Let me ask a stupid question. Is there the slightest chance that anyone here is familiar with the concept of reasonable doubt? In our great county where we like to talk a lot about "freedom", a person who is accused or a wrongdoing is entitled to be presented with credible evidence of that wrong doing. It is then up to the accuser to prove that wrong doing BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. The accused need not prove innocence in the absence of credible evidence, and cannot be convicted if the "crime" is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Why does this principle apply to every other American besides the Obamas?

Is there a chance that the Great Chardo understands that there is no crime being accused when someone says that Michelle visited a Saudi who was a "person of interest" in a hospital? I think you are trying very hard to apply a legal term to this situation and you just missed out on what you should have used. Reaonable doubt has to do with criminal law and nobody here has accused old Moochelle of anything criminal, just something that shouldn't have been done. Why are you backing off from the accusations about the Saudi? You must have shaken your head and come awake, finally.

Another question. If she did in fact visit a Saudi in the hospital, what EXACTLY does that mean? And to further detract from the credibility of the story line which states that she failed to visit any others, we know that she did in fact visit at least one actual non Saudi in the hospital.....see above. You'll have to do better that this folks.

Let me ask a stupid question. Is there the slightest chance that anyone here is familiar with the concept of reasonable doubt? There is no resonable doubt when it's a muslim terrorist In our great county where we like to talk a lot about "freedom", a person who is accused or a wrongdoing is entitled to be presented with credible evidence of that wrong doing. Not when it's a muslim terrorist It is then up to the accuser to prove that wrong doing BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. The accused need not prove innocence in the absence of credible evidence, and cannot be convicted if the "crime" is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no reasonable doubt when the individual is a terrorist Why does this principle apply to every other American besides the Obamas?

Another question. If she did in fact visit a Saudi in the hospital, what EXACTLY does that mean? she supports the terrorists And to further detract from the credibility of the story line which states that she failed to visit any others, we know that she did in fact visit at least one actual non Saudi in the hospital..... what a crock of bovine anal secretion this is! If she had done as you say the lamestream medias would have it plastard all over the place. see above. You'll have to do better that this folks.