Reply #50: Okay, let's take a look at what you've got there: [View All]

Okay, so this person's sister married someone who attended an event where the speaker of the event was designated by the U.S. government as a terrorist.

But wait, what? Who was designated? Someone who spoke at a function that her sister attended. And, wait -- "designated"? "Designated" by what? How does one get "designated"? What is that supposed to mean?

Why in the world would the U.S. Department of the Treasury make criminal "designations" of people? The U.S. Constitution requires that no one can be "designated" without the timeless protections afforded under due process of law. No one can be "designated" except by a court with jurisdiction by a jury of that person's peers. And that person is entitled to be represented by counsel and to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against them.

Now wait: The Treasury Department doesn't seat juries or try cases in court. That sure seems strange to me. Doesn't it seem strange to you? What is going on here?

So this woman's sister attended an event with her husband where there was someone "designated" by a treasury department?

And this makes her a "mole"? Are you reading the same words that I am reading??

And why wouldn't the federal court indictments involving her sister's husband have any allegations about this supposedly nefarious event that her sister and her sister's husband attended?

It begins to become person's related to person's who attended an event somewhere where there was someone else in attendance. There are so many jumps to conclusions regarding people and from one individual to another that one loses track.

This would be called guilt by association -- if only it could even rise to such a level.

Time to call this what it is. The only thing this person did was lie on her immigration papers and search the computers for people she knew. As if people don't do that every day. Oh, but wait, this person is from Lebanon, is a Muslim, Arab, and part of the "Other" against whom the "War on Terror" is being waged. Now Isikoff has a story, doesn't he?

That is why the investigation has uncovered NO EVIDENCE. What Isikoff is peddling is nothing but lying innuendo, not evidence.