Started By
Message

re: Circumstantial vs Direct Evidence re: Trump FBI investigation

Posted on 3/20/17 at 3:37 pm to
Posted by tigerinDC09
Washington, DC
Member since Nov 2011
4741 posts
Posted on 3/20/17 at 3:37 pm to
quote:

Clapper and several intel officials have said there is no collusion between Trump and Russia. Hell, Comey said it again today?


Clapper did say that with the qualifier of "to his knowledge" and "up until Jan 20th"

Comey didn't say anywhere near what you claim. Your statement is false at best and a bald faced lie at worst.
Posted by AUstar
Member since Dec 2012
17033 posts
Posted on 3/20/17 at 3:38 pm to
quote:

Sadly, I believe there aren't many Democrats willing to look at evidence objectively.


FIFY
Posted by tigerinDC09
Washington, DC
Member since Nov 2011
4741 posts
Posted on 3/20/17 at 3:39 pm to
quote:

If they were to ever convict Trump on "circumstantial evidence" of the establishment's bidding, I do not think the results would be great for the country.


I agree, this would be a bad outcome.

The evidence should meet the same standards as what all Americans are subject to in court rooms around the country.
Posted by tigerinDC09
Washington, DC
Member since Nov 2011
4741 posts
Posted on 3/20/17 at 3:40 pm to
quote:

Sadly, I believe there aren't many Democrats willing to look at evidence objectively.


So we agree that this should go to an independent commission?
Posted by NYNolaguy1
Member since May 2011
20895 posts
Posted on 3/20/17 at 3:42 pm to
quote:

Circumstantial evidence is going to sleep with no snow on the ground and waking up with snow everywhere.



Terrible example.

A better example would be having a lot of cash in your pocket, vs having a lot of drugs in your pocket.

One doesn't imply the other.
Posted by RogerTheShrubber
Juneau, AK
Member since Jan 2009
260562 posts
Posted on 3/20/17 at 3:43 pm to
quote:


Great post and I wish this were the case. Sadly, I believe there aren't many Trump supporters willing to look at evidence objectively


Coming from people who have already decided, with no evidence that Trump is guilty of collusion.
Posted by NC_Tigah
Carolinas
Member since Sep 2003
123920 posts
Posted on 3/20/17 at 3:43 pm to
quote:

Direct Evidence is video of the snow falling.
Like the transcript of Flynn's wiretapped conversation?
Posted by tigerinDC09
Washington, DC
Member since Nov 2011
4741 posts
Posted on 3/20/17 at 3:44 pm to
quote:

So they can basically say I'm guilty of murder of a person I've never seen before but they can classify the evidence where it can never be seen and give me the death penalty by saying, "Believe us, it happened. We're the government. We're always right." Banana republic.


In your analogy. As long as a jury of your peers that would convict and sentence you would see the evidence, it would be perfectly fine.

That isn't Banana Republic, that's American constitution.
Posted by RogerTheShrubber
Juneau, AK
Member since Jan 2009
260562 posts
Posted on 3/20/17 at 3:45 pm to
This is you admitting there is no evidence.

A win for the Trumpkins
Posted by tigerinDC09
Washington, DC
Member since Nov 2011
4741 posts
Posted on 3/20/17 at 3:46 pm to
quote:

Direct Evidence is video of the snow falling. Like the transcript of Flynn's wiretapped conversation?


Direct evidence in this case would be intercepts of Trump associates talking with Russians about paying for hacking or coordinating when the best time to release leaked info.
Posted by Antonio Moss
Baton Rouge
Member since Mar 2006
48313 posts
Posted on 3/20/17 at 3:47 pm to
What circumstantial evidence has been revealed?
Posted by NYNolaguy1
Member since May 2011
20895 posts
Posted on 3/20/17 at 3:47 pm to
quote:

Direct evidence in this case would be intercepts of Trump associates talking with Russians about paying for hacking or coordinating when the best time to release leaked info.


But not of Trump himself, because wiretapping.
Posted by RogerTheShrubber
Juneau, AK
Member since Jan 2009
260562 posts
Posted on 3/20/17 at 3:48 pm to
quote:


Direct evidence in this case would be intercepts of Trump associates talking with Russians about paying for hacking or coordinating when the best time to release leaked info


There is no collusion. Hillary lost, be a man and move on.
Posted by Deuces
The bottom
Member since Nov 2011
12382 posts
Posted on 3/20/17 at 3:48 pm to
quote:

What circumstantial evidence has been revealed?


Trump showed thanks when Putin complimented him.
Posted by Godfather1
What WAS St George, Louisiana
Member since Oct 2006
79681 posts
Posted on 3/20/17 at 3:49 pm to
quote:

As mentioned in the briefing, it's highly classified. We can't know until it's declassified.

Since some of the evidence is linked to sources and methods, we may never know some of the evidence.


Well now, isn't that convenient.
Posted by NC_Tigah
Carolinas
Member since Sep 2003
123920 posts
Posted on 3/20/17 at 3:49 pm to
quote:

Direct evidence in this case would be intercepts of Trump associates talking with Russians about paying for hacking or coordinating when the best time to release leaked info.
No.

The leaked transcript of Flynn's wiretapped conversation is direct incontrovertible evidence of a felony. It is punishable by up to 10yrs in the fedpen.
Posted by Godfather1
What WAS St George, Louisiana
Member since Oct 2006
79681 posts
Posted on 3/20/17 at 3:52 pm to
quote:

There is no collusion. Hillary lost, be a man and move on.


It's almost as if some of these dolts actually believe that if they can delegitimize the election, Hillary becomes president by default.
Posted by AUstar
Member since Dec 2012
17033 posts
Posted on 3/20/17 at 3:52 pm to
quote:

The leaked transcript of Flynn's wiretapped conversation is direct incontrovertible evidence of a felony. It is punishable by up to 10yrs in the fedpen.


The Dems are not interested in prosecuting Obama or Lynch or Brennan. Don't kid yourself. They are perfectly fine with committing felonies. It's the Democrat way.
Posted by tigerinDC09
Washington, DC
Member since Nov 2011
4741 posts
Posted on 3/20/17 at 3:53 pm to
quote:

What circumstantial evidence has been revealed?


The public stuff is based on anonymous sources, so there's no way to know what public stuff is actually true, that's based on who you trust.

To me, the existence of the investigation indicates at least coincidental evidence. The classified may show more circumstantial evidence.
Posted by RogerTheShrubber
Juneau, AK
Member since Jan 2009
260562 posts
Posted on 3/20/17 at 3:54 pm to
quote:



It's almost as if some of these dolts actually believe that if they can delegitimize the election, Hillary becomes president by default


It's some deep emotional trauma that keeps them in some irrational fog.
first pageprev pagePage 2 of 4Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram