- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Circumstantial vs Direct Evidence re: Trump FBI investigation
Posted on 3/20/17 at 3:55 pm to NC_Tigah
Posted on 3/20/17 at 3:55 pm to NC_Tigah
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.
No one has leaked the transcript of Flynn's conversation. This is simply not true.
2
Posted on 3/20/17 at 3:55 pm to AUstar
quote:I just thought when he brought up "direct evidence" he was referring to the only evidence of a felony present in this affair.
The Dems are not interested in prosecuting Obama or Lynch or Brennan.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 3:55 pm to tigerinDC09
Kinda like the circumstantial evidence that Hillary's thousands of missing emails contained damning criminal evidence and she deleted them with criminal intent because of that.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 3:57 pm to tigerinDC09
quote:.
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
Nothing you've described is remotely close to circumstantial evidence. It's not evidence at all. And there is nothing called "coincidental evidence."
Posted on 3/20/17 at 3:59 pm to Deuces
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.
You're all over the map on this. If there was a criminal charge, then there would be a trial. Just like with a murder trial.
This post was edited on 3/20/17 at 4:01 pm
Posted on 3/20/17 at 4:00 pm to tigerinDC09
quote:
No one has leaked the transcript of Flynn's conversation. This is simply not true.
quote:
WASHINGTON — Weeks before President Trump’s inauguration, his national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, discussed American sanctions against Russia, as well as areas of possible cooperation, with that country’s ambassador to the United States, according to current and former American officials.
Throughout the discussions, the message Mr. Flynn conveyed to the ambassador, Sergey I. Kislyak — that the Obama administration was Moscow’s adversary and that relations with Russia would change under Mr. Trump — was unambiguous and highly inappropriate, the officials said.
The accounts of the conversations raise the prospect that Mr. Flynn violated a law against private citizens’ engaging in diplomacy, and directly contradict statements made by Trump advisers. They have said that Mr. Flynn spoke to Mr. Kislyak a few days after Christmas merely to arrange a phone call between President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia and Mr. Trump after the inauguration.
But current and former American officials said that conversation — which took place the day before the Obama administration imposed sanctions on Russia over accusations that it used cyberattacks to help sway the election in Mr. Trump’s favor — ranged far beyond the logistics of a post-inauguration phone call. And they said it was only one in a series of contacts between the two men that began before the election and also included talk of cooperating in the fight against the Islamic State, along with other issues.
The officials said that Mr. Flynn had never made explicit promises of sanctions relief, but that he had appeared to leave the impression it would be possible.
Link
Posted on 3/20/17 at 4:02 pm to clooneyisgod
quote:
u're all over the map on this. If there was an criminal charge, then there would be a trial. Just like with a murder trial.
Aside from the tirade I made lol. What I'm saying is the higher ups can just say "trust us, we have evidence" and make something up to convict someone on by making the evidence "classified". Wouldn't that sound a little messed up? Would u trust the establishment doing that to a guy they hate anyways?
Posted on 3/20/17 at 4:03 pm to NC_Tigah
NC_Tigah I didn't see a transcript of the conversation anywhere in that link.
Just admit that you were wrong.
Just admit that you were wrong.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 4:04 pm to tigerinDC09
What does it it mean if nobody gives a shite.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 4:06 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:Direct evidence.
WASHINGTON — In the Obama administration’s last days, some White House officials scrambled to spread information about Russian efforts to undermine the presidential election — and about possible contacts between associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump and Russians — across the government. Former American officials say they had two aims: to ensure that such meddling isn’t duplicated in future American or European elections, and to leave a clear trail of intelligence for government investigators.
American allies, including the British and the Dutch, had provided information describing meetings in European cities between Russian officials — and others close to Russia’s president, Vladimir V. Putin — and associates of President-elect Trump, according to three former American officials who requested anonymity in discussing classified intelligence.
Separately, American intelligence agencies had intercepted communications of Russian officials, some of them within the Kremlin, discussing contacts with Trump associates.
LINK
Posted on 3/20/17 at 4:13 pm to tigerinDC09
quote:
I didn't see a transcript of the conversation anywhere in that link.
Well, clearly you didnt see Gowdys questioning of Comey, when he asked point blank if using the word 'transcript' in news reports adding a whole problematic level to the investigation?
Comey said, Yes
Posted on 3/20/17 at 4:14 pm to tigerinDC09
quote:What you saw was direct evidence.
NC_Tigah I didn't see a transcript of the conversation anywhere in that link.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 4:14 pm to tigerinDC09
quote:
No one has leaked the transcript of Flynn's conversation. This is simply not true.
According to the NYTimes many people did:
quote:
according to current and former American officials.
LINK
Posted on 3/20/17 at 4:16 pm to Deuces
quote:
What I'm saying is the higher ups can just say "trust us, we have evidence" and make something up to convict someone on by making the evidence "classified".
My problem is with your word "convict." If actual criminal charges were brought, there would have to be a trial or some type of admission of guilt by the accused for there to be a "conviction."
Posted on 3/20/17 at 4:18 pm to tigerinDC09
quote:
ust admit that you were wrong
Hilarious
Posted on 3/20/17 at 4:18 pm to tigerinDC09
quote:
NC_Tigah I didn't see a transcript of the conversation anywhere in that link.
Wouldn't speaking in detail about the contents of a classified transcript be circumstantial evidence that it was leaked?
Otherwise, how's the author and/or his sources talking about it?
Posted on 3/20/17 at 4:28 pm to tigerinDC09
quote:
Circumstantial evidence is going to sleep with no snow on the ground and waking up with snow everywhere.
Direct Evidence is video of the snow falling.
Using this as an analogy for this FBI Trump investigation, we will probably not get video of the snow falling. We will likely be forced to work with circumstantial evidence.
It’s important to note that people are convicted of crimes based on circumstantial evidence EVERYDAY. In fact people have been executed based solely on circumstantial evidence.
When the investigation is complete, as much of the evidence as possible should be declassified and the American people should decide from there. It will likely fall on partisan grounds, but we need to know ASAP.
Alright well this one is easy. We have emails that incriminate someone and they get off free. We have circumstantial evidence of someone "maybe" doing something and that person deserves to be ruined?
Posted on 3/20/17 at 4:30 pm to tigerinDC09
Circumstantial evidence is not evidence.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 4:36 pm to DyeHardDylan
quote:
Circumstantial evidence is not evidence.
Sure it is.
Of course nothing posted in this thread regarding connections between Trump and Russia amounts to circumstantial evidence.
Posted on 3/20/17 at 4:39 pm to Antonio Moss
Terrible post from an OP that gas already been busted lying on several occasions.
What you quoted is closer to confirmation bias than circumstantial evidence.
I hope SFP finds this ignorant troll thread and demolishes it
What you quoted is closer to confirmation bias than circumstantial evidence.
I hope SFP finds this ignorant troll thread and demolishes it
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News