Trump gives highly classified information to the Russians

[Mountain Man]

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.

That's what "rumors" are saying, huh?

Well, I'm convinced!

[Mountain Man]

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

I heard Trump once put Russian dressing on his salad, but later reports said that Russian dressing isn't actually made in Russia.

Still, that's more than just a little suspicious, wouldn't you say?

[Tassman]

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.

But there IS

[JimL]

I heard Trump once put Russian dressing on his salad, but later reports said that Russian dressing isn't actually made in Russia.

Still, that's more than just a little suspicious, wouldn't you say?

Dumb!

[JimL]

That's what "rumors" are saying, huh?

Well, I'm convinced!

They're not rumors, they're suspicions based on evidence.

[JimL]

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!"

Difficult to debate with someone like you MM, who seems to be too mentally incompetent to either comprehend or respond to what is actually said. Did I contend that there was no evidence? No, just the opposite, I said that there was plenty of evidence. I understand that you don't seem know the difference between evidence and proof, but I think thats just a bit of cognative dissonance on your part brought about by your extreme case of bias.

[Charles]

Difficult to debate with someone like you MM, who seems to be too mentally incompetent to either comprehend or respond to what is actually said. Did I contend that there was no evidence? No, just the opposite, I said that there was plenty of evidence. I understand that you don't seem know the difference between evidence and proof, but I think thats just a bit of cognative dissonance on your part brought about by your extreme case of bias.

I would not use those words but I agree with your point that when discussing with MM one is often made to repeat the same points again and again since he repeatedly misrepresents what you actually say. And it is obvious that he does not understand the difference between evidence and proof nor the difference between undergoing investigation and being in court.

[Meh Gerbil]

I would not use those words but I agree with your point that when discussing with MM one is often made to repeat the same points again and again since he repeatedly misrepresents what you actually say. And it is obvious that he does not understand the difference between evidence and proof nor the difference between undergoing investigation and being in court.

Honestly, I think you have to meet MM half way and recognize his point (which you may have already done).
These special investigations are often used to harass an official, the people in charge already aware that it will ultimately go nowhere.
As evidence of that let me suggest that real investigations are rarely this public.

Ultimately, damming evidence may be revealed to the public, but until that time the assertion that this is just a circus to harm a President is not without precedence.

[Tassman]

Honestly, I think you have to meet MM half way and recognize his point (which you may have already done).
These special investigations are often used to harass an official, the people in charge already aware that it will ultimately go nowhere.
As evidence of that let me suggest that real investigations are rarely this public.

Ultimately, damming evidence may be revealed to the public, but until that time the assertion that this is just a circus to harm a President is not without precedence.

You seem unwilling to face the issue that the accusations of wrongdoing against Trump are grounded in fact and not a conspiracy to harass and harm him.

[Meh Gerbil]

You seem unwilling to face the issue that the accusations of wrongdoing against Trump are grounded in fact and not a conspiracy to harass and harm him.

Are you talking wrongdoing of "he collaborated with the Russians to hack the election"?
I've not seen any evidence of that (I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I've just not seen it yet).

[Charles]

Honestly, I think you have to meet MM half way and recognize his point (which you may have already done).
These special investigations are often used to harass an official, the people in charge already aware that it will ultimately go nowhere.
As evidence of that let me suggest that real investigations are rarely this public.

Ultimately, damming evidence may be revealed to the public, but until that time the assertion that this is just a circus to harm a President is not without precedence.

I have no problem admitting that such elements could be a part of it. Neither do I have any problem admitting that some people may be in this game with bad motives. However that is not meeting MM half way because in all I have read from him, he completely rules out any idea of fairnes, any idea that there is any reason for all of this. His explanation of what is going on is extremely one-sided. I can easily allow for some of those points to be true, but i don't want to meet one-sidedness half way.

He seems convinced that there is nothing to any of this while I allow for two possible outcomes.

[Mountain Man]

But there IS increasing circumstantial evidence...

Yeah, just like the fact that someone owns a car is "circumstantial evidence" that he could have broken any number of traffic laws.

That's basically where we are with this "investigation".

[Mountain Man]

Difficult to debate with someone like you MM, who seems to be too mentally incompetent to either comprehend or respond to what is actually said. Did I contend that there was no evidence? No, just the opposite, I said that there was plenty of evidence. I understand that you don't seem know the difference between evidence and proof, but I think thats just a bit of cognative dissonance on your part brought about by your extreme case of bias.

And the prize for "Epic Unintentional Irony" goes to...

Jimmy!

I already laid out the whole thing about "evidence" earlier in the thread, in case you missed it:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post443975

Basically, the statue of "evidence beyond a reasonable doubt" exists so that morons like you who might wind up on a jury don't convict someone of a crime because there is "circumstantial evidence" that he happened to live on the same street as the murder victim but no evidence that he actually committed a crime.

[Sparko]

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

wait, so suspicions that there could be something going on is now evidence that there is something going on?

[Sparko]

but there ising to conclusions from there to "active collusion" with the russians. Watch this space.

fify.