US investigators wiretapped former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort under secret court orders before and after the election, sources tell CNN, an extraordinary step involving a high-ranking campaign official now at the center of the Russia meddling probe.
The government snooping continued into early this year, including a period when Manafort was known to talk to President Donald Trump. Some of the intelligence collected includes communications that sparked concerns among investigators that Manafort had encouraged the Russians to help with the campaign, according to three sources familiar with the investigation. Two of these sources, however, cautioned that the evidence is not conclusive.
[ˈevədəns]
_______
Reality here folks is that information gathered that is "inconclusive" is not actually "evidence". It's simply information. What we have here is "exactly" the same thing as it has always been. There are a set of circumstance that causes suspicion to certain people. They attempt to gather more information in order to confirm the suspicions, but never quite seem to find exactly what they are looking for.
Then we get into the whole begging the question argument that the very fact that someone is investigating, is reason enough to believe that the underlying allegations surrounding the investigation must be true. The more they expand the search into a wider radius, the more certain people in the media would like you to believe that they are getting closer to the truth.
Think of it this way. You cannot find your car keys. You generally leave them on your dresser. You check under things on the dresser, around the dresser, under the dresser, you check your pants pocket, your jacket pocket, and all of the most obvious places where they most likely would be placed. When it comes time to "expand" that search for the missing car keys into places that are further away from the most obvious places... is that a sign that your search is going well?
We are well over a year into this investigation. The special counsel has a team larger than some district attorney's offices. They are currently looking to interview children and former lawyers of Donald Trump associates. Other than suggestion that Manafort could be indicted for some things that are not tied to the 2016 election... so far, no credible information has been leaked or seen by anyone that would suggest that Mueller has any sort of smoking gun evidence on anyone.
Meanwhile, the rising speculation is that the Mueller team has been relying on "tactics" and "tricks of the trade" in order to uncover what it is that they are ultimately after. All of that is fine and dandy, if there really is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. But if there really wasn't an elaborate evil plot between Donald Trump and associates and the Russian government, then all of the tactics and tricks won't help one bit.
48 comments:
Reality here folks is that information gathered that is "inconclusive" is not actually "evidence".
A most amusing tenet considering they have him on tape.....Oh well, being wrong seems to be your strong suit, CH....
A most amusing tenet considering they have him on tape.
Um... what they have on tape would be the "evidence" that is "inconclusive"...
But if there really wasn't an elaborate evil plot between Donald Trump and associates and the Russian government, then all of the tactics and tricks won't help one bit.
Keep the dream.
"Totally Destroy North Korea"
Nuclear weapons on Minneapolis Minnesota?
I remember "Duck and Cover" CH better build a nuclear shelter in his residence. My dad built several of them after the Cuban Missile Crisis. Ellsworth AFB is 10 mines from Rapid City, and had nuclear armed B53 bombers. I knew one of the pilots. He said the entire crew broke into tears after they got the "turn back order".
"Um... what they have on tape would be the "evidence" that is "inconclusive"..."
Rocket science, again.
So i guess Trump wasn't so paranoid after all. He was right.
"Totally Destroy North Korea" "
Mccain, your new BFF, has already called for the extermination of NK.
So there's that.
Um... what they have on tape would be the "evidence" that is "inconclusive"...
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!! Sure CH, what ever you say!!!!!!! That be some strong crap you are smoking.....
Trump continues to be right.
Wire tapped.
The FIB was tapping, President Obama had nothing to do with it.
FBI
"The FIB was tapping, President Obama had nothing to do with it"
NOT according to Evelyn Farkas.
FBI, as in part of the federal government lead by obama appointee and confirmed liar James comey.
Got it.
Beta boy barrack did not know of the political use of the FBI, you can not possibly be that gullible.
Or the IRS
President Trump: I was wiretapped.
CNN: Shut up you dummy, you just hate Obama.
A couple months later...
CNN: Trump was wiretapped.
The interesting thing is that the FBI have been monitoring Manafort off and on now for a while. The CNN story acknowledges that in 2016 a different FISA warrant (provided in 2014) was suspended because of "a lack of evidence" that it was warranted.
It seems like this guy has been investigated and monitored now off and on for nearly three years. And all they have so far is suspicion and two people on record as stating the evidence of any criminal wrongdoing is "inconclusive" (aka - nothing tangible).
The US President speech today did something that we never had during the Lost years. We no longer bow or bend over forward and take it up the arse.
The USA is getting our swagger back.
#MEGA
How refreshing.
I remember "Duck and Cover"
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
so does your old liver.
It seems like this guy has been investigated and monitored now off and on for nearly three years.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
and you can bet the farm that 0linsky was kept informed of every minute of it.
"The CNN story acknowledges that in 2016 a different FISA warrant (provided in 2014) was suspended because of "a lack of evidence" that it was warranted."
The bottom line is that Obama was monitoring Trump in order to destroy his Presidency before he became President.
There's no telling what they did to Cruz and the others.
This entire Russian conspiracy is to unseat a duly elected sitting President by any means necessary.
It's in line with two-bit community organizers. By any means necessary.
Beta boy barrack knew, so now the intelligence community (t/h CHT), IRS AND FBI were political tools.
Obama is the FBI?
The bottom line is that Obama was monitoring Trump in order to destroy his Presidency before he became President.
Horseshit.....liar.....
I've seen this before, this apparent confusion about what "evidence" means and how it differs from proof. "Reality here folks is that information gathered that is "inconclusive" is not actually "evidence". It's simply information" is simply a wrong statement.
If it were how you (mis)understand it, then how could there possibly be a legal standard for "preponderance of evidence"?
This wiretapping reveal is what I wrote here months ago. The "Trump Tower" wasn't wiretapped, "Trump" wasn't wiretapped, but associates of Trump were and possibly while residing in or visiting in the Trump Tower.
I seriously doubt that it was only Paul Manafort. The other shoe will drop in due time.
"The interesting thing is that the FBI have been monitoring Manafort off and on now for a while."
Is that uncommon for criminals whose crimes are difficult to prove?
Is that uncommon for criminals whose crimes are difficult to prove?
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
or are a fabrication because someone, anyone, must go to jail for "something."
that's what this is starting to look like, wp. especially with the involvement of the NY AG a couple weeks ago.
this is scooter libby redux, mueller knows it, and he's desperate to make something, anything stick. hence the unpardonable state level charge(s) to be announced.
that in 2016 a different FISA warrant (provided in 2014) was suspended because of "a lack of evidence" that it was warranted.
And how is that little tidbit relevant for today or is it just you grabbing at straws again....
Is that uncommon for criminals whose crimes are difficult to prove?
What is uncommon is that the trump campaign has a major player being investigated and the head cheese knows nothing....That to me is unusual for such a hands on guy....
Lowest pressure of the hurricane season just recorded 912 mbs!!! Amazing!!!! Current wind 165 mph!!!! Picture an ef 4 tornado 25 miles wide!!!!
If it were how you (mis)understand it, then how could there possibly be a legal standard for "preponderance of evidence"?
Preponderance of the evidence simply means there is enough evidence to say that something more likely occurred than not. (50% +1).
When a source said that the information is "inconclusive" that is far far away from that standard and even more far away from "beyond reasonable doubt" to get a criminal conviction.
Inconclusive probably means there is not even enough for an indictment.
cs, preponderance means there may be evidence supporting either side, but more on one side. Conclusive means that you may conclude guilt or innocence, ow who is right in a civil matter. ie, conclusive means to prove.
now put that into the context of our blog host's assertion that "Reality here folks is that information gathered that is inconclusive is not actually "evidence"." and you'll understand what I'm getting at. You can't have "conclusive" proof for both sides (logical impossibility), therefore you could never have a "preponderance".
Evidence means any information that is at least an indication. Enough of it, strong enough evidence can be a preponderance, and conclusive evidence may be proof. ALL, different concepts. CH is trying to play a petty semantic game with a 1-line dictionary simplification.
Evidence is just that. It's up to the judge or the jury is credible. That simplistic line caught my eye too.
He keeps saying that there is nothing there, but more importantly is that almost every day, we get another leak from inside of the White House.
The overhead conversation between two Trump lawyers, sounds like there is something there. But the question remains as to handle the Russian the (alleged) Russian intervention into the election.
HB, all bullshit.
Is it really your flaccid dream that this President is removed by fox from the White House?
Then you get President Pence and VP Ryan, both much younger men .
I love seeing Wp point out the simplistic thinking of Ch. And Commonsense.
No one reads my spam.
I'm irrelevant.
Conclusive means that you may conclude guilt or innocence, ow who is right in a civil matter. ie, conclusive means to prove.
Conclusive means decisive or convincing it doesn't mean "to prove".
In this case the leaker is telling us that the information is not convincing or decisive enough to even obtain an indictment.
Which would be the first step in any criminal prosecution.
WP - I think our disagreement here is both with the word "inconclusive" and the word "evidence".
Perhaps we are both missing another word, such as speculation, or suspicion. You can garner a warrant (to search or set up surveillance) for speculation or suspicion of a crime. You don't need "evidence" to investigate. You just need a reasonable suspicion.
At that point, people like to say that you are gathering "evidence" when in fact you are simply gathering information. Whether or not that information can be seen as "evidence" is a matter of whether or not it moves to prove your speculation or suspicion. Certainly if all the wiretaps provided law enforcement was information that was not germane to the issue in question, then they didn't actually gather any "evidence".
Wouldn't you agree?
So when someone says that the "evidence" is "inconclusive" they are simply jumping the semantic gun, by giving you the impression that they found "information: that helps prove their suspicion. When in fact, they are saying that whatever it was that they found did not conclusively move the needle.
It's probably much more reasonable to suggest that "information" that is "inconclusive" as to whether or not it proves the suspicion... is not actually "evidence". It if was "evidence" then it would have moved the needle from "suspicion" to "probable cause" and likely to arrest.
Manafort "could" still be arrested. But not likely if the information is considered "inconclusive.
If the evidence against Manafort is inconclusive, he probably won't be arrested.
All related information constitutes evidence at some level of reliability. The reliability of the evidence ranges from hearsay and advertisements (political) to successful predictions of a model based on experimentation (scientific).
In other words, you are making a semantic distinction by calling it "information" in order to imply that there is no evidence against him - arriving ultimately with the wrong assertion that were there any actual evidence, Manafort would already be likely arrested. That's artificial; let me repeat that ALL information is evidence at some level of relevance and reliability. There is no doubt evidence against Manafort, probably a considerable body of evidence. How relevant, how reliable it is remains to be seen. Everything else, including your "no evidence" theory, is speculative.
WP...
From what we know for sure, is that Manafort was wiretapped for nearly two years, before it was shut down for lack of anything substantial coming out of it.
So for you to simply "assume" that because they wiretapped him again, that there is no doubt "evidence, probably a considerable body of evidence" is sort of proving the point I am making here... you are simply begging the question. You assume that an investigation means guilt. There is no other explanation for it.
And I couldn't disagree with you more on your assertion that all information is evidence. If they had Manafort wiretapped on Jan 6th 2017 and the only thing they found out is that he spilled coffee on his shirt, went down the street for lunch, and was picking up dry cleaning on the way home...
that is not evidence. It's simply information.
Point of contention: I didn't tell you *why* there is no doubt evidence against Manafort, so it's *your* assumption that I said so because of warrants. That wrong assumption of yours is the same mistake you made in the original blog post.
I'm referring to the investigative actions which have become public, actions which almost certainly do not occur without having evidence of someone's guilt or complicity.
" If they had Manafort wiretapped on Jan 6th 2017 and the only thing they found out is that he spilled coffee on his shirt, went down the street for lunch, and was picking up dry cleaning on the way home... "
Maybe this illustrates where the disconnect is, because this absolutely IS evidence given a relevant context. Place a criminal associate at the cleaners at the same time for example, or negatively it provides an alibi. Infinite possibilities, varying in degree of relevance and reliability (which you shouldn't have edited out)
"You assume that an investigation means guilt." - CH
And by the way, claiming that there is evidence of guilt is NOT the same as claiming or assuming a person is in fact guilty. This is what I was trying to explain to CS, that some people have a weird notion that evidence of a crime is synonymous with "conclusive", as in conclusively proving guilt, and that's what you've done here again.
Discussions would be much more clear if you simply substitute "Proof" everywhere you say "evidence", since that's what you actually mean, and people who understand those terms in the normal and legally correct meaning could follow along.
WP - it must surprise you then, that the first "synonym" listed for evidence is proof and the first "synonym" listed for proof is evidence?
https://www.bing.com/search?q=evidence
https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+proof
So according to the layman's definition of the two words, evidence and proof mean pretty much the same thing...
Which is exactly why, when the media mixes the term "evidence" into the conversation, that people assume it means "proof"...
and the very reason why I feel that using the term "evidence" when you are talking about facts or information that doesn't actually "indicate that a belief or proposition is true".... is by definition... wrong.
Ch, dumbed-down partial definitions and synonym lists (most of which aren't really synonyms) don't actually make a point very well.
"Evidence in a broad sense refers to something that furnishes proof of a matter. In the legal context, it is something legally submitted in court or other decision-making body to ascertain the truth of a matter. "
Do you know where that is from? Can you acknowledge the difference between "the broad sense" and "the legal context"? Will you continue in the claim that this source is also "by definition, wrong"?
Or how about evidence in science? "is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis"
Or just evidence in general: "Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.[1] This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence"
Any of these are superior to your narrow notion of it.
WP - we are talking about a media story from CNN news, not a legal document. So it really doesn't matter what the technical legal definitions are for particular words.
What matters is what the people reading the story will assume to be true. For most people evidence and proof are interchangeable words. So when a normal American citizen reads a story that declares that US Investigators are milling over "evidence" gathered that Manafort was working with Russians regarding the campaign... we both know how people are going to take it.
Had they claimed that the "intelligence or information" collected from the surveillance was not conclusive in terms of proving allegations against Manafort, it would take on a different context. In this case, the correct context.
If you cannot follow the logic in how this becomes a semantic means to push people into a certain thought process... then I would guess you are either fooled by it yourself, or you are really trying hard not to pay attention to it. Or perhaps you are still of the opinion that CNN is a straight forward non-partisan news outlet without bias.
If you cannot follow the logic in how this becomes a semantic means to push people into a certain thought process...
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
now that you mention it, i've lately been wondering why wp has taken his debates to a nano-particle level of semantic hair splitting.
Just following CH there, rrb. When someone posts a one-liner dictionary definition and then bases his weird conclusion from that, you know that it's already semantic nit-picking.
Just look at this last one. "Intelligence or Information" vs "evidence", because everyone but us are being fooled, or we're being fooled if we don't think that everyone else is. Good grief.
WP...
Since Donald Trump has been elected... Roger, James, and Opie have probably posted 500 different articles from CNN, MSNBC, Politico, Washington Post, NY Times, etc...
all providing the smoking gun, proof positive, last straw, absolute factual evidence that proves "something horrifying" about Donald Trump... and yet, we are no closer today than we have ever been to proving anything.
So yeah, WP... we witness people being "fooled" by the media every single day.
Post a Comment