(12-11-2019 06:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-11-2019 06:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The only point I am trying to make is that sufficient evidence to start an investigation is a very low bar. It need not be evidence at all. For example, the whistleblower letter re: Ukraine does not constitute admissible evidence under most circumstances, but was deemed sufficient to start an investigation.
So saying that there was sufficient evidence to start an investigation is reciting an absurdly low standard to mean anything. You may not be able to indict a ham sandwich, but you could certainly investigate one.

Well, given that the conversation wasn't started because someone suggested that there wasn't a lot of evidence, but literally that the IG report didn't state there was sufficient evidence to start the investigation ("I mean seriously... If the report wanted to say there was sufficient evidence to investigate Trump, it would have very clearly said so."), your comment isn't really on topic.
Again, if you want to talk about whether or not that low bar is appropriate, fine. But don't explicitly say the IG didn't touch on whether or not the IG directly addressed the validity of the opening of the investigation into the campaign and four individuals related to the campaign.
Again, maybe let Ham speak for himself.

My only point is that there are people posting in various places who are attempting to conflate "sufficient evidence to investigate" into "sufficient evidence to state a case." And that is the point I am making. I think Hambone's post would have been better stated had he referred to "sufficient evidence to make a case against Trump," but I'm not his proofreader.