Would you like the cops to show up at your house to search for your weed stash whenever they want to just because they need to determine whether or not a crime has been committed?
Not the same legal standard.
Start and pursue an investigation = reasonable articulable suspicion (Terry v Ohio)
Search house for weed stash = probable cause and warrant (4th amendment)
Thank you sir. Filing this away for future regurgitation...Let's review the differing standards from investigation to conviction.
1.Open and pursue a criminal investigation = reasonable articulable suspicion a crime has been or is being committed. A pretty damned low burden of proof level.
2. File charges = probable cause that a specific identified crime has been by a specific identified individual.
3. Conviction = proof beyond a reasonable doubt of #2.
People chanting where's the proof....what's the crime...etc...are applying at least level two evidentiary standard to a case that isn't there yet.
The down side to a cut and paste list is there may be things on there that you don't personally agree with or haven't personally read. That's not meant to be a criticism, either. So here's a question: Do you stand by this list as a whole or are there portions of it that you would disown?
It's not all gold. I haven't taken time to read it all but there's enough there that is troubling and constitutes enough "evidence" if true to look into the Russia stuff.