Is it Time to Change the Rule of Law in America?

[Skylar]

Who says it wasn't an independant investigation?

Let me guess, the same hapless soul that insisted that the investigation wasn't impartial, citing himself?

Remember, and this point is fundamental: you don't actually know what you're talking about. While the IG does.

Who says it was an Independent investigation? Who led it? Mueller?

Your'e the one making the claims, you're the one who is going to back them up. What is your evidence that the investigation wasn't impartial? It better be far better than the IG's findings that the FBI's findings were reasonable, based on law and precedent.

Which of course, you ignored.

And you've abandoned even a semblance of defending 'the presumption of innocence' when it comes to Trump's political opponents, demonstrating the disdain that Trump supporters have for the concept.

So you're admitting that there wasn't an independent investigation. Good for you.
Yes, there is a difference between an IG and an independent investigation.
Yeah, the FBI's investigation was impartial when they investigated Hillary, the evidence backed that up.

8 Benghazi investigations including her emails by the Congress, and one investigation by the Inspector general, which lead to 1 investigation on the emails by the FBI, and then another investigation by the FBI on the new found emails, and then an overall investigation by the Inspector General requested by Trump and the Republicans....

And YOU are still stuck on Hillary?

While ROME BURNS and not one single investigation by the Republican congress on Trump and his administration's improprieties in 2 years.

Hillary really needs to sue the Republicans in government for HARASSMENT.... enough is enough of you two faced bastards trying to ruin her life...

not one impartial investigation in to Kavanaugh for his alleged improprieties either.... not a one....

All A-OK with you eh?

Did you lose your mind on your hiatus away from here Meister?

Put her in front of a real court room and not the Circus Courts of Capital hill...............and press charges for the mishandling of Classified Information...........

The FBI found that no reasonable prosecutor would charge her with any crime. Nor was she charged. Nor has she been convicted of anything.

Yet your ilk still chant "LOCK HER UP!" Including the Attorney General of the United States.

But tell us more the presumption of innocence.

 

[bripat9643]

I know they set their own rules of evidence, and that needs to end. Public universities should be required to follow the Constitution, and under this president they are.

And show us what part of the constitution is violated by kicking someone out of school.

Specifically.

The Fifth Amendment, dumbass. You are entitled to due process of law from every branch of the government. That includes government subsidized universities.

Universities aren't a 'branch of the government'. Nixing your entire argument.

Here's the 5th amendment. Highlight the portions being ejected from a university violate:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Are you claiming that someone can only be ejected from a university after they've been convicted of a crime?

"Universities aren't a 'branch of the government'. Nixing your entire argument."

Of course they are, you fucking dumbass. Your argument goes off the rails right there. No point in even reading any further.

No, Universities aren't any branch of government.

And of course you couldn't find any portion of the 5th amendment that is violated by kicking someone out of school.

Nor could you answer this cartoon simple question: Are you claiming that someone can only be ejected from a university after they've been convicted of a crime?

Run along.

Yes, they are a branch of government. They were created by the government, they are subsidized by the government, and they are run by the government.

You're a fucking moron.

 

[bripat9643]

Who says it was an Independent investigation? Who led it? Mueller?

Your'e the one making the claims, you're the one who is going to back them up. What is your evidence that the investigation wasn't impartial? It better be far better than the IG's findings that the FBI's findings were reasonable, based on law and precedent.

Which of course, you ignored.

And you've abandoned even a semblance of defending 'the presumption of innocence' when it comes to Trump's political opponents, demonstrating the disdain that Trump supporters have for the concept.

So you're admitting that there wasn't an independent investigation. Good for you.
Yes, there is a difference between an IG and an independent investigation.
Yeah, the FBI's investigation was impartial when they investigated Hillary, the evidence backed that up.

8 Benghazi investigations including her emails by the Congress, and one investigation by the Inspector general, which lead to 1 investigation on the emails by the FBI, and then another investigation by the FBI on the new found emails, and then an overall investigation by the Inspector General requested by Trump and the Republicans....

And YOU are still stuck on Hillary?

While ROME BURNS and not one single investigation by the Republican congress on Trump and his administration's improprieties in 2 years.

Hillary really needs to sue the Republicans in government for HARASSMENT.... enough is enough of you two faced bastards trying to ruin her life...

not one impartial investigation in to Kavanaugh for his alleged improprieties either.... not a one....

All A-OK with you eh?

Did you lose your mind on your hiatus away from here Meister?

Put her in front of a real court room and not the Circus Courts of Capital hill...............and press charges for the mishandling of Classified Information...........

The FBI found that no reasonable prosecutor would charge her with any crime. Nor was she charged. Nor has she been convicted of anything.

Yet your ilk still chant "LOCK HER UP!"

But tell us more the presumption of innocence.

That's what Comey found, and he's a lying Clinton hack.

 

[Skylar]

Your'e the one making the claims, you're the one who is going to back them up. What is your evidence that the investigation wasn't impartial? It better be far better than the IG's findings that the FBI's findings were reasonable, based on law and precedent.

Which of course, you ignored.

And you've abandoned even a semblance of defending 'the presumption of innocence' when it comes to Trump's political opponents, demonstrating the disdain that Trump supporters have for the concept.

So you're admitting that there wasn't an independent investigation. Good for you.
Yes, there is a difference between an IG and an independent investigation.
Yeah, the FBI's investigation was impartial when they investigated Hillary, the evidence backed that up.

8 Benghazi investigations including her emails by the Congress, and one investigation by the Inspector general, which lead to 1 investigation on the emails by the FBI, and then another investigation by the FBI on the new found emails, and then an overall investigation by the Inspector General requested by Trump and the Republicans....

And YOU are still stuck on Hillary?

While ROME BURNS and not one single investigation by the Republican congress on Trump and his administration's improprieties in 2 years.

Hillary really needs to sue the Republicans in government for HARASSMENT.... enough is enough of you two faced bastards trying to ruin her life...

not one impartial investigation in to Kavanaugh for his alleged improprieties either.... not a one....

All A-OK with you eh?

Did you lose your mind on your hiatus away from here Meister?

Put her in front of a real court room and not the Circus Courts of Capital hill...............and press charges for the mishandling of Classified Information...........

The FBI found that no reasonable prosecutor would charge her with any crime. Nor was she charged. Nor has she been convicted of anything.

Yet your ilk still chant "LOCK HER UP!"

But tell us more the presumption of innocence.

That's what Comey found, and he's a lying Clinton hack.

Says you, citing your imagination.

Meanwhile, Clinton has been charged with no crime. Nor has she been convicted of anything.

Yet your ilk, including the Attorney General, chant 'LOCK HER UP!'

You were saying about presumption of innocence?

 

[bripat9643]

So you're admitting that there wasn't an independent investigation. Good for you.
Yes, there is a difference between an IG and an independent investigation.
Yeah, the FBI's investigation was impartial when they investigated Hillary, the evidence backed that up.

8 Benghazi investigations including her emails by the Congress, and one investigation by the Inspector general, which lead to 1 investigation on the emails by the FBI, and then another investigation by the FBI on the new found emails, and then an overall investigation by the Inspector General requested by Trump and the Republicans....

And YOU are still stuck on Hillary?

While ROME BURNS and not one single investigation by the Republican congress on Trump and his administration's improprieties in 2 years.

Hillary really needs to sue the Republicans in government for HARASSMENT.... enough is enough of you two faced bastards trying to ruin her life...

not one impartial investigation in to Kavanaugh for his alleged improprieties either.... not a one....

All A-OK with you eh?

Did you lose your mind on your hiatus away from here Meister?

Put her in front of a real court room and not the Circus Courts of Capital hill...............and press charges for the mishandling of Classified Information...........

The FBI found that no reasonable prosecutor would charge her with any crime. Nor was she charged. Nor has she been convicted of anything.

Yet your ilk still chant "LOCK HER UP!"

But tell us more the presumption of innocence.

That's what Comey found, and he's a lying Clinton hack.

Says you, citing your imagination.

Meanwhile, Clinton has been charged with no crime. Nor has she been convicted of anything.

Yet your ilk, including the Attorney General, chant 'LOCK HER UP!'

You were saying about presumption of innocence?

Says me citing all the media reports ever broadcast or published on the subject. I watched the man on TV say it. Who else was saying it other than him? Answer: no one.

 

[Skylar]

And show us what part of the constitution is violated by kicking someone out of school.

Specifically.

The Fifth Amendment, dumbass. You are entitled to due process of law from every branch of the government. That includes government subsidized universities.

Universities aren't a 'branch of the government'. Nixing your entire argument.

Here's the 5th amendment. Highlight the portions being ejected from a university violate:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Are you claiming that someone can only be ejected from a university after they've been convicted of a crime?

"Universities aren't a 'branch of the government'. Nixing your entire argument."

Of course they are, you fucking dumbass. Your argument goes off the rails right there. No point in even reading any further.

No, Universities aren't any branch of government.

And of course you couldn't find any portion of the 5th amendment that is violated by kicking someone out of school.

Nor could you answer this cartoon simple question: Are you claiming that someone can only be ejected from a university after they've been convicted of a crime?

Run along.

Yes, they are a branch of government. They were created by the government, they are subsidized by the government, and they are run by the government.

You're a fucking moron.

Then it will be remarkably easy for you to find what portion of the 5th amendment is violated by kicking someone out of a school:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

And of course, you flee from this very simple question, terrified to answer:

Are you claiming that someone can only be ejected from a university after they've been convicted of a crime?

If your argument had merit, you could do both things. Yet you can do neither.

 

[Skylar]

8 Benghazi investigations including her emails by the Congress, and one investigation by the Inspector general, which lead to 1 investigation on the emails by the FBI, and then another investigation by the FBI on the new found emails, and then an overall investigation by the Inspector General requested by Trump and the Republicans....

And YOU are still stuck on Hillary?

While ROME BURNS and not one single investigation by the Republican congress on Trump and his administration's improprieties in 2 years.

Hillary really needs to sue the Republicans in government for HARASSMENT.... enough is enough of you two faced bastards trying to ruin her life...

not one impartial investigation in to Kavanaugh for his alleged improprieties either.... not a one....

All A-OK with you eh?

Did you lose your mind on your hiatus away from here Meister?

Put her in front of a real court room and not the Circus Courts of Capital hill...............and press charges for the mishandling of Classified Information...........

The FBI found that no reasonable prosecutor would charge her with any crime. Nor was she charged. Nor has she been convicted of anything.

Yet your ilk still chant "LOCK HER UP!"

But tell us more the presumption of innocence.

That's what Comey found, and he's a lying Clinton hack.

Says you, citing your imagination.

Meanwhile, Clinton has been charged with no crime. Nor has she been convicted of anything.

Yet your ilk, including the Attorney General, chant 'LOCK HER UP!'

You were saying about presumption of innocence?

Says me citing all the media reports ever broadcast or published on the subject. I watched the man on TV say it. Who else was saying it other than him? Answer: no one.

Laughing....so your standard of evidence is what the TV tells you to think?

Show us Hillary charged or convicted of anything. You can't. Yet still your ilk chant "LOCK HER UP!"

So much for your empty lip service to a presumption of innocence.

 

[bripat9643]

The Fifth Amendment, dumbass. You are entitled to due process of law from every branch of the government. That includes government subsidized universities.

Universities aren't a 'branch of the government'. Nixing your entire argument.

Here's the 5th amendment. Highlight the portions being ejected from a university violate:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Are you claiming that someone can only be ejected from a university after they've been convicted of a crime?

"Universities aren't a 'branch of the government'. Nixing your entire argument."

Of course they are, you fucking dumbass. Your argument goes off the rails right there. No point in even reading any further.

No, Universities aren't any branch of government.

And of course you couldn't find any portion of the 5th amendment that is violated by kicking someone out of school.

Nor could you answer this cartoon simple question: Are you claiming that someone can only be ejected from a university after they've been convicted of a crime?

Run along.

Yes, they are a branch of government. They were created by the government, they are subsidized by the government, and they are run by the government.

You're a fucking moron.

Then it will be remarkably easy for you to find what portion of the 5th amendment is violated by kicking someone out of a school:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

And of course, you flee from this very simple question, terrified to answer:

Are you claiming that someone can only be ejected from a university after they've been convicted of a crime?

If your argument had merit, you could do both things. Yet you can do neither.

Fuck off, you annoying troll. I've cited it already. You can ask the question 1000 times, but the answer won't change.

 

[Skylar]

Universities aren't a 'branch of the government'. Nixing your entire argument.

Here's the 5th amendment. Highlight the portions being ejected from a university violate:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Are you claiming that someone can only be ejected from a university after they've been convicted of a crime?

"Universities aren't a 'branch of the government'. Nixing your entire argument."

Of course they are, you fucking dumbass. Your argument goes off the rails right there. No point in even reading any further.

No, Universities aren't any branch of government.

And of course you couldn't find any portion of the 5th amendment that is violated by kicking someone out of school.

Nor could you answer this cartoon simple question: Are you claiming that someone can only be ejected from a university after they've been convicted of a crime?

Run along.

Yes, they are a branch of government. They were created by the government, they are subsidized by the government, and they are run by the government.

You're a fucking moron.

Then it will be remarkably easy for you to find what portion of the 5th amendment is violated by kicking someone out of a school:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

And of course, you flee from this very simple question, terrified to answer:

Are you claiming that someone can only be ejected from a university after they've been convicted of a crime?

If your argument had merit, you could do both things. Yet you can do neither.

Fuck off, you annoying troll. I've cited it already. You can ask the question 1000 times, but the answer won't change.

Your answer being....to run with your tail between your legs?

Laughing.....it violates the 5th amendment until I ask you to show us which portion of the 5th amendment is vkiolated. Then suddenly you grow mute and flee.

Shocker.

So much for you citing yourself, Brit.

 

[jc456]

No, Sandusky was legally presumed innocent until his trial ended with a guilty verdict. I'm not sure why you are having such a hard time with this, it's a pretty basic concept of the US legal system. Whether or not someone is actually guilty of a crime, the justice system is supposed to presume their innocence until such a time as they are convicted. That does not mean that someone did not commit a crime until they are convicted, just that the justice system presumes they did not until they are convicted.

So he never molested those boys until after the trial?

'How the fuck did you get so stupid.

Sandusky WAS guilty. From his first molestation he was guilty.

You assume innocence in a court of law. It is the starting point of a trial.

This is not a court pf law.

Sandusky was a child molester the first time he did it.

His accusers did not have witnesses. They did not have proof, Yet Sandusky WAS indeed guilty..

I believe Ford. I did not believe Kavanuagh. So I think Kavanaugh did indeed assault Ford. Is it provable in court? Maybe. But to me he is guilty based on what I heard.

I would not have hired Kavanaugh with his testimony. Not so much for something he did when he was in high school but for his lies, dishonesty, & demeanor.

Certainly we have better options in this country.

Go back and reread what he stated, your comprehension skills seem to be turned off today.

I know what you wrote. You can't seem to distinguish the presumption of innocence for a court case & innocence in real life.

You think Sandusky was innocent until found iiulty in court but in reality he was guilty before the trial even started.

He did it., He molested those kids. He did it whether or not some court said so.

Kavanaugh was NOT on trial. There can be no proof. That does not make Kavanaugh innocent.

According to you every murderer, rapist, theif never ever committed those crimes because they were never caught. That is pretty damn stupid.

you're right, Sandusky did it, we know he did, there is evidence he did it. he did go to court, and we did find out what everyone knew. apples and submarines to the kavanaugh discussion.

so try again. tell us where someone was proven to be guilty without evidence. please, post it up for us all. come now junior, you've got it all and know it all. let's see it.

BTW, I can show where evidence said a man was guilty and 12 jurors said not guilty. Want to know that name?

Wow, you are dense.

You claim Kavanaugh was innocent because there was no court case.

If I murder someone & I don't get caught, am I innocent?

Haha post that quote genius

 

[easyt65]

You're claiming there is no evidence that Russia attacked the US to aid Trump? I want you on record.

I am already on record. You can not claim to know WHY anyone did anything, moron. You aren't psychic ... But you might be a Russian.

You are already on record as well for being an admitted moron who gmhas no idea what 'Counter-Intelligence' is or what its goals are.

For example, your pea-sized brain and over-grown HATRED can not comprehend that the Russians benefit way more by helping both and in the end manipulating half the country into claiming whoever won is not legitimate, thereby dividing the country and burying whoever wins in obstruction, division, and hate.

THAT was the real objective from the start...

...and the LOSER Democrats who refused to accept the out one of the election have been more than happy to help the Russians divide this country the last w years

 

[Skylar]

You're claiming there is no evidence that Russia attacked the US to aid Trump? I want you on record.

I am already on record. You can not claim to know WHY anyone did anything, moron. You aren't psychic ... But you might be a Russian.

Why would I believe you....over our own intelligence serves and the Senate Intel Committee report?

 

[bripat9643]

"Universities aren't a 'branch of the government'. Nixing your entire argument."

Of course they are, you fucking dumbass. Your argument goes off the rails right there. No point in even reading any further.

No, Universities aren't any branch of government.

And of course you couldn't find any portion of the 5th amendment that is violated by kicking someone out of school.

Nor could you answer this cartoon simple question: Are you claiming that someone can only be ejected from a university after they've been convicted of a crime?

Run along.

Yes, they are a branch of government. They were created by the government, they are subsidized by the government, and they are run by the government.

You're a fucking moron.

Then it will be remarkably easy for you to find what portion of the 5th amendment is violated by kicking someone out of a school:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

And of course, you flee from this very simple question, terrified to answer:

Are you claiming that someone can only be ejected from a university after they've been convicted of a crime?

If your argument had merit, you could do both things. Yet you can do neither.

Fuck off, you annoying troll. I've cited it already. You can ask the question 1000 times, but the answer won't change.

Your answer being....to run with your tail between your legs?

Laughing.....it violates the 5th amendment until I ask you to show us which portion of the 5th amendment is vkiolated. Then suddenly you grow mute and flee.

Shocker.

So much for you citing yourself, Brit.

I already gave you the answer, douchebag. I'm not going to give it to you 500 times. I know that's how many times you're going to insist I haven't given you the answer. Repeating your lies over and over is what you do. I'm not going to play.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Who says it was an Independent investigation? Who led it? Mueller?

Your'e the one making the claims, you're the one who is going to back them up. What is your evidence that the investigation wasn't impartial? It better be far better than the IG's findings that the FBI's findings were reasonable, based on law and precedent.

Which of course, you ignored.

And you've abandoned even a semblance of defending 'the presumption of innocence' when it comes to Trump's political opponents, demonstrating the disdain that Trump supporters have for the concept.

So you're admitting that there wasn't an independent investigation. Good for you.
Yes, there is a difference between an IG and an independent investigation.
Yeah, the FBI's investigation was impartial when they investigated Hillary, the evidence backed that up.

8 Benghazi investigations including her emails by the Congress, and one investigation by the Inspector general, which lead to 1 investigation on the emails by the FBI, and then another investigation by the FBI on the new found emails, and then an overall investigation by the Inspector General requested by Trump and the Republicans....

And YOU are still stuck on Hillary?

While ROME BURNS and not one single investigation by the Republican congress on Trump and his administration's improprieties in 2 years.

Hillary really needs to sue the Republicans in government for HARASSMENT.... enough is enough of you two faced bastards trying to ruin her life...

not one impartial investigation in to Kavanaugh for his alleged improprieties either.... not a one....

All A-OK with you eh?

Did you lose your mind on your hiatus away from here Meister?

Put her in front of a real court room and not the Circus Courts of Capital hill...............and press charges for the mishandling of Classified Information...........

The FBI found that no reasonable prosecutor would charge her with any crime. Nor was she charged. Nor has she been convicted of anything.

Yet your ilk still chant "LOCK HER UP!" Including the Attorney General of the United States.

But tell us more the presumption of innocence.

Bullshit ..

 

[Wyatt earp]

Take that to the conspiracy theory forum and start a thread on it.

It is a fact that the Russians interfered in the 20126 election in the favor of Trump.

Are you talking about the democrat dossier?

Or the findings of 16 US intellegence agencies and the Senate Intel Committee report.

Much like what the Democrats had on Kavanaugh, no evidence ... After 2 years ... Except criminal evidence against Hillary, Democrats, and the investigators....

You're claiming there is no evidence that Russia attacked the US to aid Trump?

I want you on record.

Russia didn't attack the USA, what's this propganda? Russia told the American public about Hillary's and the DNC shenanigans by rigging the DNC nomination.

 

[Weatherman2020]

We need a discussion on whether a person now should have to prove his innocence
than having an accuser having to prove the person's guilt.
During the Kavanaugh hearings, one party seemed to demand proof of innocence from
Kavanaugh. This same party did not demand the accuser to prove Kavanaugh's guilt.
This went so far as to have the MSM be complicit in their covering of the hearings.
This went so far as to have the 'grassroot gatherings' be complicit in the covering of
the hearings.
All three entities, the democrat party, the MSM, and the 'grassroot gatherers' all abandoned
what made the United States great with it's judicial system. They all demanded that an accused had to
prove his innocence, even when the evidence did not back the accuser.
Is it time to change our judicial system?
What say you?

Arrest all Leftists. Let them prove their innocence. Let’s see if they float.

 

[easyt65]

Why would I believe you....over our own intelligence serves and the Senate Intel Committee report?

Evidence shows Brennan and Clapper controlled access to the Russian-authored report, allowing only a select few to see it so they got back the responses they were looking for / needed to write the ICR - based on the Dossier - then intentionally presented it to Congress and the FISA Court as legitimate Intel, which it was NOT.

That is not speculation, opinion, etc.... It is PROVEN FACT!

OHER rolled over - he testified to Congress and exposed this and more.

The US IG report condemned the FBI for abandoning their own rules and procedures, for altering witness testimony after the fact, and recommended McCabe for indictment, which Rosenstein has protected him from.

Brennan committed PERJURY by claiming he never heard of the Dossier, but official Congressional records show he briefed Congress on it AND Oher testified he and Strzok (CIA & FBI collusion) worked together to author the ICA and the ICR based off the Dossier.

Again, you would rather keep your eyes closed and believe the proven traitors who willingly helped the Russian Intel divide the nation with their counter-Intel operation Obama knew about in 2014 and let continue for 2 years!

 

[Rustic]

Illegitimate could have been used.......the democrats redefined the word, so it would work.

A man elected by both the electoral college and the people....twice....was 'illegitimate'?

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

He's as illegitimate as Trump is, Skylar......using the democrats definition of the word.

Obama won the popular vote in both of his elections.

Presidents are not elected by popular vote.

No, they aren't. But you can't claim to have the 'will of the people' behind you when far more of them voted for the other person than yourself.

Mob rule is no way to elect an president... We are supposed to be a republic not a shit eating democracy. The electoral college is genius

 

[RealDave]

It is a fact that the Russians interfered in the 20126 election in the favor of Trump.

Are you talking about the democrat dossier?

Or the findings of 16 US intellegence agencies and the Senate Intel Committee report.

Much like what the Democrats had on Kavanaugh, no evidence ... After 2 years ... Except criminal evidence against Hillary, Democrats, and the investigators....

You're claiming there is no evidence that Russia attacked the US to aid Trump?

I want you on record.

Russia didn't attack the USA, what's this propganda? Russia told the American public about Hillary's and the DNC shenanigans by rigging the DNC nomination.

The DNC did not rig their nomination process.

Russia did interfere in the favor of Trump.

You can lie, stomp your feet, call people names, assault more women. It will not change that fact.

 

[RealDave]

A man elected by both the electoral college and the people....twice....was 'illegitimate'?

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

He's as illegitimate as Trump is, Skylar......using the democrats definition of the word.

Obama won the popular vote in both of his elections.

Presidents are not elected by popular vote.

No, they aren't. But you can't claim to have the 'will of the people' behind you when far more of them voted for the other person than yourself.

Mob rule is no way to elect an president... We are supposed to be a republic not a shit eating democracy. The electoral college is genius

So, you have never seen a Trump campaign rally?