ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags donald trump , Mueller investigation , Robert Mueller , Trump controversies , Trump-Russia connections , William Barr

Reply
Old 30th June 2020, 12:06 PM   #481
Paul2
Philosopher
 
Paul2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 5,712
Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
Yeah, I get it now, you want Trump investigated again for non specific "potential" felonies, but it's not a fishing expedition or conspiracy theory like "Russian Collusion."
Isn't investigating potential crimes standard? Imagine someone overhearing two wise guys who are talking like they whacked someone (only in their coded language) without specifics about who or when. The information overheard might also not be specific in any number of ways (who, what, where, when, was the person killed or not, etc.). An investigator with this information might well then investigate more to find out whether some crime actually happened. That would be an investigation into a potential crime.

Now, that can be abused, of course, but investigations of potential crimes cannot be ruled out entirely merely because the crime is only potential and non-specific.
__________________
It's nice to be nice to the nice.

Aristotle, so far as I know, was the first man to proclaim explicitly that man is a rational animal. His reason for this view was one which does not now seem very impressive: it was, that some people can do sums. - Bertrand Russell
Paul2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2020, 12:16 PM   #482
TahiniBinShawarma
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 199
Originally Posted by Paul2 View Post
Isn't investigating potential crimes standard? Imagine someone overhearing two wise guys who are talking like they whacked someone (only in their coded language) without specifics about who or when. The information overheard might also not be specific in any number of ways (who, what, where, when, was the person killed or not, etc.). An investigator with this information might well then investigate more to find out whether some crime actually happened. That would be an investigation into a potential crime.

Now, that can be abused, of course, but investigations of potential crimes cannot be ruled out entirely merely because the crime is only potential and non-specific.

Yeah, but the allegation of the NRA funneling Russian money to campaigns is nothing like what you describe. It's a big leap. If anyone wants to hold that an allegation is enough, I'm all for it, but those same people would cry a river of "no evidence" when it's an organization they support.
TahiniBinShawarma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2020, 12:19 PM   #483
TahiniBinShawarma
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 199
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
So TahiniBinShawarma is technically correct. there is no evidence Russia funneled money through the NRA, because they didn't look for it!

But is that true? Is there any evidence that they did look for it, but couldn't find any?

He can't even name what investigations were passed to Barr and the FBI. The original article posted when I asked for evidence said the FBI was looking at it.
TahiniBinShawarma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2020, 04:14 PM   #484
Roger Ramjets
Illuminator
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,681
Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
He can't even name what investigations were passed to Barr and the FBI. The original article posted when I asked for evidence said the FBI was looking at it.
They were 'looking at it'. Muller seemed to think there was something worth looking at, and news reports indicated that they would be investigating. But since then... nothing.

If the FBI had investigated then the matter could be cleared up, but if they didn't you can't justify screaming 'no evidence!' from an investigation that wasn't done. The important questions would then be:- Did they look the other way? Was it covered up? What does 'looking at it' mean if they can't tell us what the result of the 'looking' was? And finally, if nobody looked at it, why not? Something smells...
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2020, 09:37 PM   #485
TahiniBinShawarma
Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 199
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
They were 'looking at it'. Muller seemed to think there was something worth looking at, and news reports indicated that they would be investigating. But since then... nothing.

If the FBI had investigated then the matter could be cleared up, but if they didn't you can't justify screaming 'no evidence!' from an investigation that wasn't done. The important questions would then be:- Did they look the other way? Was it covered up? What does 'looking at it' mean if they can't tell us what the result of the 'looking' was? And finally, if nobody looked at it, why not? Something smells...

The article claimed they were looking at it. Perhaps nothing came of it, because there was no evidence of it, because it didn't happen.
TahiniBinShawarma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th June 2020, 11:19 PM   #486
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 6,403
Originally Posted by TahiniBinShawarma View Post
The article claimed they were looking at it. Perhaps nothing came of it, because there was no evidence of it, because it didn't happen.
Perhaps. That's the problem with lack of information, though - and I was being honest about where information was lacking all throughout.

Again, the fact remains that the NRA was notably compromised and acted in an extremely suspicious manner. My concern here when it comes to the NRA isn't truly politics-based so much as national security and electoral integrity. It's a matter of responsibility rather than being out to get anyone.

In something related, though, concern about whether likely problems should be investigated seems to be where the actual partisan split seems to be, especially in more recent years. To poke at the FEC again, this time with an Open Secrets article -

Republican FEC commissioners let Clinton campaign off the hook for super PAC coordination

Quote:
Deadlocked on a party-line vote, the Federal Election Commission has dismissed a complaint that Hillary Clinton’s campaign illegally coordinated with a super PAC during the 2016 presidential election cycle.

Continuing a recent trend with the embattled regulatory agency that is currently missing two of six commissioners, it was the Republican commissioners, not Democrats, who voted to stonewall enforcement action over the complaint.

<snip>

Republicans on the commission have repeatedly voted to dismiss complaints against committees of both parties. They often argue that Democratic-appointed commissioners overstep their bounds in enforcing campaign finance law and endanger free speech rights in the process.

“It’s yet another example of the partisan split on the commission not being partisan in the traditional sense,” Fischer said. “Here it was Democratic commissioners voting to enforce campaign finance laws against a Democratic candidate and Republican commissioners doing the opposite.”
Generally speaking, it's very likely that most of the Democrats that you might encounter will be on the side of the Democrats who were trying to uphold campaign finance law, regardless of who violates it.

When Democrats oppose investigation, it tends to be in regards to blatantly political nonsense, and by nonsense, I mean that it's based on demonstrable lies, disinformation, and the like.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
They were 'looking at it'. Muller seemed to think there was something worth looking at, and news reports indicated that they would be investigating. But since then... nothing.
Yup.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
If the FBI had investigated then the matter could be cleared up,
As well as finished and announced the results in whichever way, of course, which isn't guaranteed. They haven't divulged any details regarding that, however, as far as I've seen.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
but if they didn't you can't justify screaming 'no evidence!' from an investigation that wasn't done.
Lack of evidence where evidence would reasonably be expected is one thing. Because of Barr, in particular, though, it's just not a case where evidence would reasonably be expected.

Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
The important questions would then be:- Did they look the other way? Was it covered up? What does 'looking at it' mean if they can't tell us what the result of the 'looking' was? And finally, if nobody looked at it, why not? Something smells...
Something may smell, but, as it stands, we just don't have enough information to justify asking the first and second questions. The third may be a bit off - I'm not aware of any official FBI press statements about investigation into the NRA, just references to said investigation and interest into potential problems. It's hard to fault the FBI, specifically, for not announcing what happened or is still happening with an investigation that they didn't announce in the first place.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 1st July 2020 at 12:27 AM.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:18 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.