Prove both of these points please.

Do I really have to? I'm unsure what I could say that would prove the claim considering Hillary has been under investigation and got away with it, and Trump is batship crazy.

Agreed that Trump has a screw loose. I thought you were referring to Clinton. Yes, she's been under investigation for 20 years by GOP led committees. And yes they've never found anything to charge her with. So she's not a known criminal. She's an assumed criminal by many and that's a very different thing. Some people simply are in denial about her.

https://media.giphy.com/media/W79qoke9OhETm/giphy.gif

https://media.giphy.com/media/SAvUKgXJNe6Ws/giphy.gif

Apologies for not being clear, though I realized the use of "known criminal" was in the wrong. It was more suited to prove my point toward Johnson if anything else. Meant nothing toward Clinton.

Is there a hoop you won't jump through to try and dismiss anything negative said towards Hillary, Chula?

The thing is I find it hard not to defend when people post things that are just not true. Calling her a criminal is just plain incorrect.

Which I pulled back on and informed you that the term was used lightly to defend my point about someone else. However, "potential criminal" is in the same league and I find no reason not to use the term the way I did.

See this is just a logic fail. No criminal in US history has ever been found "innocent". Only "not guilty". Her getting off does not in any way shape or form prove that she is NOT a criminal, only that the prosecution couldn't convict her. But go ahead and fail to understand the criminal justice system on a basic level.