(05-26-2017 05:16 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-26-2017 08:16 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Some of you are smart but partisan.
Some of you claim to be non partisan but are REALLY PARTISAN.
Some of you can't add 2+2 and spell CAT when I spot you the C and the A.
For ANY OF YOU TO STILL CLAIM THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION are simply just zealots and you would be the LOUDEST voices in the room screaming for impeachment if THIS EXACT situation were reversed.
FACTS.

Mach, to use your analogy, the problem is that you are trying to add 2 + 2 and get CAT.

There is no evidence of collusion. There are allegations and speculation and such, but nothing resembling evidence. Do you understand the concept of evidence?

Owl, you're wasting your time. Let me TRY to explain to Mach what evidence is.

Mach, let's say you had friends over to your house. Then when they left you realized that you're missing your favorite urn with your initials on the bottom. You look all over your house and it seems it just walked away. The next week your friends invite you to their house for dinner. You walk in and voila you see your beautiful urn sitting on your friends mantle where they forgot to remove or forgot that they took it from your house. Your look under it and it not only looks like your urn but it also has your initials under it. THAT'S EVIDENCE.

Rumors of wrongdoing never gets past a grand jury. There has to be proof. Why do you think that bloody witch named Killary hasn't been charged YET with any crime? There has to be definite proof or evidence.

(05-27-2017 12:42 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(05-26-2017 05:16 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-26-2017 08:16 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Some of you are smart but partisan.
Some of you claim to be non partisan but are REALLY PARTISAN.
Some of you can't add 2+2 and spell CAT when I spot you the C and the A.
For ANY OF YOU TO STILL CLAIM THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION are simply just zealots and you would be the LOUDEST voices in the room screaming for impeachment if THIS EXACT situation were reversed.
FACTS.

Mach, to use your analogy, the problem is that you are trying to add 2 + 2 and get CAT.
There is no evidence of collusion. There are allegations and speculation and such, but nothing resembling evidence. Do you understand the concept of evidence?

Owl, you're wasting your time. Let me TRY to explain to Mach what evidence is.
Mach, let's say you had friends over to your house. Then when they left you realized that you're missing your favorite urn with your initials on the bottom. You look all over your house and it seems it just walked away. The next week your friends invite you to their house for dinner. You walk in and voila you see your beautiful urn sitting on your friends mantle where they forgot to remove or forgot that they took it from your house. Your look under it and it not only looks like your urn but it also has your initials under it. THAT'S EVIDENCE.
Rumors of wrongdoing never gets past a grand jury. There has to be proof. Why do you think that bloody witch named Killary hasn't been charged YET with any crime? There has to be definite proof or evidence.

One other point that needs to be made. Intel agencies don't deal in evidence. They need information that can be acted on in real time. By the time the Germans had evidence that the Allies were going to land at Normandy, it was too late to get troops in place to stop them.

With very few exceptions--Joe Rochefort and Bletchley Park come to mind as WWII examples--they are going on hunches, not evidence. Anybody seen any of the Tom Clancy movies? You know how Jack Ryan just has these hunches that always seem to turn out right? That's how intel works, except for one thing--in the real world, nobody turns out to be right as often as Jack Ryan. So the level of evidence that Jack Ryan operates off is where intel agencies are.

Evidence is stuff that can be admitted into court to prove our disprove facts. It has to be such that its probative value outweighs its potential for prejudice. What Mach and others on the left keep throwing up are things with high prejudicial potential but little factual content that would go to proving any crime. That's the opposite of evidence. Intel is not evidence. By the time you prove intel up to evidence, the enemy is fifteen miles further down the road.

So when the heads of intel agencies offer opinions, think of it this way. They are very likely operating off information as thin as Jack Ryan's knowledge of the circumstances of Marko Ramius's wife's death that led him to figure out where Krasny Oktyabr was, and what Ramius was doing with it. Ryan was right, but if he had waited for evidence it would probably have been too late.

One other point that needs to be made. Intel agencies don't deal in evidence. They need information that can be acted on in real time. By the time the Germans had evidence that the Allies were going to land at Normandy, it was too late to get troops in place to stop them.
[/quote]

…and you better be glad that Liberalturds weren't yet born. Otherwise, they'd be biatching about the Allies having fake military equipment in the British countryside to confuse the Germans. They'd be upset we weren't playing fair.

Ollie you are in a tight race for the tallest mental midget

(05-27-2017 12:42 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  Rumors of wrongdoing never gets past a grand jury. There has to be proof. Why do you think that bloody witch named Killary hasn't been charged YET with any crime? There has to be definite proof or evidence.

All the evidence already proves Hillary's definite guilt.

She hasn't been charge... fill in anything except for lack of proof or evidence. We have that. Her guilt has been firmly established.

(05-27-2017 02:40 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Ollie you are in a tight race for the tallest mental midget

It's not a tight race at all Mach, you've got it sewn up...