Sign up for The Wire Newsletter!

The Trump Card...

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
I know what circumstantial evidence is, thanks. I also know what a reasonable inference is. The thing lacking in the "pile" is the reasonable inference. Assumptions and wild, wishful leaps are not the same as reasonable inference.
Reasonable people can differ - and often do - on what a reasonable inference is.

Ultimately, it's a question for a jury to decide.


Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums
 

muttly

Veteran Expediter
We'll start with this one first ... since your preceding thoughts seem to have been predicted on it:

With almost 2 years of investigations, no evidence of collusion with Trump has been presented.
Technically true ... at least in terms of the FBI (2 years) and Special Counsel (less than a year) ... but then prosecutors don't generally present evidence until they are ready to charge.

They also don't operate on Muttly's preferred time table.

Also the investigation was not solely about the matter that seems to concern you most.

But to the bigger question there seems to be a failure to differentiate between direct and circumstantial evidence.

Under the rule of law and in a court, circumstantial evidence is a valid thang.

And there's a pile of circumstantial evidence out there.

It's worse. You don't just have one Senator making allegations about Russia.
Today you have many hysterical Dems in Congress buying into the Trump Campaign collusion hook, line, and sinker.
See Adam Schiff and Maxine Waters.
Awww ... that's just horrid.

Benghazi ?




There are also many in the news media that are complicit with pushing this phony narrative. Just watch CNN anytime of the day.
Phony is your opinion ... and you are entitled to it ... just like those who don't share it are entitled to theirs.

You also have a SP with mostly Hillary supporters investigating theTrump Campaign collusion.
Again that's just so sad ... BTW - who controlled the Benghazi hearings ?



The SP doesn't really believe that there still is Trump collusion.
You have that on "deep background" do ya ... or was it a public statement, on the record ?



They are merely a campaign opposition research operation at this point, just digging for dirt to take out Trump.
Like the Benghazi Hearings were ?

Email-gate ?






Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums
Pile of circumstantial evidence of Trump Campaign collusion? That's rich.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Owner/Operator
<insert photo of VIncent Laguardia Gambini here>

I'm not aware of any statute outside of a court order that gives the IC the right to the contents of conversations of US citizens, even if those conversations are with foreign nationals.
Ok ... you're not aware.

Got it ...

See FISA, Section 702 ...
I'm familiar with that one, too. 702 allows for the collection of foreign intelligence from non-Americans located outside the United States. 702 gives the intelligence community space to target foreign intelligence in ways that inherently and intentionally sweep in Americans’ communications, but the IC still does not have the right to that information or to use that information for anything without obtaining a court order.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Pile of circumstantial evidence of Trump Campaign collusion? That's rich.
Indeed it is ... that's at least partially why it's getting as much coverage as it is.

Remember "No Russia ... No meetings ... I have nothing whatsoever to do with Russia" ?

How's that workin' out ?






Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
I'm familiar with that one, too. 702 allows for the collection of foreign intelligence from non-Americans located outside the United States. 702 gives the intelligence community space to target foreign intelligence in ways that inherently and intentionally sweep in Americans’ communications, but the IC still does not have the right to that information or to use that information for anything without obtaining a court order.
Section 702: What It Is & How It Works | Center for Democracy & Technology


Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums
 

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Wonder if General Flynn thinks It's a minor irritant.
Probably not ... but then he did plead guilty to a felony and offered remorse for his illegal conduct.

And WHO KNOWS what he wasn't charged with that he possibly could have been ...


Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums
It wasn't collusion with Russia to influence the election. Which was the original SP mandate. So process crime. All they got.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Owner/Operator
Reasonable people can differ - and often do - on what a reasonable inference is.
To prevent reasonable people from differing on what a reasonable inference is, there's actually a legal definition for "reasonable inference." It is a rule of logic (deductive reasoning) applied to evidence in a trial, in which a fact is "proved" by presenting other "facts" which lead to only one reasonable conclusion-that if A and B are true, then C is also true.

It falls apart the minute you introduce an assumption that fills in the gaps. The gaps can only be filled in with facts devoid of assumption.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Lawfare and The Brookings Institute, staunch defenders of the Swamp's Waterline.
Always good to attack the credibility of the source rather than the substance or argument presented ...

It often works too ... until someone gets curious and actually takes the time and makes the effort to see what someone is trying oh-so-hard to dissuade them from looking at ...




Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums
 
Last edited:

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Didn't that IC leak (illegally) a transcript of the Flynn meeting gathered by surveillance?
Pile of circumstantial evidence of Trump Campaign collusion? That's rich.
Indeed it is ... that's at least partially why it's getting as much coverage as it is.

Remember "No Russia ... No meetings ... I have nothing whatsoever to do with Russia" ?

How's that workin' out ?






Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums
Talking to a Russian isn't a crime. But some in The New McCarthy Era want it to be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davekc

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
It wasn't collusion with Russia to influence the election.
... that Flynn was ultimately charged with.

Yes, that is correct.



Which was the original SP mandate.
Now Mutt you know know better than that ... after all WHO WAS IT that was recently on here whining about how the SP's mandate was "overly broad" ?

"UNFAIR !!!"



So process crime. All they got.
No ... it's all Flynn was ultimately charged with ...

Of course, COOPERATING WITNESSES get special treatment.





Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums
 
Last edited:

muttly

Veteran Expediter
Didn't that IC leak (illegally) a transcript of the Flynn meeting gathered by surveillance?
If one was leaked, I imagine that it was likely an individual act ...

Talking to a Russian isn't a crime. But some in The New McCarthy Era want it to be.
Talking to a Russian isn't a crime ... unless you're conspiring to break US law ...





Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums
If one was leaked? That's doubly rich.
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Owner/Operator
Lawfare and The Brookings Institute, staunch defenders of the Swamp's Waterline.
Always good to attack the credibility of source rather than the substance ...
Excellent example of making an assumption to fill in a gap. I didn't attack the credibility of the source at all. Lawfare is an exceedingly credible source. I can't for the life of me fathom how you could conclude that I attacked their credibility, other than having the need to make an assumption to use as a refutation. Just because they have a certain bias or tendency hardly renders them as being incredible. Far from it. All I did was offer context. Many of their articles are incredibly valuable and insightful. Even moreso when you know the context.

While I do mostly agree with Glen Greenwald's characterization of Lawfare as having a "courtier Beltway mentality" devoted to "serving, venerating and justifying the acts of those in power," I also think that that's not necessarily, in and of itself, a bad thing. Despite the overall Swampy Bias, they are mostly fair and do not try to BS you with propaganda. While many of the articles are written by a cornucopia of law professors and other legal experts, it is edited and produced by former members of the Junior Bush and Obama administrations. Me attack their credibility? No sorry. They're about as credible as it gets.
 
  • Like
Reactions: muttly

davekc

Senior Moderator
Staff member
Fleet Owner
Didn't that IC leak (illegally) a transcript of the Flynn meeting gathered by surveillance?
Pile of circumstantial evidence of Trump Campaign collusion? That's rich.
Indeed it is ... that's at least partially why it's getting as much coverage as it is.

Remember "No Russia ... No meetings ... I have nothing whatsoever to do with Russia" ?

How's that workin' out ?






Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums
Talking to a Russian isn't a crime. But some in The New McCarthy Era want it to be.
I think some are hoping or even dreaming that talking to a Russian even now will get them Hillary or Bernie in the White House. Just not going to happen.
Eventually I think they will come to like Trump verses the alternative. I even think they are slowly starting to realize it. I even seen today the Olympian that feuded with Pence walking it back and wanting to now talk to him. Just amazing. Imagine getting rid of Trump and having Pence. :p
So today, we have tariffs and a meeting with North Korea. All I see is "winning" Even Stormy got shot down. lmao:D
Running out of time and opportunity if seeking to get Trump out of office. He is even looking at 2020 Imagine that?
Sure, one can disagree, but this is what I am seeing.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Excellent example of making an assumption to fill in a gap. I didn't attack the credibility of the source at all. Lawfare is an exceedingly credible source. I can't for the life of me fathom how you could conclude that I attacked their credibility, other than having the need to make an assumption to use as a refutation. Just because they have a certain bias or tendency hardly renders them as being incredible. Far from it. All I did was offer context. Many of their articles are incredibly valuable and insightful. Even moreso when you know the context.

While I do mostly agree with Glen Greenwald's characterization of Lawfare as having a "courtier Beltway mentality" devoted to "serving, venerating and justifying the acts of those in power," I also think that that's not necessarily, in and of itself, a bad thing. Despite the overall Swampy Bias, they are mostly fair and do not try to BS you with propaganda. While many of the articles are written by a cornucopia of law professors and other legal experts, it is edited and produced by former members of the Junior Bush and Obama administrations. Me attack their credibility? No sorry. They're about as credible as it gets.
Ok.




Sent from my iPhone using EO Forums
 
Top