The multitude of media reporting using sources close to or familiar with the Mueller investigation is substantial evidence of leaking. That, or, if you choose to dismiss it as such, is just a snotload of unprecedented coincidences on the Plausomoter that require more explaining away.
You're right, it's not 100% conclusive. In fact, there's more evidence to indicate it's an attempt to use the exception to the rule to prove the rule. All penguins are black and white. Some TV shows are in black and white. Therefore some penguins are TV shows, or, some TV shows are penguins. Word of Pippydopulous and the Russian indictments didn't leak from the Mueller team, therefore the Mueller team has never leaked ever.
I would encourage all reading this to really study up on logical fallacies. Not read a Wiki page on it, but really learn them. Logical fallacies instantly undermine any argument and either make it a weaker argument or utterly destroy it outright. When you can recognize logical fallacies you are about to use, and chose to not use them, it forces you to make a stronger argument. Of course, just because an argument relies on a fallacy doesn't necessarily mean that the claim is inherently untrue, it just means the argument doesn't actually validate their premise. In other words, their argument sucks, but they aren't necessarily wrong. But their argument is an inherently weak one that opens itself up to attack, particularly by those who also favor logical fallacies to do so.
There are several standout logical fallacies that have seen frequent use recently in this thread. In many cases, in combination with each other.
One is the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy, where a Texas sharpshooter repeatedly fires his gun at a barn wall, then proceeds to paint a target around the cluster of bullet holes, as evidence of his skill. People do this when they cherry-pick certain data clusters or events based on their predetermined conclusion or to further an agenda. They do this instead of letting a full spectrum of evidence lead them to an objective logical conclusion.
Another is the Hasty Generalization Fallacy, where someone draws expansive conclusions based on inadequate or insufficient evidence (or cherry picked by others, see above). In other words, they jump to conclusions about the validity of a proposition with some, but not enough, evidence to back it up, and tend overlook or dismiss potential counterarguments.
And just the opposite of the Hasty Generalization Fallacy, we have the Slothful Induction Fallacy, where sufficient logical evidence strongly indicates a particular conclusion is likely true, but someone fails to acknowledge it, instead attributing the outcome to coincidence or something unrelated entirely (see resignations, demotions, firings, reassignments, et al.).
And another one is the Bandwagon Fallacy, which also comports nicely with the Confirmation Bias Fallacy, where believing that if a significant number of people (or worse, a significant number of the right people, Appeal to Authority Fallacy) believe something to be true, it must therefore be true. As Giordano Bruno, the 15th century Dominican friar, philosopher, mathematician, poet, and cosmological theorist, once wrote, "Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people."
I never claimed it is an irrefutable principle of logic. It's not a principle of logic at all, it's a principle of philosophy. It simply states that for any given set of explanations of an event occurring, it is most likely that the simplest one is the correct one.
The more assumptions you have to make, the more "what ifs" you have to introduce, the more plausible explanations that are entered into it, the more unlikely those explanations will be.
If something looks, quacks and walks like a duck, it's most likely a duck. Sure, it's possible, maybe even plausible that it's Gilbert Gottfried, or an extremely talented Pomeranian with a vocal coach and an unlimited costume budget, but the most likely explanation is.... duck.
)
