Tell you what, so we can avoid these nasty dodge problems: put forward your substantive legal argument: your qualitative proof that makes the case for Presidential malfeasance clear for all as a reply to this post and we will go into it."

Quote Originally Posted by Tribesman
Nope , since the inquiry hasn't even started sitting yet .
Then your "contribution" to the thread is at an end.

As a final retort to you other post's elements:

Until then we cannot know if aspects of the program were indeed illegal .
It is futile for you to keep repeating that the basis of the program is legally covered , as you do not know if the program kept within these legal parameters .
The mere fact you have posted the above as you have demonstrates a base misunderstanding of the issue.

If you want a repost ......
Your position is exactly like replying to a subject alledging drink driving and you entirely focussing on if the driver in fact had a drivers licence at the time of the alledged alcohol technicality .
You are still explaining how a drivers licence was issued .
"Your driving example would be better if someone questioned whether Sheriff George had the authority to drive at night. After it was explained: "yes, his license does allow driving at night" to then find the questioner saying: "But, what if he were drunk?" To which, the reply would be: "evidence?""