Responses: 3
What "proof" are you talking about? The report concludes that it didn't have sufficient proof (underline sufficient). As one comedian aptly put it, "Just because your pregnancy test came back negative, it doesn't mean you are a virgin." The dominoes will continue to fall...
(0)
(0)
There is no Proof. You can't prove a negative, all you can do is state is a lack of proof.
"There is no proof he colluded." True. (At least as far as the Barr summation of the Mueller report is concerned. I make no statements regarding whether any proof exists anywhere, just that Barr relayed that no proof was found by Mueller. I find this credible and consider it to be exceptionally likely that this means that the proof does not exist. However, following the rules of logic, I cannot state categorically that such proof does not exist at all.)
There is proof he did not collude." False. Were this to be a case of only one person could have colluded, then it WOULD be possible to prove he did not collude by proving that someone else did. However with something like collusion, the presence of one colluder does not exclude the presence of a 2nd or 3rd or 527th colluder. Additionally, were it a case of having to be at a specific place at a specific time (like robbery or murder), again, it could be proven he did not do it, merely by proving he was someplace else at that time. However collusion can take place at any time in virtually any place (due to the wonders of the digital age, and the availability of cell phones, e-mails, and other communications devices), therefore this type of proof is again not possible.
People do not "believe he colluded despite proof that he did not." They "believe he colluded despite a lack of proof that he did." It is a fine, but important distinction.
People also believe in God, despite a lack of proof that he exists. (Yes, there is a lot of evidence, but none of it stands up to what the rules of logic require as proof. It ultimately comes down to belief.) There has been a whole lot more investigation into God than there has been in to Russian collusion. Yet we do not (usually) criticize these people for "seeing what they want to see."
For the record, I am not trying to discount the Mueller report. If he didn't find collusion, I think the most reasonable and logical explanation is that it is because there was no collusion to be found. But this is not PROOF that there was no collusion.
"There is no proof he colluded." True. (At least as far as the Barr summation of the Mueller report is concerned. I make no statements regarding whether any proof exists anywhere, just that Barr relayed that no proof was found by Mueller. I find this credible and consider it to be exceptionally likely that this means that the proof does not exist. However, following the rules of logic, I cannot state categorically that such proof does not exist at all.)
There is proof he did not collude." False. Were this to be a case of only one person could have colluded, then it WOULD be possible to prove he did not collude by proving that someone else did. However with something like collusion, the presence of one colluder does not exclude the presence of a 2nd or 3rd or 527th colluder. Additionally, were it a case of having to be at a specific place at a specific time (like robbery or murder), again, it could be proven he did not do it, merely by proving he was someplace else at that time. However collusion can take place at any time in virtually any place (due to the wonders of the digital age, and the availability of cell phones, e-mails, and other communications devices), therefore this type of proof is again not possible.
People do not "believe he colluded despite proof that he did not." They "believe he colluded despite a lack of proof that he did." It is a fine, but important distinction.
People also believe in God, despite a lack of proof that he exists. (Yes, there is a lot of evidence, but none of it stands up to what the rules of logic require as proof. It ultimately comes down to belief.) There has been a whole lot more investigation into God than there has been in to Russian collusion. Yet we do not (usually) criticize these people for "seeing what they want to see."
For the record, I am not trying to discount the Mueller report. If he didn't find collusion, I think the most reasonable and logical explanation is that it is because there was no collusion to be found. But this is not PROOF that there was no collusion.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next