http://observer.com/2016/09/the-fbi-...te-was-a-sham/

burfordTjustice used his keyboard to write :
http://observer.com/2016/09/the-fbi-...te-was-a-sham/

What proof? The article clearly says "Opinion".

On 9/25/2016 1:40 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
burfordTjustice used his keyboard to write :
http://observer.com/2016/09/the-fbi-...te-was-a-sham/


What proof? The article clearly says "Opinion".

Of course it was a sham - if it walks like a duck.......

Destruction of files and computers after subpoena clearly shows guilt.
FBI is not stupid but had their hands tied from the beginning.

Frank brought next idea :
On 9/25/2016 1:40 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
burfordTjustice used his keyboard to write :
http://observer.com/2016/09/the-fbi-...te-was-a-sham/


What proof? The article clearly says "Opinion".

Of course it was a sham - if it walks like a duck.......

Destruction of files and computers after subpoena clearly shows guilt.
FBI is not stupid but had their hands tied from the beginning.

Probably "true" but not "proof" as the subject line claims it to be.

On Sun, 25 Sep 2016 13:54:58 -0400
Frank "frank wrote:

On 9/25/2016 1:40 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
burfordTjustice used his keyboard to write :
http://observer.com/2016/09/the-fbi-...te-was-a-sham/


What proof? The article clearly says "Opinion".

Of course it was a sham - if it walks like a duck.......

Destruction of files and computers after subpoena clearly shows guilt.
FBI is not stupid but had their hands tied from the beginning.


NSA Analyst: We now have incontrovertible proof the Bureau never had
any intention of prosecuting Hillary Clinton

burfordTjustice wrote on 9/25/2016 :
On Sun, 25 Sep 2016 13:54:58 -0400
Frank "frank wrote:

On 9/25/2016 1:40 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
burfordTjustice used his keyboard to write :
http://observer.com/2016/09/the-fbi-...te-was-a-sham/


What proof? The article clearly says "Opinion".

Of course it was a sham - if it walks like a duck.......

Destruction of files and computers after subpoena clearly shows guilt.
FBI is not stupid but had their hands tied from the beginning.


NSA Analyst: We now have incontrovertible proof the Bureau never had
any intention of prosecuting Hillary Clinton

That would have been a better subject line.

Your friend Rocky had proof that 9/11 didn't actually happen (in his
opinion) but you didn't accept his proof in the form of an mp4 video
file showing compression artifacts which he interpreted as bad CG
editing. This article you posted is clearly marked as an opinion piece
by the the Observer from the contributing person being discussed here.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...famatory.shtml

Where is this incontrovertible proof, and why hasn't there been any
news outlets yet who are willing to publish it as fact? Perhaps they
don't like the source enough to put their credibility on the line?

FromTheRafters
Mon, 26 Sep 2016
00:23:12 GMT in alt.politics.scorched-earth, wrote:

Finding someone guilty is not the same as proving someone guilty.
There very likely are still death row inmates who are not guilty
of the crimes they were found guilty of.

Doesn't this fall more along the lines of.. 'What you know and what you
can prove are two different things' ?



--
MID:
Hmmm. I most certainly don't understand how I can access a copy of a
zip file but then not be able to unzip it so I can watch it. That
seems VERY clever!
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=145716711400

Diesel expressed precisely :
FromTheRafters
Mon, 26 Sep 2016
00:23:12 GMT in alt.politics.scorched-earth, wrote:

Finding someone guilty is not the same as proving someone guilty.
There very likely are still death row inmates who are not guilty
of the crimes they were found guilty of.

Doesn't this fall more along the lines of.. 'What you know and what you
can prove are two different things' ?

Indeed it does in this case, but you *can* have both. Unfortunately
this was just a false claim of having proof of a conjecture. I'm
willing to believe that our government really is that corrupt, but I
didn't find that article compelling.

On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 7:21:43 PM UTC-4, Frank wrote:
On 9/25/2016 2:05 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
Frank brought next idea :
On 9/25/2016 1:40 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
burfordTjustice used his keyboard to write :
http://observer.com/2016/09/the-fbi-...te-was-a-sham/



What proof? The article clearly says "Opinion".

Of course it was a sham - if it walks like a duck.......

Destruction of files and computers after subpoena clearly shows guilt.
FBI is not stupid but had their hands tied from the beginning.

Probably "true" but not "proof" as the subject line claims it to be.

Semantics, yes. Hillary was as guilty as sin and demonstrated intent by
covering it up destroying evidence. Any jury would find her guilty.


Boy, you're really dreaming there. If it were a jury of Trumpets,
they would convict. But a jury that would almost certainly include
many Democrats, I think you'd have a hell of a hard time getting a
conviction.

On 9/26/2016 11:19 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 7:21:43 PM UTC-4, Frank wrote:
On 9/25/2016 2:05 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
Frank brought next idea :
On 9/25/2016 1:40 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
burfordTjustice used his keyboard to write :
http://observer.com/2016/09/the-fbi-...te-was-a-sham/



What proof? The article clearly says "Opinion".

Of course it was a sham - if it walks like a duck.......

Destruction of files and computers after subpoena clearly shows guilt.
FBI is not stupid but had their hands tied from the beginning.

Probably "true" but not "proof" as the subject line claims it to be.

Semantics, yes. Hillary was as guilty as sin and demonstrated intent by
covering it up destroying evidence. Any jury would find her guilty.


Boy, you're really dreaming there. If it were a jury of Trumpets,
they would convict. But a jury that would almost certainly include
many Democrats, I think you'd have a hell of a hard time getting a
conviction.


In yesterday's terms you might say she would get off with an OJ type jury.

On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 2:14:49 PM UTC-4, Frank wrote:
On 9/26/2016 11:19 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 7:21:43 PM UTC-4, Frank wrote:
On 9/25/2016 2:05 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
Frank brought next idea :
On 9/25/2016 1:40 PM, FromTheRafters wrote:
burfordTjustice used his keyboard to write :
http://observer.com/2016/09/the-fbi-...te-was-a-sham/



What proof? The article clearly says "Opinion".

Of course it was a sham - if it walks like a duck.......

Destruction of files and computers after subpoena clearly shows guilt.
FBI is not stupid but had their hands tied from the beginning.

Probably "true" but not "proof" as the subject line claims it to be.

Semantics, yes. Hillary was as guilty as sin and demonstrated intent by
covering it up destroying evidence. Any jury would find her guilty.


Boy, you're really dreaming there. If it were a jury of Trumpets,
they would convict. But a jury that would almost certainly include
many Democrats, I think you'd have a hell of a hard time getting a
conviction.


In yesterday's terms you might say she would get off with an OJ type jury.

I saw a documentary few months ago where they went over the OJ trial.
They interviewed one of the female black jurors. They were talking
with her about her perception of the case, Nicole, etc. There was
pic after pic of Nicole with her face all smashed up, bruised, bloody.
What did you and I conclude from that? That OJ clearly had beaten
her severely, probably to the point of potentially killing her, many
times before. What did that black juror conclude? She said she had
no respect for any woman like Nicole that takes a "beatin" when she
doesn't have to.

Strange world, isn't it? When you get a jury like that, anything is
possible.

burfordTjustice pretended :

[...]

Why is it you post such defensive word walls?

Because he can, and without mispelling or misusing every third or
fourth word. Why do you just post elementary schoolyard retorts?

Nevermind, it was a rhetorical question.