Who the hell said that? Answer. Nobody. Nobody said a thing about “proven.” You just made that up Doc. You need to be more honest. Investigations should be based on an alleged crime. People should not be investigated randomly. Unless there is evidence that they participated in the alleged crime, they should not be investigated. Are you misrepresenting this opinion on purpose?
All investigations are based on the suspicion of alleged crimes. Geez Louise.
This is ridiculous.
Many types of criminal investigations are launched based on suspicion, not on a certain crime. Insider trading, embezzlement, fraud, etc. The investigation into Bernie Madoff, for one recent example. Basically your “point” is a ridiculous false premise, repeated by the right-wing talkers.
There’s a LOT of desperation in this post. Like several railroad cars worth of weapons-grade desperation.
No, that wasn’t your point. You said …
Your point was nothing has been identified. It most certainly has. The problem is you’ve been watching and hearing fake news. Pay attention to people reporting real news instead of conspiracy theories and you’ll know what’s really going on.
Fox and Rush talk about it.
How funny is it that the very people who have preached forever that they don’t trust politicians are now the ones who keep screaming that there has to be an indictment before an investigation can start.
Bet they don’t treat drug dealers that way.
George Papadopolos and Carter Page have both spoken publicly about being approached by players before the FISA warrant was issued, agents injecting unsolicited references to Russia and hacking into conversations with him, and those conversations being initiated by those same agents. They were trying to get these two to mention Russia and hacking to others, and thereby justify surveilling them and incidental associates of them, manely the Trump campaign.
Nope. Usually you need a little more than suspicion. You need some evidence that a crime was committed. You cannot make an assumption that a crime was committed. And it would also help to actually identify the crime that is being investigated. Neither has happened.
How do you know?
An investigation is used to discover the facts of an allegation. How could you possibly miss that? Its the whole point in the act itself. It would seem you like to put the chicken before the egg.
I believe the attempts at business in Russia and the payoff to Stormy (more specifically, the money laundering to Cohen through the Trump Organization) are the beginning of what hangs him. There will be a multitude of other things. These are just the two that get the camel’s nose under the tent of the investigation…
What you believe does not matter. They did not have any evidence of this when the investigation started. And they won’t have any when it concludes.
(Redacted) meeting with Kilimnik
The president of the United States is named as a co-conspirator on two federal crimes by the SDNY. How in the hell is that not proof?
Named by who? Enemies of the President? Oh geez. What could be wrong with that? And what crimes crimes are we speaking of?
The SDNY who provided this sentencing memo are trump appointed.
Have you heard of this person called individual 1?
The Mother Court