(05-31-2017 02:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-31-2017 01:49 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-31-2017 11:43 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  If you are investigating a murder, you don't wait until you find a video of a person committing a crime to investigate the whereabouts of a person of interest. You can use more circumstantial evidence, like a relationship to the victim, potential motives, etc to start an investigation into someone, right?

No, but you usually start with a dead body.

Well, we know that emails were released against someone's will, and based on the preliminary investigation that they were almost certainly obtained via Russia (illegal).

Then, a lot of weird coincidences and connections between Trump's campaign team and Russia started popping up, so an investigation to confirm that there are/aren't any illicit connections was started.

Kind of makes sense to me.

Let's rewrite:

Well, we know that emails were released against someone's will, Vince Foster's body was found with a death due to gunshot and based on the preliminary investigation that they were almost certainly obtained via Russia (illegal) Foster served as the White House counsel, was affiliated with Hillary at the Rose Law Firm, and had a deep personal and professional relationship with both the Clintons.

Then, a lot of weird coincidences and connections between Trump's campaign team and Russia Vince Foster, Hillary, *and* the legal representation of the original Whitewater issue started popping up, so an investigation to confirm that there are/aren't any illicit connections was started.

-------

See, the nexus of "coincidences and connections" really doesn't hold up without actual evidence. Based on the foregoing, Hillary *should* have been investigated for Vince Foster's death, according the timeline and issue pattern that you state.

The issues surrounding Foster and the issues surrounding Russiagate are equally as specious and bereft of hard facts. And, I can wash, rinse, and substitute different phrases but same concepts to make an equally compelling case for Obama birth certificates, Bush Sr being a trilaterist stooge, etc., etc., etc.

By the way Lad, what are your thoughts on the Obama scandal laid open in the last week or two on the flow, dissemination, and misuse (per the FISA judge's characterization of the administration's "institutional lack of candor") of intercepted NSA material? I mean that one is way wide open, with an actual crime at the center, and without the need of "weird coincidences" and smoke to prop it up. And, my guess, it will have a definite impact on Russia-gate based on the subject matter and with the last night Obama administration rules changes about dissemination of intelligence within the Executive branch.