Quote:
Originally Posted by Deuces McKracken
You can't prove something which isn't falsifiable. Some claims can be checked. Others can't. For example, when some report says that an individual was "likely" a Kremlin spy, we can hear that person out and review documents they offer and check the validity of the claims. But when it comes to why the investigation happened, that's all in someone's head and we can't really interrogate that. My position is that the founding of the investigation is largely irrelevant compared to the method of the investigation. Did the investigation follow an evidence trail and accumulate evidence establishing some event of interest? It obviously didn't in this case. All it generated were malicious rumors accusing a sitting president- no convictions on the underlying crimes being investigated.
You keep harping about it being properly predicated and I have no idea why you think that is so important or why you think there is any proof possible of it. Decisions to investigate something or not are always ultimately at someone's discretion, no matter what guidelines are set up. I feel like you are never going to get that.
I don't agree with your conclusion. Long and expensive investigations should lead to prosecutions on the core charges because otherwise the justification for continuing the investigation should have expired. There are exceptions to this, but generally speaking a thorough investigation which with no convictions is much less likely to be properly founded. As investigation proceed longer and longer without the proper evidence to justify going further it becomes more likely that what is actually happening is a fishing expedition. What's the chance of all the exculpatory evidence being missed or only being found at the end?
Where do you get this idea? You think there is some kind of super objective body out there making sure everyone acts in good faith- that doesn't exist. That's why prosecutors wield massive influence over everything, because they can choose which matters to move forward and which to leave alone. There is no and can be no autonomous institutional response based on objective evaluation of any given piece of intelligence. The intelligence agencies are flooded with so much data and information they admit they can't even process it. They can mold all sorts of narratives out of that data, which is precisely why our right to privacy is so important. The tried to mold a narrative to remove Trump. Or maybe their goal was always just to bloody him with it with removal to come via the next election. They had to have known that by the time the narrative got into a court of law, where evidence matters, they would hit a wall.
You say lots of really stupid things.
A murder investigations is justified even if it is long and expensive and the person suspected is not found to be guilty.
You cannot frame it that it is only justified if they find guilt as they WILL NOT KNOW without investigating.
It is commonly stated and VERY WRONG premise so many hold that only a finding of guilt justifies an investigation when an Investigation that is PROPERLY constituted is not concerned with the ultimate guilt or innocence of the party being investigated. There goal is simply to get to that answer of 'are they guilty OR not' of what they have been accused of.
So again, when info such as George P's comes to US intelligence from British Intelligence that someone inside the Trump Campaign has said 'Russia has info and is using it to impact our elections', the US intelligence must investigate that.
They cannot summarily accept it as truth nor summarily dismiss it as nothing, because the consequences, if true could be very damaging to US society.
I want you to think of future campaign official in the exact same spot saying that 'China is now the one doing same'.
US intel says 'not interested' 'not going to investigate'. That one, turns out to be very true and it ends up immensely damaging to the US.
You would say 'why did they not investigate. It turned out to be true and thus that makes it meritorious'.
You think that as if the Intelligence people can KNOW that prior to investigating. They cannot. They may look into the China claim and find nothing or they may find merit. But they won't know ANYTHING if they do not investigate.
Thus why the Investigation is REQUIRED. Intelligence agencies cannot be expected to guess, with no investigation, which investigations will result in guilt when guilt IS NOT the point of investigations. Answers are. And no findings of guilt are equally meritorious for predication as guilt findings are.
You know nothing if you don't check and every check by Intelligence requires the opening of an Investigation.
