But they keep finding witches...

[_honorentheos]

You do realize you used one piece of questionable evidence (an interview with Alan Deschowitz who has no reasonable claim to inside access to the investigations) to tell EAllusion his evidence isn't "proof".

You chose to rely on a claim as one piece of weaker evidence to dismiss a piece of stronger evidence originating out of a lengthy professional legal investigation.

That's daft, Water Dog.

Huh? I didn't present any "evidence" related to the allegations at all. I cited a renowned legal scholar who explained what an indictment is.... and is not. You're arguing that this indictment magically alters the definition of an indictment? Innocent until proven guilty in all other cases but this one. This is a special indictment, different from all other indictments, which comes bundled with proof of guilt. ROFL.

You didn't present any evidence to support your position, you just cited a renowned legal scholar? Ok. That statement should do wonders for establishing the credibility of your thought process. ROFL indeed.

Anywho, recognizing the Dersh speculating about something has a lower value as evidence compared to statements made in a Federal indictment is level 1 critical thinking, Dog. It's that simple.

[_Water Dog]

You didn't present any evidence to support your position, you just cited a renowned legal scholar? Ok. That statement should do wonders for establishing the credibility of your thought process. ROFL indeed.

Anywho, recognizing the Dersh speculating about something has a lower value as evidence compared to statements made in a Federal indictment is level 1 critical thinking, Dog. It's that simple.

Arguing against western values will not alter the fabric of reality in your favor. I cannot help but observe the irony of this line of argument as well, given the other thread in which people were accusing Trump of wanting to violate the due process rights of illegal aliens. And now here you are, arguing against the principle of presumed innocence.

[_honorentheos]

Arguing against western values will not alter the fabric of reality in your favor. I cannot help but observe the irony of this line of argument as well, given the other thread in which people were accusing Trump of wanting to violate the due process rights of illegal aliens. And now here you are, arguing against the principle of presumed innocence.

Dog, Trump is getting his due process as are all others being investigated. He's free to “F” up the country as our President until such time as he completes his term, is either voted out of office or impeached. No one is violating his rights.

If you are referring to the trial by media that is the bread and butter of everything on TV or the radio, not only to include but the foundation of conservative talk radio and television from the Clinton era through Obama, then you need to do some soul searching. In fact, it is precisely the role of the medias behavior in sensationalizing the news into dramatic television that was the weapon the Russians used to pretty solid effect against us.

What you're saying is dumb at best, and hypocritical BS at worse.

The indictments are clearly evidence of Russian interference. It's strong evidence. It points to an enemy of the United States trying to destabilize our society.

And you are defending them. I thought you took an oath or something to defend the Constitution some time ago against enemies foreign and domestic? Or did you forget that and are now another dumb Manchurian candidate conservative dittohead?

[_canpakes]

Arguing against western values will not alter the fabric of reality in your favor.

The irony of this statement is seen in how many folks feel the need to defend their vote by becoming apologists for Russia.

[_Water Dog]

Wasn't talking about Trump innocence. Only talking about the indictment and lack of proof of Russian involvement. An indictment doesn't constitute strong evidence. Where are the WMDs in Iraq?



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovHrd-Q3Av0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpsP_flmdqA

https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/20 ... e-failure/

[_honorentheos]

Wasn't talking about Trump innocence. Only talking about the indictment and lack of proof of Russian involvement. An indictment doesn't constitute strong evidence.

An indictment means someone feels they have a strong enough case they will be successful in prosecuting someone. Prosecutors tend to shy away from knowingly setting themselves up to fail.

An indictment makes it clear they feel strongly they will be successful. The language of the indictment tells us the claims they believe they can prove in trial. This indictement came as a result of a lengthy investigation. It's evidence, Dog. It can't be called anything else. You want to conflate evidence with proof, and say you are unwilling to entertain it as evidence because the Dersh told the Blaze no one will ever know anything about anything? Knock yourself out, buddy.

[_Water Dog]

An indictment means someone feels they have a strong enough case they will be successful in prosecuting someone. Prosecutors tend to shy away from knowingly setting themselves up to fail.

Haha, no. That isn't a true statement when cases are likely to go to trial, much less when you go into it knowing a trial is absolutely impossible. What is the point of this indictment other than politics and fodder for the media? You talk in the other thread about unifying, how does this indictment serve that? Say Russia did leak the emails. That's true. And their goal is to screw with us. Would this indictment not play directly into their hands? The only accomplishment here is to make Trump appear illegitimate. Country polarizes even more, people dig in an pick sides. Creates potential disruptions for Trump overseas as well. Can't work with the Russians, they're now a proxy of the Russian state. If the allegations are true that the Russians are responsible, that's the best argument for not having the special investigation to begin with. Which is what Dershowitz said in the link I dropped. The FBI could have produced this indictment on its own without a special investigation.

The language of the indictment tells us the claims they believe they can prove in trial.

Ya don't say. Show me an indictment that isn't written in such a way? You've gotta me messing with me.

Out of curiosity I've been digging into this some more. Still haven't found any evidence. Best I can surmise is that the indictment is derived from analyses generated by various private security companies. Most likely the firm that the DNC hired to analyze its server. Maybe their analysis is credible, but I don't know anything beyond the fact that it hasn't been made public. Whatever evidence exists, it has not been made public. If this is derived, in whole or part, from an analysis paid for by the DNC, that would be problematic to say the least. Either way it's very important to put such an analysis in context as its highly subjective in nature. If this indictment is based on analyses, rather than specific intelligence and physical data, that's problematic.

[_EAllusion]

The legal presumption of innocence means you do not make a person suffer legal consequences until they've had a fair hearing of the evidence. You do not treat a person as guilty in a legal sense until it has been adequately demonstrated with just proceedings. It has nothing at all to do with whether evidence in public makes it reasonable for a person to think a party is likely guilty of something.

Bill Cosby is guilty of raping women he's never been convicted of. Obviously. Adolf Hitler is guilty of crimes he never was convicted of. Obviously. Water Dog's extreme apologia for an hostile power attacking the United States is not only the antithesis of patriotism, it's also using a standard it is almost certain he does not apply consistently.

[_MeDotOrg]

The matter about being a foreign lobbyists (not agent) is equally irrelevant. If there was a special investigator digging through the Hillary campaign you'd turn up a long list of people who were either registered lobbyists or had worked in similar capacities that damn sure appear like the same thing even though they weren't officially registered. Hiring someone who has some lobby work isn't illegal. It's quite normal.

Can you provide me with any information from any Presidential candidate in history who had unregistered foreign agents working for them? You can't group former lobbyists and unregistered foreign agents under the same umbrella. Lobbyists are normal. Unregistered foreign agents are not. Saying there were unregistered foreign lobbyists on the Clinton Campaign is like saying 3 to 5 million people voted illegally. Both want for documentation.

[_Kevin Graham]

Out of curiosity I've been digging into this some more. Still haven't found any evidence.

This is because you're too stupid to understand what constitutes evidence. For example, you throwing the word around interchangeably with "proof" is evidence that you're ignorant as all get out.