Trump gives highly classified information to the Russians

[rogue06]

Except that Comey told Trump that he wasn't being investigated, and two Senators are on record confirming it, one of them being the virulently anti-Trump Diane Feinstein.

Source: Breitbart

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...investigation/

© Copyright Original Source

So no evidence, and Trump is not even under investigation.

It seems that over the last month the MSM has been slowly changing their story from Trump being under investigation to someone in his inner circle being under investigation. I'm wondering if by mid June it'll be his mailman or the cousin of one of his doctor's nurses who are the focus.

[Meh Gerbil]

It seems that over the last month the MSM has been slowly changing their story from Trump being under investigation to someone in his inner circle being under investigation. I'm wondering if by mid June it'll be his mailman or the cousin of one of his doctor's nurses who are the focus.

After 6 years of investigation and $300 million dollars the joint commission looking into the Russian Email Scandal has determined that Jody Rogers, 29 of New York City once sold a hot dog to Donald Trump. Jody, married a mail order bride from the Ukraine - which was once part of the former U.S.S.R - and get this she uses email from time to time.

10DOGS3-articleLarge.jpg

NPR: "Do Trump's choice of condiments say about his ability to lead the nation?"
NBC: "Did Trump trade secrets for free hotdogs?"
Mother Jones: "Hotdogs, minorities, and meat segregation."
The View: "Trump ate hotdogs with his kids once - as some sort of weird sexual thing, no doubt."
BBC: "Why not bangers? Trump's irrational hatred of Europe"

[JimL]

Except that Comey told Trump that he wasn't being investigated, and two Senators are on record confirming it, one of them being the virulently anti-Trump Diane Feinstein.

Source: Breitbart

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...investigation/

© Copyright Original Source

So no evidence, and Trump is not even under investigation.

What Comey told Trump is that he is not a target of the investigation, not that there is no evidence. There is plenty of evidence of Russia's interference and plenty of evidence of Russian connections to Trumps campaign associates, not to mention the obvious evidence of Trumps attempt to stall the investigation and cover-up for those associates. The cover-up itself, orchestrated by Trump, is itself evidence against Trump.

[Mountain Man]

What Comey told Trump is that he is not a target of the investigation, not that there is no evidence. There is plenty of evidence of Russia's interference and plenty of evidence of Russian connections to Trumps campaign associates, not to mention the obvious evidence of Trumps attempt to stall the investigation and cover-up for those associates. The cover-up itself, orchestrated by Trump, is itself evidence against Trump.

Once again, I find it impossible to tell the difference between biting sarcasm and liberal delusion.

"It's a coverup, I tell you! That's the only reason there's no evidence, because they covered it all up, man! The lack of evidence is evidence! Wake-up, people!"

[Charles]

Once again, I find it impossible to tell the difference between biting sarcasm and liberal delusion.

"It's a coverup, I tell you! That's the only reason there's no evidence, because they covered it all up, man! The lack of evidence is evidence! Wake-up, people!"

It would be quite funny if you were correct. There is no conclusive evidence or evidence of high confidence (that we know of). But to say that there is zero evidence is a fiction, and it may turn out that there is conclusive evidence as well.

[Mountain Man]

There is no conclusive evidence or evidence of high confidence (that we know of).

You could say that about literally any case for which there is no evidence.

"Oh, well, there's 'evidence', it's just not conclusive or of high confidence, so we're pretty sure he's guilty even though we can't actually prove it."

Like I said, I hope conspiracy nuts like you and Jimmy never serve on a jury.

[Charles]

You could say that about literally any case for which there is no evidence.

"Oh, well, there's 'evidence', it's just not conclusive or of high confidence, so we're pretty sure he's guilty even though we can't actually prove it."

Like I said, I hope conspiracy nuts like you and Jimmy never serve on a jury.

You cannot say that about almost any case. It is not usual for foreign intelligence services to warn about a comming president. It is not common for a guy like Flynn to have to leave after less than a month. And you know we could go on about quite a lot of stuff that we discuss in here.

The zero evidence claim is a fiction.

[Meh Gerbil]

The zero evidence claim is a fiction.

I'll need you to back that claim with evidence.

[Mountain Man]

The zero evidence claim is a fiction.

I see. So Clapper, Waters, Morell, Feinstein, and other political enemies of Trump are in the habit of writing fiction?

Look, kiddo, the "evidence beyond a reasonable doubt" statute exists precisely so conspiracy nuts like you don't glom onto any bit of "evidence" that happens to be waved under your nose and convict innocent people for crimes they never committed.

Legally speaking, a lack of "conclusive evidence" is as good saying there is no evidence. Otherwise you could convict someone for a traffic violation based on the "evidence" that they happened to be on the road at the time and not because there is evidence they actually broke the law.

[Mountain Man]

I'll need you to back that claim with evidence.

The evidence that there is not a lack of evidence would be, well, it would be evidence that Trump actually did something wrong... for which there is no evidence.

[Charles]

I see. So Clapper, Waters, Morell, Feinstein, and other political enemies of Trump are in the habit of writing fiction?

Look, kiddo, the "evidence beyond a reasonable doubt" statute exists precisely so conspiracy nuts like you don't glom onto any bit of "evidence" that happens to be waved under your nose and convict innocent people for crimes they never committed.

Legally speaking, a lack of "conclusive evidence" is as good saying there is no evidence. Otherwise you could convict someone for a traffic violation based on the "evidence" that they happened to be on the road at the time and not because there is evidence they actually broke the law.

They are not writing fiction. You are writing fiction about what they said and what can be concluded based on those statements. There is a difference between conclusive evidence and non-conclusive evidence.

The funny fact is that you talk about what goes "legally speaking" and I am not denying that since the evidence that we know of is non-conclusive, then what exists is not enough. All I am saying is that there are enough indications and hints (evidence in the weaker meaning of the word) to justify further investigation. Investigation is a proces in which you see if the hints and indications actually point to anything conclusive. Legally speaking you are innocent while undergoing investigation at least until conclusive evidence is found.

Whether it will lead to conclusive evidence I do not know, though you keep trying to make it look as though I claim that Trump must be guilty. Your constant need to misrepresent what I am saying does not change the truth.

[Meh Gerbil]

Do we know what the inconclusive evidence is?
What is the weak (not sufficient to charge) evidence in this case?

[Charles]

Do we know what the inconclusive evidence is?
What is the weak (not sufficient to charge) evidence in this case?

I have written about it quite many times. But just to mention some: Warnings from foreign intelligence services, the Flynn case, the trail of dead Russians, the Trump-dossier claimed to exist in Russia, giving highly classified information to the Russians. And i have just written some other stuff here which is interesting as well: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post443983

[Charles]

Look, kiddo, the "evidence beyond a reasonable doubt" statute exists precisely so conspiracy nuts like you don't glom onto any bit of "evidence" that happens to be waved under your nose and convict innocent people for crimes they never committed.

As opposed to you I have not come to a conclusion yet. I am not about to convict anyone. But you keep insisting that I am saying stuff that I am not saying, so actually in this particular case the one who wants to accuse me of something I have never done is you.

And all that "kiddo"-stuff and the like even seems to suggest that not only have you repeatedly misrepresented my statements, you are also trying to go for some kind of ad hominem "argumentation" too.

I would much rather hear your fair points about what I am actually saying.

[Leonhard]

Hard to tell what he gave, but rumors are that the Russians are bossing him about, so could be something simple, could be something big. Could be stuff for an upcoming cooperation. Could be all smoke and mirrors.

Hard to tell when you're not allowed to know what it is.