A sober reminder of what insufficient evidence actually means

[oxmixmudd]

So many claim trump is vindicated by the Mueller report because sufficient evidence could not be found to prove collusion.

Well, here is what insufficient evidence means in the context of this weekends sri lanken bombings

Source: cnn

In an interview with CNN, Sri Lanka's Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe said the suspected bombers were upper and middle class, well-educated and educated abroad, a profile he described as "surprising." He added that several of them were under surveillance ahead of the attacks, but that there had not been "sufficient" evidence to take them into custody.

© Copyright Original Source

Jim

[Cow Poke]

[Mountain Man]

Um... huh...

[Cerebrum123]

He's saying that "insufficient evidence" doesn't mean "not guilty". Especially with regards to Trump and Russian collusion.

[Mountain Man]

He's saying that "insufficient evidence" doesn't mean "not guilty". Especially with regards to Trump and Russian collusion.

Ok... but Mueller didn't say he had insufficient evidence. It's not even matter of there being evidence but reasonable doubt. Rather, Mueller said quite definitively "this investigation does not conclude that the President committed a crime".

And besides, I think ox is misreading the Prime Minister's statement. He says they were monitoring the group prior to the attack but couldn't take legal action because, presumably, they had not broken any laws. Of course now that they actually have committed crimes, they have been arrested and charged. That's how the law works.

[Cow Poke]

He's saying that "insufficient evidence" doesn't mean "not guilty". Especially with regards to Trump and Russian collusion.

Yeah, I'm just amazed at how he manages to pull Trump into every thread....

[Cerebrum123]

Ok... but Mueller didn't say he had insufficient evidence. It's not even matter of there being evidence but reasonable doubt. Rather, Mueller said quite definitively "this investigation does not conclude that the President committed a crime".

And besides, I think ox is misreading the Prime Minister's statement. He says they were monitoring the group prior to the attack but couldn't take legal action because, presumably, they had not broken any laws. Of course now that they actually have committed crimes, they have been arrested and charged. That's how the law works.

Yeah, I know. I was just trying to point out what I'm pretty sure oxmixmudd is saying.

[Cerebrum123]

Yeah, I'm just amazed at how he manages to pull Trump into every thread....

I'm not, it seems typical for many lately.

[oxmixmudd]

Yeah, I'm just amazed at how he manages to pull Trump into every thread....

Really? And exactly how is your 'no collusion' reference thay was your first post in the thread about hillary clintons emails not doing what you just mocked me for?

And given this thread is about the mueller report and thus trump, how am I pulling this thread towards trump? Its already there.

Or how am I pulling the mueller thread towards trump, since the mueller report is about trump.

Or the no collusion thread.

Do you recognize your post here is nothing but ad hominem?

And why? Am i calling into question you or your competance or rationality? Or any specific person? Or am i calling into question THE IDEA that the mueller report not being able to find evidence of collusion vindicates Trump?

Jim

[Cow Poke]

Really? And exactly how is your 'no collusion' reference thay was your first post in the thread about hillary clintons emails not doing what you just mocked me for?

My comparison was a same/same - US politics and associated corruption. You managed to pull an incredible international tragedy into a yet another "hate Trump" thread.

And given this thread is about the mueller report and thus trump, how am I pulling this thread towards trump? Its already there.

You're right, it's worse than I had indicated.

Or how am I pulling the mueller thread towards trump, since the mueller report is about trump.

Or the no collusion thread.

Do you recognize your post here is nothing but ad hominem?

And why? Am i calling into question you or your competance or rationality? Or any specific person? Or am i calling into question THE IDEA that the mueller report not being able to find evidence of collusion vindicates Trump?

Jim

Unsubscribing, Jim... hate on!

[Bill the Cat]

So many claim trump is vindicated by the Mueller report because sufficient evidence could not be found to prove collusion.

Well, here is what insufficient evidence means in the context of this weekends sri lanken bombings

Source: cnn

In an interview with CNN, Sri Lanka's Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe said the suspected bombers were upper and middle class, well-educated and educated abroad, a profile he described as "surprising." He added that several of them were under surveillance ahead of the attacks, but that there had not been "sufficient" evidence to take them into custody.

© Copyright Original Source

Jim

Due process shows its down side. For every freedom, there is a risk of it being exploited. Or are you suggesting the Sri Lankan government arrest and detain indefinitely anyone they have under surveillance?

[oxmixmudd]

My comparison was a same/same - US politics and associated corruption. You managed to pull an incredible international tragedy into a yet another "hate Trump" thread.



You're right, it's worse than I had indicated.



Unsubscribing, Jim... hate on!

Hate? The only hate in this exchange that might exist is in your ad hominem. And exactly how is pointing out your ad hominem has no basis in fact 'hate'?

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

Due process shows its down side. For every freedom, there is a risk of it being exploited. Or are you suggesting the Sri Lankan government arrest and detain indefinitely anyone they have under surveillance?

What im suggesting is in the thread title. Not having evidence to prove there was active collusion does not mean Trump did not collude, just as not having sufficient evidence to hold this fellow did not mean he was safe.

The refrain right now is that insufficient evidence to indict or recommend indictment equates to vindication. The Sri Lanken bombing and the issues around this person bring into stark reality there is no such equation.

Likewise, and even more so, the issue of obstruction.

Jim

[Cow Poke]

Hate? The only hate in this exchange that might exist is in your ad hominem. And exactly how is pointing out your ad hominem has no basis in fact 'hate'?

Jim

I already unsubscribed, so I don't even see this response.

[Mountain Man]

Not having evidence to prove there was active collusion does not mean Trump did not collude...

And just because there's no evidence that you're a pedophile doesn't mean you're not a pedophile, right?

Is this really the standard you want to go with?