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 , FBI investigations , Michael Flynn , Trump controversies , Trump-Russia connections

Reply
Old 22nd March 2017, 07:27 PM   #1
Hercules56
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,892
FBI has evidence of possible collussion

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/22/politi...ans/index.html

The FBI may now have evidence of collussion between Russian hackers and Trump Campaign personnel.

There may be info suggesting that worked together regarding the release of damning info about Hillary.

If personnel in the Trump campaign DID collude with the Russians, and Trump should have known about it but did not, or even worse if he did know about it, can the Congress impeach?

Is it a crime to collude with foreign agents during a campaign to hurt your opponent in a Presidential election?
Hercules56 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 22nd March 2017, 07:29 PM   #2
Cleon
King of the Pod People
 
Cleon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 25,659
I'd be more interested if the article weren't full of weasel words ("suggests"..."may have"..."possibly") and the info didn't come from unnamed "US Officials."
__________________
"People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich
Cleon 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 22nd March 2017, 07:30 PM   #3
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 10,502
Evidence of possible conclusion is mighty thin gruel. Let's wait and see what develops before we celebrate the inevitable impeachment.
phiwum 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 22nd March 2017, 08:16 PM   #4
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 69,491
What was said on CNN was only that the evidence collected went one step beyond "circumstantial". That's newsworthy.

BTW, collusion has one 's'.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 22nd March 2017 at 08:17 PM.
Skeptic Ginger 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 22nd March 2017, 09:16 PM   #5
skyeagle409
Master Poster
 
skyeagle409's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,347
This is reminding me of Watergate.


Schiff: ‘More Than Circumstantial Evidence’ Trump Associates Colluded With Russia

WASHINGTON — The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee claimed Wednesday evening that he has seen "more than circumstantial evidence" that associates of President Donald Trump colluded with Russia while the Kremlin attempted to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the Ranking Member on the committee, was asked by Chuck Todd on "Meet The Press Daily" whether or not he only has a circumstantial case.

"Actually no, Chuck," he said. "I can tell you that the case is more than that and I can't go into the particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now."

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/poli...russia-n737446
skyeagle409 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 22nd March 2017, 09:21 PM   #6
Jules Galen
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 3,726
Sounds like nothing to me.

Just more empty screeching.
Jules Galen 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 22nd March 2017, 10:15 PM   #7
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 69,491
Originally Posted by Jules Galen View Post
Sounds like nothing to me.

Just more empty screeching.
Why?

Are you joining the false narrative that, (how many is it now?), Trump's campaign staff have direct connections to Russia, that Trump has monetary connections despite his denials, that now, given all that circumstantial evidence piling up, there is nothing there?

Add to that the fact Flynn resigned and it's clear his conversations with the Russian ambassador had something to do with it.

Add to all that the claims by legislators who were read in so to speak, that there is more than circumstantial evidence there.

Just what is it that makes you call all that "empty screeching"?

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 22nd March 2017 at 10:16 PM.
Skeptic Ginger 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 22nd March 2017, 10:17 PM   #8
Jules Galen
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 3,726
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Why?

Are you joining the false narrative that, (how many is it now?), Trump's campaign staff have direct connections to Russia, that Trump has monetary connections despite his denials, that now, given all that circumstantial evidence piling up, there is nothing there?

Add to that the fact Flynn resigned and it's clear his conversations with the Russian ambassador had something to do with it.

Add to all that the claims by legislators who were read in so to speak, that there is more than circumstantial evidence there.

Just what is it that makes you call all that "empty screeching"?
For months - for a better part of a year - we've been waiting for proof. Show us the proof.
Jules Galen 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 22nd March 2017, 10:29 PM   #9
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17,488
Interesting if true, but I'd say wait and see. Remember the Republicans chasing after all the parked cars when they were after Hillary, it'd be dumb to repeat their mistakes and always be jumping at each story with "This one has to be the smoking gun!"

If the FBI come out and say that they have the proof and are bringing charges, then it'll get interesting. Until then.... meh.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)


Last edited by PhantomWolf; 22nd March 2017 at 10:30 PM.
PhantomWolf 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 22nd March 2017, 10:51 PM   #10
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 69,491
Originally Posted by Jules Galen View Post
For months - for a better part of a year - we've been waiting for proof. Show us the proof.
So your problem is mounting circumstantial evidence isn't mounting fast enough for you despite the fact it has been steadily increasing?
Skeptic Ginger 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 22nd March 2017, 11:07 PM   #11
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17,488
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
So your problem is mounting circumstantial evidence isn't mounting fast enough for you despite the fact it has been steadily increasing?
I think that the issue is that circumstantial evidence is exactly that, circumstantial.

You can have a mountain of circumstantial evidence, but that's not proof, all it is, is "it looks bad."

With a Republican led House and Senate, unless the FBI can place the smoking gun in the Trump Campaign's hands, they aren't going to do squat, and circumstantial evidence, no matter how much you have, isn't going to cut it.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf 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 22nd March 2017, 11:07 PM   #12
Jules Galen
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 3,726
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
So your problem is mounting circumstantial evidence isn't mounting fast enough for you despite the fact it has been steadily increasing?
In other words, you mean piling Baloney on top of Baloney.

No....this does satisfy me.
Jules Galen 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 22nd March 2017, 11:23 PM   #13
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 69,491
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
I think that the issue is that circumstantial evidence is exactly that, circumstantial.
I get that, I'm not stupid. But it's not equal to no evidence which is the GOP narrative they are trying to drive home.

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
You can have a mountain of circumstantial evidence, but that's not proof, all it is, is "it looks bad."
Not true. People can be convicted on circumstantial evidence, happens all the time and it's not a main issue the Innocence Project finds with false convictions. Rather false confessions and erroneous witness identification top the list.

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
With a Republican led House and Senate, unless the FBI can place the smoking gun in the Trump Campaign's hands, they aren't going to do squat, and circumstantial evidence, no matter how much you have, isn't going to cut it.
These are two different issues, one, will the GOP controlled legislature successfully snuff out an independent investigation? And, two, who says the evidence isn't steadily mounting? I ask you the same question I asked Jules, 'so your problem is mounting circumstantial evidence isn't mounting fast enough for you despite the fact it has been steadily increasing?
Skeptic Ginger 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 22nd March 2017, 11:28 PM   #14
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 69,491
Originally Posted by Jules Galen View Post
In other words, you mean piling Baloney on top of Baloney.

No....this does satisfy me.
Pretty sure we aren't looking at baloney. But if you buy the GOP attempt to dismiss the mounting evidence, you have a black and white world view issue here.

The evidence is growing, but it's not yet enough. That is not white or black. It's gray until either the investigation clears the Trump campaign or indicts them.

I don't get it that people can't accept the fact we don't know yet one way or the other. That is not jumping to a conclusion, but it also is not dismissing the mounting evidence.

Seems pretty clear to me.
Skeptic Ginger 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 23rd March 2017, 12:11 AM   #15
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 10,548
Originally Posted by skyeagle409 View Post
This is reminding me of Watergate.


Schiff: ‘More Than Circumstantial Evidence’ Trump Associates Colluded With Russia

WASHINGTON — The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee claimed Wednesday evening that he has seen "more than circumstantial evidence" that associates of President Donald Trump colluded with Russia while the Kremlin attempted to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the Ranking Member on the committee, was asked by Chuck Todd on "Meet The Press Daily" whether or not he only has a circumstantial case.

"Actually no, Chuck," he said. "I can tell you that the case is more than that and I can't go into the particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now."

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/poli...russia-n737446
Uh, no. Watergate was Republicans doing illegal things to Democrats and their president saving them. This is a US presidential candidate colluding with Americas' first and foremost opponent to obtain the keys to the White House. If Watergate is a minor ripple, this is a tsunami.

The closest thing that comes up to my mind is Zimmerman telegram. It's not a perfect match for many reasons, but it matches the severity.

McHrozni
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه
McHrozni 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 23rd March 2017, 12:14 AM   #16
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 17,488
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
I get that, I'm not stupid. But it's not equal to no evidence which is the GOP narrative they are trying to drive home.
Agreed, but it'd not a smoking gun with their fingerprints on it either. Remember the circumstantial evidence of the 400,000 Clinton E-mails on Wiener's computer? That was going to prove Hillary was a crook right?

Quote:
Not true. People can be convicted on circumstantial evidence, happens all the time and it's not a main issue the Innocence Project finds with false convictions. Rather false confessions and erroneous witness identification top the list.
Actually very true. Just because people can be convinced by circumstantial evidence doesn't make it proof. What it shoes id that lawyers are good at convincing people to believe that where there is smoke there is fire, and if there is a huge amount of smoke there, then there must be a really big fire, and since little Jimmy has a box of matches he must have lit it.

Quote:
These are two different issues, one, will the GOP controlled legislature successfully snuff out an independent investigation?
Unless there is unimpeachable evidence of collusion presented, I suspect the answer will be yes.

Quote:
And, two, who says the evidence isn't steadily mounting?
No one, but then no one outside of the FBI truly knows what they have, or don't have as the case may be.

Quote:
I ask you the same question I asked Jules, 'so your problem is mounting circumstantial evidence isn't mounting fast enough for you despite the fact it has been steadily increasing?
It has nothing to do with the speed, it has to do with the quality and the sources. Anonymous sources about something that might be, and meetings that could have been about this, or that or something else entirely.

The Right spent much of Obama's terms tilting at windmills, from the Birth Certificate to Benghazi, to the E-Mails, they were so sure that they were just about there, just needed one more report, one more little bit of information, and each time a News Story or a rumour came out they were positive, positive that this would be either the "Impeach Him" or the "Lock Her Up" moment for sure, and every time it fell flat.

In the same way I did them, I advice the Left to be caution. Yes there might be huge boot prints in the mud, yes cows might be missing. But before you strap on your armour and jump on your horse to ride out against that crouching giant over there, just let the investigation happen and make sure it really is a crouching giant and not another windmill, Señorita Quixote.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf 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 23rd March 2017, 12:20 AM   #17
Jules Galen
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 3,726
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Pretty sure we aren't looking at baloney. But if you buy the GOP attempt to dismiss the mounting evidence, you have a black and white world view issue here.

The evidence is growing, but it's not yet enough. That is not white or black. It's gray until either the investigation clears the Trump campaign or indicts them.

I don't get it that people can't accept the fact we don't know yet one way or the other. That is not jumping to a conclusion, but it also is not dismissing the mounting evidence.

Seems pretty clear to me.
Then press charges. Dump yer' load or get off the potty - but do something. Your constant straining and grunting is unbecoming.

We've been listening to this crap for 9 months...it's time to put up or shut up.

Last edited by Jules Galen; 23rd March 2017 at 12:21 AM.
Jules Galen 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 23rd March 2017, 12:27 AM   #18
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 25,269
Originally Posted by Jules Galen View Post
Then press charges. Dump yer' load or get off the potty - but do something. Your constant straining and grunting is unbecoming.

We've been listening to this crap for 9 months...it's time to put up or shut up.
That's bizarre. It's like asking for a police department to release all the information they have before they have completed the investigation - it makes no sense.

A splash headline of the type that you want would be counterproductive because it would give time for those implicated to cover up and/or destroy records and also may impede the investigation by demonstrating the direction in which it is going.
The Don 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 23rd March 2017, 12:33 AM   #19
Jules Galen
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 3,726
Originally Posted by The Don View Post
That's bizarre. It's like asking for a police department to release all the information they have before they have completed the investigation - it makes no sense.

A splash headline of the type that you want would be counterproductive because it would give time for those implicated to cover up and/or destroy records and also may impede the investigation by demonstrating the direction in which it is going.
Hey...i don't like Trump either. But I'm not hip accusing his administration of doing something bad just because my guy - Bernie Saunders - didn't get elected.

And yeah...everybody knows what this is about: a bunch of Butthurt Democrats and Republicans seeking vindication.

It is sick stuff and makes the country looks like some jerk-water, third-world craphouse.
Jules Galen 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 23rd March 2017, 12:35 AM   #20
Aepervius
Non credunt, semper verificare
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sigil, the city of doors
Posts: 14,581
Originally Posted by Cleon View Post
I'd be more interested if the article weren't full of weasel words ("suggests"..."may have"..."possibly") and the info didn't come from unnamed "US Officials."
Baring being able to publish the report itself and outing their source, they probably are required ethically if not legally to use such weasel words.
Aepervius 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 23rd March 2017, 12:47 AM   #21
The Don
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Don's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Sir Fynwy
Posts: 25,269
Originally Posted by Jules Galen View Post
Hey...i don't like Trump either. But I'm not hip accusing his administration of doing something bad just because my guy - Bernie Saunders - didn't get elected.

And yeah...everybody knows what this is about: a bunch of Butthurt Democrats and Republicans seeking vindication.

It is sick stuff and makes the country looks like some jerk-water, third-world craphouse.
There were some serious allegations made about the Trump campaign (and the Trump administration) and its ties to Russia.

There appears to be at least sufficient information not to completely dismiss such allegations out of hand.

The intelligence services are carrying out a thorough investigation.

Until that investigation is complete they are not going to jump the gun (in stark contrast to the way the FBI handled the pre-election announcement regarding Hillary's emails).

This seems like the sensible way to progress to me.
The Don 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 23rd March 2017, 12:54 AM   #22
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 15,757
I needed hip-waders to get through this paragraph:

Quote:
One of the obstacles the sources say the FBI now faces in finding conclusive intelligence is that communications between Trump's associates and Russians have ceased in recent months given the public focus on Russia's alleged ties to the Trump campaign. Some Russian officials have also changed their methods of communications, making monitoring more difficult, the officials said.
Because, you know, there was no public focus on Russia's alleged ties to the Trump campaign back before the election.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster 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 23rd March 2017, 01:21 AM   #23
Jules Galen
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 3,726
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
I needed hip-waders to get through this paragraph:

Because, you know, there was no public focus on Russia's alleged ties to the Trump campaign back before the election.
Well...not before Hillary got her E-mails dumped and was shown to be crook.
Jules Galen 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 23rd March 2017, 02:03 AM   #24
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 15,757
Originally Posted by Jules Galen View Post
Well...not before Hillary got her E-mails dumped and was shown to be crook.
Crooked, I think you mean?
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster 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 23rd March 2017, 03:46 AM   #25
C_Felix
Master Poster
 
C_Felix's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Just outside Raleigh, NC
Posts: 2,885
Ms. Maddow lays out a pretty solid case.

At about 8:10, it gets really interesting...

The GOP platform had a "give Ukraine weapons to help fight Russia" plank/platform in it.

Leaked info claims, "Russia leaked Mrs. Clinton's and the Dems' e-mails..and in return Mr. Trump and his campaign staffers/crew/member...et al...will remove the 'give Ukraine weapons to fight Russia'"

http://americannewsx.com/hot-off-the...ussia-scandal/
__________________
Eqinsu Ocha!
Eqinsu Ocha!
C_Felix 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 23rd March 2017, 03:55 AM   #26
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
 
Hlafordlaes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: State of Flux
Posts: 8,699
Originally Posted by Jules Galen View Post
Then press charges. Dump yer' load or get off the potty - but do something. Your constant straining and grunting is unbecoming.

We've been listening to this crap for 9 months...it's time to put up or shut up.
It's coming. A careful case must be made, as this is profoundly important. Notice, if you might, how a trash-dumping Comey two weeks before the election met with other senior intelligence officials after that, and the formerly doubtful and Trumpian FBI shut up and had to start doing its work.

I think he saw something treasonous to scare him and put him on the straight and narrow, knowing that if it manages to come to light, his role would be that of cover-up villain unless he changed tack fast.
Hlafordlaes 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 23rd March 2017, 06:05 AM   #27
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 14,167
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post

Not true. People can be convicted on circumstantial evidence, happens all the time and it's not a main issue the Innocence Project finds with false convictions. Rather false confessions and erroneous witness identification top the list.
People are convicted by presenting that circumstantial evidence. Instead, this is people with little credibility (FBI) saying they have circumstantial evidence.

I can only base it on what evidence is out there. I can't consider evidence that isn't out there.
BobTheCoward 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 23rd March 2017, 06:12 AM   #28
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 18,450
Smells like Benghazi
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped 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 23rd March 2017, 06:19 AM   #29
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 14,167
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post

Add to that the fact Flynn resigned and it's clear his conversations with the Russian ambassador had something to do with it.
My primary guess if I were betting is the calls were about lifting sanctions because everyone on the Trump team is pro Russian. It doesn't actually seem to bolster an argument that they colluded on hacking.
BobTheCoward 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 23rd March 2017, 06:22 AM   #30
jeffas69
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 428
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
Not true. People can be convicted on circumstantial evidence, happens all the time and it's not a main issue the Innocence Project finds with false convictions. Rather false confessions and erroneous witness identification top the list.
Do you have citations for these claims?
jeffas69 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 23rd March 2017, 06:24 AM   #31
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 14,167
Originally Posted by jeffas69 View Post
Do you have citations for these claims?
https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/i...eo-893278.html
BobTheCoward 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 23rd March 2017, 06:29 AM   #32
elgarak
Illuminator
 
elgarak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 4,314
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Interesting if true, but I'd say wait and see. Remember the Republicans chasing after all the parked cars when they were after Hillary, it'd be dumb to repeat their mistakes and always be jumping at each story with "This one has to be the smoking gun!"

If the FBI come out and say that they have the proof and are bringing charges, then it'll get interesting. Until then.... meh.
Bring charges to whom?

The body to bring the charges to would be Congress. In particular the House Intelligence Committee. Who's chairman has shown yesterday he's more interested to inform and shield Trump than in following up on an investigation and its results.

THEY HAVE NO ONE TO BRING THE CHARGES TO. Currently, their only strategy is to exert public pressure on the trustworthy elements in Congress, by whistleblowing (i.e., normally illegal leaking that is justified, because there's no other legal way).
elgarak 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 23rd March 2017, 06:30 AM   #33
TraneWreck
Philosopher
 
TraneWreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,929
Originally Posted by Jules Galen View Post
For months - for a better part of a year - we've been waiting for proof. Show us the proof.
That's not very long given the scope of this investigation and the power of the subjects.
TraneWreck 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 23rd March 2017, 06:32 AM   #34
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 14,167
Originally Posted by skyeagle409 View Post
This is reminding me of Watergate.


Schiff: ‘More Than Circumstantial Evidence’ Trump Associates Colluded With Russia

WASHINGTON — The top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee claimed Wednesday evening that he has seen "more than circumstantial evidence" that associates of President Donald Trump colluded with Russia while the Kremlin attempted to interfere with the 2016 presidential election.

Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., the Ranking Member on the committee, was asked by Chuck Todd on "Meet The Press Daily" whether or not he only has a circumstantial case.

"Actually no, Chuck," he said. "I can tell you that the case is more than that and I can't go into the particulars, but there is more than circumstantial evidence now."

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/poli...russia-n737446
Speaking of credibility, congressmen have none.
BobTheCoward 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 23rd March 2017, 06:36 AM   #35
TraneWreck
Philosopher
 
TraneWreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,929
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Actually very true. Just because people can be convinced by circumstantial evidence doesn't make it proof. What it shoes id that lawyers are good at convincing people to believe that where there is smoke there is fire, and if there is a huge amount of smoke there, then there must be a really big fire, and since little Jimmy has a box of matches he must have lit it.
This is either comically semantic or an outright equivocation (flipping back and forth from some logical concept of "proof" to a legal meaning).

"Proof" in a legal context, which you may notice, will be the relevant universe should this investigation move forward, can absolutely be circumstantial. OJ's DNA mixed with the victims DNA at the crime scene, in his car, and in his house is circumstantial, but it allows any sane person to infer what happened. Whether or not you want to call that "proof" is wholly irrelevant to anything that will happen in this FBI investigation.

And, by the way, it's highly likely that first-hand testimony will play a large role as they move on - use the inferences from strong circumstantial evidence to roll over witnesses...etc.

We're not at the point of impeachment, but anyone with a doofy red hat should be very worried. Fortunately, they seem to love that color over in Russia, so if you don't like the results of this investigation, you can geeeet out of this country.
TraneWreck 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 23rd March 2017, 06:39 AM   #36
Spock Jenkins
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 735
Let's assume that all this is true. Fine. But the emails really were on her server. She really did keep government work related emails on a private server. Any information found didn't appear to impact the polling.

Flip the result. Hillary wins. What of the collusion with the media to provide her with debate questions in advance? Collusion by NBC to sit on damning evidence of Trump's crassness until they felt it would do the most damage? Collusion in the democrat party to derail the Sanders campaign?

So one is foreign collusion and the other is domestic collusion. It's still just exposing what the opponent actually did. It's not like either side is making things up out of thin air. Twisting the narrative to their best advantage, sure - but that's just politics as usual these days.

I'm not a big fan of the guys politics, but Sanders is the only candidate that seemed to be really above board by my perception. I may disagree with him, but he was honest about who he is and what he believes. A Kasich / Sanders contest might have been the only match up that really just came down to core political philosophies without all the junk.
Spock Jenkins 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 23rd March 2017, 06:40 AM   #37
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 74,559
Originally Posted by Jules Galen View Post
Hey...i don't like Trump either.
Yeah but you'll be damned if you accept that Russia did anything wrong, here.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

Belz... is online now   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 23rd March 2017, 06:41 AM   #38
TraneWreck
Philosopher
 
TraneWreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,929
Originally Posted by jeffas69 View Post
Do you have citations for these claims?
Evidence of what? That people are convicted on circumstantial evidence or the reasons the innocence project cites for most wrongful convictions?

As to the former, if you don't understand that, you should probably bring your argument to the conspiracy forum as this is a fact so obvious that it would require some bizarre brain-in-a-vat style global skepticism to undermine. You find someone's fingerprint on a murder weapon and a strong inference based on circumstantial evidence can be made.

As to the second:

Quote:
Over 75 percent of DNA exoneration cases have involved convictions based on mistaken identification evidence.
http://www.newenglandinnocence.org/c...l-convictions/

You may note that eyewitness accounts are direct, not circumstantial.
TraneWreck 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 23rd March 2017, 06:42 AM   #39
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 14,167
Originally Posted by Spock Jenkins View Post
Let's assume that all this is true. Fine. But the emails really were on her server. She really did keep government work related emails on a private server. Any information found didn't appear to impact the polling
Not illegal. We are talking coordination with hackers who committed a crime.
BobTheCoward 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 23rd March 2017, 06:47 AM   #40
TraneWreck
Philosopher
 
TraneWreck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 7,929
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Not illegal. We are talking coordination with hackers who committed a crime.
Not necessarily. Also possible that they coordinated the leaking of this information with the Russians. There's no requirement that Trump folks directed the hack, asked for the hack, or coordinated in any way during the gathering process (although they may have - both Flynn and Manafort, especially, have been working with and for Russian interests for a long time).

It's sufficient that they conversed with the Russians to coordinate the release of that information - right before the Convention. Any quid pro quo based on that would more than enough to justify impeachment.
TraneWreck 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 07:51 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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.