(05-11-2020 01:40 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-11-2020 01:29 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-11-2020 10:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-11-2020 09:28 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Rather than these euphemisms, why don't we use the correct words....

There were suspicions... there were things that made people who couldn't believe they lost an election suspicious.... (aka smoke)

but there was no evidence. (smoking gun)

We actually don't generally, or shouldn't be engaging in widespread investigations with only suspicions but no evidence. Those are usually referred to as 'conspiracy theories'. This one absolutely would have been 'that'.

Is that how our criminal justice system works? There must be hard evidence directly connecting someone to a crime to investigate them?

Is that what I said? Please respond to what I say and not some crazy interpretation of it.

See bold. How was my question a crazy interpretation of "We actually don't generally, or shouldn't be engaging in widespread investigations with only suspicions but no evidence"

lad, what you miss is that the Logan Act wasnt the predicate. The NatSec apparatus investigated Kelly, and found zero credible evidence on the *original* issue. We know that from the notes of Jan 4 that said that.

What seems to escape you is that the Logan Act was a 'fill in' horseshit excuse to *not* stop the investigation --- which was absolutely set for closure.

Not only that, the DOJ *notified* Kelly that all was well based on the 'no derogatory information, lets close it' memo. Strzok opined about 'how fortunate it is that we can gin up something else to tag this guy', then they went out of their way to ambush him. They even noted an ostensible potential goal was to get him in perjury trap. Not to mention changing the 302s of the event months after the fact.

I do find it fun how the whack a mole's whiny Post opinion doesnt note any of those issues. Again, media == political operatives with a byline.

It is amazing how oblivious you and big are to the machinations that went on here.