.

Republicans will not do anything to remove this narcissistic buffoon from office because he creates a useful distraction while they dismantle everything that was ever good about this country.

Exactly.

- - - Updated - - -

Exactly, and this is also the reason that so many of us easily pick up on your bias with regards to this issue. Also that you repeat this shit constantly, even as more and more trouble piles on top of Trump.

The accused doesn't generally have to prove anything. That is a case the accuser has to compile. The accuser can't make a statement with no support and ask the accused to disprove an unsubstantiated statement.

The claim is collusion. Nothing indefeasible has been produced to point to this so the claim is unsupported. No one has to disprove an unsubstantiated statement.

- - - Updated - - -

... you appear not to have shit.

QFT
Maybe WP can learn something from an actual qualified statement.
But probably not, if form holds.

Nobody has shit. The accuser needs to produce the case which it has failed miserably to do so far.

Forming a conclusion prematurely is in itself an extension of bias.

We have Trump's many tweets and public statements. For starters.

But I agree: your premature conclusion is itself an extension of your bias.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Republicans will not do anything to remove this narcissistic buffoon from office because he creates a useful distraction while they dismantle everything that was ever good about this country.

Exactly.

- - - Updated - - -

Exactly, and this is also the reason that so many of us easily pick up on your bias with regards to this issue. Also that you repeat this shit constantly, even as more and more trouble piles on top of Trump.

The accused doesn't generally have to prove anything. That is a case the accuser has to compile. The accuser can't make a statement with no support and ask the accused to disprove an unsubstantiated statement.

The claim is collusion. Nothing indefeasible has been produced to point to this so the claim is unsupported. No one has to disprove an unsubstantiated statement.

- - - Updated - - -

... you appear not to have shit.

QFT
Maybe WP can learn something from an actual qualified statement.
But probably not, if form holds.

Nobody has shit. The accuser needs to produce the case which it has failed miserably to do so far.

Forming a conclusion prematurely is in itself an extension of bias.

We have Trump's many tweets and public statements. For starters.

But I agree: your premature conclusion is itself an extension of your bias.

You mean Trump tweeted that he colluded with the Russians?

I didn't conclude whether he is guilty or innocent because there is insufficient data either way.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The accused doesn't generally have to prove anything.

Now you're leaping from the burden of proof in an academic setting (as you compared it to Dawkins) to the burden of proof in a court of law. We're not in a court of law.
You've made a positive claim and you have provided zip-point-shit to justify it. Actually, several positive claims, and a whopping big pile of fuck-all.
This has been noted by many in the various threads you've smeared your absolute statements across.

That is a case the accuser has to compile. The accuser can't make a statement with no support and ask the accused to disprove an unsubstantiated statement.

This has nothing to do with accuser/accused.
This has to do with qualified statements and absolute statements.
You keep making absolutes. This would require some sort of support.

The claim is collusion. Nothing indefeasible has been produced to point to this so the claim is unsupported. No one has to disprove an unsubstantiated statement.

The CLAIM made most often here is that he's being INVESTIGATED for collusion.
YOU keep saying there's no evidence, which you are not supporting.
YOU keep saying the investigation is fake, which you have yet to support.
YOU keep saying there's no support for anyone's claims. Put up or shut up.

Nobody has shit. The accuser needs to produce the case which it has failed miserably to do so far.

The accuser will have to provide their evidence to the court.
They're not in court yet.
Nothing else requires them to produce their evidence, so they have not failed anything, yet.

Forming a conclusion prematurely is in itself an extension of bias.

Well, yes.
Your conclusion that there is no evidence is very likely an example of your bias, as you have yet to provide any reason for anyone to believe you know what you're talking about.

 

[Opoponax]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-lawyer-president-not-not-investigation-160653618.html

Wait, now he's not under investigation. Wait, yes he is. Wait, I don't know.

Says Trump's lawyer.

How in the fucking world is someone supposed to govern under these circumstances? How is policy supposed to be created? The old saying that the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing is a severe understatement.

Trump ain't as bad as Bush II yet because hundreds of thousands aren't dead yet and trillions more in debt haven't been created yet. But in terms of sheer incompetency and outright buffoonery, there is no other rival to Trump in U.S. Presidential history.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Trump ain't as bad as Bush II yet because hundreds of thousands aren't dead yet

OR Trump is already worse than Bush, in climate change denial being implemented as policy, and defunding any attempt to even slightly minimize the damage coming...

 

[whichphilosophy]

Now you're leaping from the burden of proof in an academic setting (as you compared it to Dawkins) to the burden of proof in a court of law. We're not in a court of law.
You've made a positive claim and you have provided zip-point-shit to justify it. Actually, several positive claims, and a whopping big pile of fuck-all.
This has been noted by many in the various threads you've smeared your absolute statements across.

That is a case the accuser has to compile. The accuser can't make a statement with no support and ask the accused to disprove an unsubstantiated statement.

This has nothing to do with accuser/accused.
This has to do with qualified statements and absolute statements.
You keep making absolutes. This would require some sort of support.

The claim is collusion. Nothing indefeasible has been produced to point to this so the claim is unsupported. No one has to disprove an unsubstantiated statement.

The CLAIM made most often here is that he's being INVESTIGATED for collusion.
YOU keep saying there's no evidence, which you are not supporting.
YOU keep saying the investigation is fake, which you have yet to support.
YOU keep saying there's no support for anyone's claims. Put up or shut up.

Nobody has shit. The accuser needs to produce the case which it has failed miserably to do so far.

The accuser will have to provide their evidence to the court.
They're not in court yet.
Nothing else requires them to produce their evidence, so they have not failed anything, yet.

Forming a conclusion prematurely is in itself an extension of bias.

Well, yes.
Your conclusion that there is no evidence is very likely an example of your bias, as you have yet to provide any reason for anyone to believe you know what you're talking about.

The point is missed again since it is not possible to conclude much more than it is inconclusive so far.
An investigation is an inquiry. In cases of possible fraud, conflict of interest, embezzlement and other instances the teams will look at events, reports and follow them through.

In this instance we are talking about leaking information where the inquiry is following a premise that unauthorised disclosures lead into other avenues to explore. There will be dozens of different leads to follow and to go into detail based on different report.

I’m sure this will gather thousands of boxes of documents, questions, dead ends and new leads and sometimes dead ends come back to life.

At the moment the media shoots out partial information which in many cases it receives directly or indirectly from various sources. The public sometimes mistake an inquiry announcement as a conclusion.

Until there is enough evidence to call for a vote on impeachment, the investigation is still ongoing and we cannot draw conclusions.

Even when the Impeachment trial is in progress we still cannot conclude anything until the Senate trial is concluded and the findings/verdict given.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The point is missed again since it is not possible to conclude much more than it is inconclusive so far.

THe point is, you can't conclude THAT based on the information made available to you.
You keep talking about the investigation as a failure but it's an ongoing investigation, so unless you're involved, you're in NO POSITION to make these observations.

An investigation is an inquiry. In cases of possible fraud, conflict of interest, embezzlement and other instances the teams will look at events, reports and follow them through.

Yes, obvious.

In this instance we are talking about leaking information where the inquiry is following a premise that unauthorised disclosures lead into other avenues to explore. There will be dozens of different leads to follow and to go into detail based on different report.

So, where do you get the idea that it has gone aground?

I’m sure this will gather thousands of boxes of documents, questions, dead ends and new leads and sometimes dead ends come back to life.

At the moment the media shoots out partial information which in many cases it receives directly or indirectly from various sources. The public sometimes mistake an inquiry announcement as a conclusion.

So, again, you only have the media's partial view of some tiny part of a leaked facet. You can't use that to concluded it's dead-ended or baseless or that there is no evidence. These are all phantasms of yours, which have nothing to do with the actual (and still not-leaked) investigation. Your absolute statements are total bullshit.

Until there is enough evidence to call for a vote on impeachment, the investigation is still ongoing and we cannot draw conclusions.

...he said, after making many, many conclusions.

Even when the Impeachment trial is in progress we still cannot conclude anything until the Senate trial is concluded and the findings/verdict given.

This reminds me of a religious apologist talking to atheists.

They insist that we cannot make a conclusion about gods, so we should be agnostics. But it's a bit of a trick. When they say 'keep an open mind' and 'evaluate the evidence' it's a code. What they mean is 'don't make up your mind until you agree with me.' THEY can and do make up their mind about gods, about GOD, but insist that anyone who disagrees is not supported.


YOU keep making conclusions and absolute statements about the evidence and the investigation, then suddenly you warn everyone else away from making conclusions. A bit of a foolish hypocrisy, there.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Trump ain't as bad as Bush II yet because hundreds of thousands aren't dead yet

OR Trump is already worse than Bush, in climate change denial being implemented as policy, and defunding any attempt to even slightly minimize the damage coming...

W fucked on stem cell research, royally fucked up in Iraq, Exec officials modifying research findings. Trump is up to the task, but has a way to go.

 

[Elixir]

Until there is enough evidence to call for a vote on impeachment, the investigation is still ongoing ...

What makes you think it would stop if there was a "call for a vote on impeachment"?
BTW there is ALREADY that much evidence. But with the House majority imperiled by the 38% of voters (the majority of Republicans) that they would alienate if they should accede to a vote on it, there's no point in making the call for impeachment. Once the base cracks (and there are signs that it's cracking - check Ann Coulter's latest unhinged rants) he'll be impeached faster than you can say impeachment.

 

[southernhybrid]

There aren't really any set rules for impeachment. Congress decides if the "crime" is strong enough to call for impeachment, but Elixer is correct regarding the Republicans not doing anything until the base recedes. There are some signs of it cracking, but not enough to make me feel that it's near collapse. My damn affluent dentist brother in law is still a staunch supporter of Trump? Why? He's a business man. Regardless of the fact that he's a failing business man, my BIL still supports him. We must be patient for now and enjoy the late night satire brought to us by Cobert, Myers and Trevor Noah, and hope that the investigation keeps the crazy Congress from getting much accomplished.