a reply to: spiritualzombie
You can chant all you like. As I said, even if there is truth
to it (why wait 10 months to disclose it?), no crime whatsoever has been
committed. In this country, you have to violate a law as specifically described in a State or Federal statute
As demonstrated by myself, no such law exists. Only laws pertaining to anti-trust contain any wording about collusion. And there is no law which
exists to prevent so-called "interference." Though I should point out, the interference being whined about involved releasing a bunch of truthful
The DNC deserved it, too. After Hillary illegally wiped so many (30,000+) emails of public record off her private/illegal server. Now THAT
"Colluding" with a NON-HOSTILE FOREIGN POWER
is not illegal.
Thanks for playing, though. I'll wager you, absolutely nothing will come from the investigation even if by some miracle the accusations turn out to
I wasn't holding the President's hand during his entire campaign, so I can't say for 100% certainty it didn't happen. But I say, who
cares? Time for better relationships with Russia. We could fight global Islamic terrorism together, and counter threats like North Korea and the rise
JUST AS WE DID IN WORLD WAR 2, WHEN THE USSR WAS OUR ALLY
And yes, in the United States of America (not the Communist Commune of lesser-intelligence) UNPROVEN === UNTRUE. Ever hear the expression innocent
until PROVEN GUILTY IN A COURT OF LAW? Since there is no ACTUAL AND EXISTING LAW that he's accused of breaking, he will NEVER be proven guilty in a
court of law. Do you understand that? Follow me so far? There can't be a trial unless he can be accused of breaking an actual law - and not the law of
leftist outrage, either. I mean a true, indictable offense AS DESCRIBED VERBATIM in the U.S. code. No such code exists.
OK, so since he his GUILT cannot be PROVEN BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT in a COURT OF LAW, he will NEVER be "guilty" of any such crime. In legal terms,
it means he didn't commit any crime and accusations are UNTRUE until PROVEN otherwise. So yes, unproven does equal untrue.
edit on 10/8/2017 by JBurns because: (no reason given)