ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"No direct evidence" = not enough incriminating evidence to make a successful case against a president, whereas if he was a regular politician he'd already be in deep shit.

No need to thank me for this short lesson on basic media reading skills.

"

Anonymous1749704 wrote:

"No direct evidence" = not enough incriminating evidence to make a successful case against a president, whereas if he was a regular politician he'd already be in deep shit.

No need to thank me for this short lesson on basic media reading skills.

No direct evidence is a red herring.

In a conspiracy there would only be two kinds of direct evidence. The absolutely ridiculous case where there's a contract or emails between Putin and Trump agreeing to commit conspiracy. The second type of direct evidence would be only slightly less ridiculous like a recording of their conversation where they agree to commit conspiracy or testimony of someone that witnessed said conversation. The bottom line is that there would almost never be any direct evidence in a conspiracy case.

"

faerwin wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Senate Democrats declare no evidence Trump colluded with Russia

TheReporter BTFO

Did you even read what you just linked?

"But investigators disagree along party lines when it comes to the implications of a pattern of contacts they have documented between Trump associates and Russians — contacts that occurred before, during and after Russian intelligence operatives were seeking to help Donald Trump by leaking hacked Democratic emails and attacking his opponent, Hillary Clinton, on social media."

"I'm not going to get into any conclusions I have," he said, before adding that "there's never been a campaign in American history ... that people affiliated with the campaign had as many ties with Russia as the Trump campaign did."


There's no DIRECT evidence, there's plenty of circumventionnal evidence though.

Oh for fuck's sake, it's been two years and no one has found a smoking gun. That's because there never was any Russian meddling in the election, save some silly Facebook/Instagram ads. It was all a giant fucking lie. The Forensicator was correct.

Seriously, are you going to allow yourself to become the left-wing equivalent of a Arkancide conspiracy theorist loon?

This doesn't mean you need to love Trump you know. Jimmy Dore hates Trump and has been saying Russiagate is fake since it began, and he's a sensible lefty in my book. But no one with any sense supports the Democrat establishment or trusts the corporatist media. They're both toxic, to progressives especially.

"

Turtledove wrote:

In a conspiracy there would only be two kinds of direct evidence. The absolutely ridiculous case where there's a contract or emails between Putin and Trump agreeing to commit conspiracy. The second type of direct evidence would be only slightly less ridiculous like a recording of their conversation where they agree to commit conspiracy or testimony of someone that witnessed said conversation. The bottom line is that there would almost never be any direct evidence in a conspiracy case.

So you're saying what you believe Trump did is inherently unprovable, therefore investigating it is a waste of time and resources, therefore the Mueller probe should have never occurred because Trump would've escaped charges no matter what?

"

Oh for fuck's sake, it's been two years and no one has found a smoking gun. That's because there never was any Russian meddling in the election, save some silly Facebook/Instagram ads. It was all a giant fucking lie. The Forensicator was correct.

Seriously, are you going to allow yourself to become the left-wing equivalent of a Arkancide conspiracy theorist loon?

This doesn't mean you need to love Trump you know. Jimmy Dore hates Trump and has been saying Russiagate is fake since it began, and he's a sensible lefty in my book. But no one with any sense supports the Democrat establishment or trusts the corporatist media. They're both toxic, to progressives especially.

Says the Seth Rich conspiracy theorist who helped put a conspiracy theorist in the white house. That actually takes sites like the Forensicator serious. who's analysis is done by a nutty climate change conspiracy theorist.
If this was a Democrat in office you all would be even worse then the left about it. Past history shows this.

I like how the right freak out about msm while running off to some youtube propagandist.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

So you're saying what you believe Trump did is inherently unprovable, therefore investigating it is a waste of time and resources, therefore the Mueller probe should have never occurred because Trump would've escaped charges no matter what?

You can convict someone with circumstantial evidences.

Now, it's hard to say if the "no direct evidence" was referring to the in-court definition of direct evidence or if it actually meant "no evidence at all". I mean, at the very least, with the ridiculous amount of people in Trump's surrounding that got arrested with the probe, it's highly improbable that it means the second because those arrests would definitely be able to be used as circumstantial evidence.

In other words, don't count Trump out of the woods just yet.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

Raycheetah wrote:

While the amount provided for in this bill is significantly lower than President Trump wanted, it is there, which means Pelosi lost that fight. Meanwhile, though there are plenty of poison pills in the bill, President Trump gains a win on that point.

This does not follow logically. Proving that Pelosi lost isn't proving that Trump won. Is Mexico paying for the Wall? No? OK then. Did Trump get his 5.7 billion? No? Well shit, Trump lost too.

President Trump made progress on the wall. Nancy failed to stop him.

Also:

"

Trump May Have $21 Billion in Military Funds Available for the Wall

https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/02/14/trump-may-have-21-billion-in-military-funds-available-for-the-wall-pentagon-federal-spending-government-shutdown-mexico-border-migration-immigration/

"

The $21 billion comes from funds in the Defense Department’s budget that were appropriated for various military construction projects over the last five years but not yet spent, the aides said. The largest chunk, $10 billion, is from the appropriation for fiscal year 2019, which Congress just passed and is largely unspent. The rest, about $11 billion, comes from the previous four years.

=^[.]^=

"

SnowCrash wrote:

Says the Seth Rich conspiracy theorist

My positions on that are:
* Rich WAS NOT murdered by DNC/Clinton campaign
* Rich MAY HAVE BEEN WikiLeaks' source

The evidence from Rich's murder points strongly to two conclusions: that it WAS NOT a professional assassination (Rich lived to see paramedics arrive) and that Rich FOUGHT BACK against his assailants instead of comply with instructions (which strongly implies it was NOT a friend or acquaintance who killed him, given the time frames). The narrative that best synthesizes these conclusions is that Rich's assailants were mundane muggers but Rich believed they wouldn't let him live even if he followed instructions.

What kind of person is paranoid enough to think people might be out to kill him? Someone who's done something against the wrong people. Maybe "the wrong people" wasn't the DNC; maybe he angered a DC pimp, who knows. I can't prove it was the DNC.

Assange has hinted rather strongly that Rich was his source for the DNC emails, without ever saying it. I, however, keep circumstantial evidence in its proper context. I can't say Rich was the leaker, but someone was. Could have been him.

I mostly use "his name was Seth Rich" etc ironically, just substituting in his name as a stand-in for whoever it was who valiantly blew the whistle on the DNC cheating Sanders. It's a joke. For what it's worth, I do think Rich is the person most likely to have been the leaker, even if that probability is admittedly under 50%.

"

SnowCrash wrote:

who helped put a conspiracy theorist in the white house.

That's kinda like believing Bush 43 was actually stupid. From what I hear Trump watches FOX News, not InfoWars; he just appeared on InfoWars, meaning Trump blatantly appealed to conspiracy theorists during his campaign, that he's friendly to them, not that he is one himself.

If you want to attack him for that friendliness, I guess that's fair. But I think you're trying to mindread by saying he is one himself.

"

SnowCrash wrote:

That actually takes sites like the Forensicator serious. who's analysis is done by a nutty climate change conspiracy theorist.

I have no idea what The Forensicator's views on climate change are. They're irrelevant to his arguments regarding computer forensics.

I don't mean to imply that The Forensicator's analysis PROVED that the leak was via local USB, only that, by Occam's Razor, that it is the MOST LIKELY interpretation of the evidence. By way of analogy: two police detectives visit the scene of a gruesome death. The dead man is sitting in a chair, gunshot exit wound in the back of his head, with a bottle of liquor and pictures of his his recently murdered wife on the table. Gunpowder analysis of the corpse's hand is consistent with a self-inflicted shot to the mouth. Detective Forensicator says "suicide;" Detective Crowdstrike, who recently watched Equalizer 2, says "he Russian mob assassinated him." Is Inspector Crowdstrike provably wrong? No. Is Inspector Forensicator provably correct? Also no. But one of these things is much more likely than the other, and Occam's Razor applies.

What you're saying is that we should ignore Inspector Forensicator's analysis and mock those who listen to him because muh climate change. False. Merely pointing out that the evidence COULD HAVE been counterfeited, or resorting to ad hominem, is insufficient to summarily dismiss it! Forensicator's argument stands.

It's a strawman of my position to say we KNOW the hack was local. But, based on empirical evidence, we have excellent cause to SUSPECT that such is the case. Especially now that Senate Dems admit to no hard evidence of Trump-Russia collusion.

"

SnowCrash wrote:

If this was a Democrat in office you all would be even worse then the left about it. Past history shows this.

Oh please. Revisionist history much? Was Birtherism covered? Yeah, sure. But not nearly to the extent of this bogus russophobic conspiracy theory. This represents a yuge left-wing escalation in mainstreaming tinfoil.

"

SnowCrash wrote:

I like how the right freak out about msm while running off to some youtube propagandist.

As I said, unprecedented escalation in mainstreaming tinfoil. Irresponsible and dangerous. They've been occasionally full of shit since they sold us on Iraq having WMDs, but this is a blatant quadrupling down.