No proof of collusion? That's what Republicans say

[Lint Head]

constantly. Well you can't have it both ways. Where is the proof there is "not" collusion? Maybe the bank down the street has been robbed. But you don't know about it until somebody tells you. A witness. The police. A news report. An investigator.
I can't understand why Democrats and reporters don't use or really understand logic. Aren't some of these folks supposed to be well-educated?

[Cary]

1. In the end their words don't matter

It's about the evidence and it's all in Mueller's hands.

[B2G]

2. "Where is the proof there is "not" collusion?"

That's not how this works.

[Lint Head]

4. I know that's not how this works. But the Republicans are saying there is no proof

"of" collusion. And the silly argument needs to be flipped on to the GOP. Collusion is not a crime. Conspiracy to commit treason is.

[Doodley]

3. If they apply the same standard to Hillary Clinton, why has DT already found her guilty?

[Lint Head]

5. Exactly

[Boomerproud]

11. She's guilty because she's Hillary Clinton-that's all that matters.

It's been that way since 1992 and it will never change. Guilty of what? Who cares!!!!

That's it. I'm over it. I'm gone.

[kentuck]

6. There is no proof of collusion....

but there is a lot of circumstantial evidence.

[Lint Head]

7. Damn right!

And someone right here in my home state was convicted of murder based on circumstantial evidence.

[nocalflea]

8. I think the reporters and dems(politicians and commentators) believe that a reiteration of the facts is better spin.

Why play a game of semantics when you have verifiable facts on your side.

Keep the facts of the case out in front of the public.

But yeah, "You can't prove they didn't collude, nanny goat, nanny goat" , is certainly more emotionally gratifying.

[Lint Head]

10. The crotch grabbing and saying he can shoot someone

on 5th Avenue and still get elected didn't convince people? Really. When have facts convince the GOP when it comes to Trump?

[bagelsforbreakfast]

9. Simple - GOP knows where their money is and follows "its" lead... for that matter

so does Fox, etc.

[Thor_MN]

12. To be fair, "no proof of collusion" is not equal to "proof there is not collusion"

They are claiming the former (and they are wrong) and you are demanding the later, which is something that they have not claimed.

Asking to prove a negative is an indicator that someone doesn't understand logic.

[Lint Head]

13. I'm not "demanding" anything. You do not understand my post.

Of course you can't prove a negative. That's the purpose of my post. The GOP's 'there is no proof of collusion' is just as absurd as 'there is not proof there is not'.
Didn't think I would have to explain or define such a simple concept.

[Thor_MN]

14. "Where is the proof there is "not" collusion?" Your words.

"The GOP's 'there is no proof of collusion' is just as absurd as 'there is not proof there is not'."

No, it is not. Saying that no proof has come out that something happened is not the same that proof exists that something did not happen.

If you don't understand that, I'm not going to take the time to explain it to you.

[Lint Head]

15. Wish you had not "explained " in the first place. Youy don't get it. Bye.

[Thor_MN]

16. Sorry, it is you who doesn't get it.

You are proposing that Democrats and reporters make fools of themselves by asking for proof that there was no collusion.

Most people don't like when their errors are pointed out, so I'm not surprised that you wish I hadn't posted.

[jmg257]

17. Do you have proof you are not a murderer?

[bluestarone]

19. well i want

perjury treason tax evasion money laundering fraud breaks my heart if they find no collusion