He who laughs last, laughs best. 

While discussing voting in the 2016 election with acquaintances, one objection I got from the Democrats was that then-presidential candidate Donald Trump was colluding with the Russians.  

When I asked the question from an Occam’s Razor perspective (“How is he colluding with the Russians?”), no one could answer. I think that’s a material question. 

(“Occam’s Razor, put simply, states: ‘The simplest solution is almost always the best.’ It’s a problem-solving principle arguing that simplicity is better than complexity,” AI Overview stated.)

When I asked what they meant by “colluding,” no one gave me a logical answer as to what “colluding” meant.  

Finally I asked the question: “Has he (Trump) been tried in a court — and been found guilty of colluding with the Russians?”

Obviously, the answer to that question was “no.”

In The United States, it is a basic legal principle that you are “innocent until you are proven guilty.”  

That brings up the $38 million Robert Muller report. I intently watched him weave his bag of ... bunk (be polite, Roger!) to the American people.  

He (Muller) concluded his report with the following statement: “While I can’t say Donald Trump was colluding with the Russians, I can’t rule it out either.” 

Robert Muller, a highly respected law enforcement officer? My fanny (again, be polite, Roger)!

I know what a good law enforcement officer is — and Robert Muller is a political hack.  

A man is innocent until proven guilty.  

As Benjamin Franklin wrote in a letter to Benjamin Vaughan in 1785:

 “That it is better 100 guilty persons should escape than that one innocent person should suffer, is a maxim that has been long and generally approved.”

Your job as a law enforcement officer is not only to prosecute the guilty, but to free the innocent.  

Muller failed, and that brings to mind a biblical warning: “Judge not lest you be judged.”

Does that not mean that, if you judge by false standards, you will be judged by false standards?  

As I understand it, the big raid on Melania Trump’s underwear drawer was to recover papers now being released by Tulsi Gabbard, the director of National Intelligence.  

Those “secret, classified underwear drawer papers” not only prove that then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was not only colluding with the Russians, but also paying the Russians for a false report regarding Donald Trump.

But the papers also proved that, in a secret White House Oval Office meeting, President (Barack) Obama, John Brennon, James Clapper and Jim Comey knew that Hillary’s collusion report — now known as the Trump Russia Steele Dossier — was false.

They agreed to hide that information from the American public, thereby knowingly trying to subvert the lawfully elected government of the United States.  

Remember Adam Schiff’s statements about “evidence in plain sight.” 

(AI overview stated that Schiff’s assertions about “evidence in plain sight” meant he believed that the investigations into Russian meddling had revealed evidence suggesting collusion or conspiracy.)  

I also remember from “somewhere” in times past, “Thou shalt not bear false witness against they neighbor.”  

Remember the infamous words of Chuck Schumer: “We are looking forward.”  

Well, no wonder, I guess you would like to do so. Is this what (failed Democrat presidential candidate) Kamala Harris meant by“What can be, unburdened by what has been”? 

We would like to go on lying to our minions.  Unburdened by the past, our past lies.  

Considering Trump’s six-month, second-term accomplishments, one might reason the cost of this deception has been great — not $38 million, but the social cost has been tremendous... between friends, family, countrymen.  

A reckoning must be had.

It reminds me of Lot: “Would you burn it down if I could find you two good men?”

We have seen their responses.  

Are there two good men in the Democrat Party?  

The polls are burning it down. We (justice and the American people) deserve a reckoning.