You’re obviously confused and your confusion has reduced you to mindless repetition.
If anyone has potential probative evidence of criminal activity, they can take that evidence to law enforcement agencies who will investigate. If the alleged evidence looks solid, law enforcement will submit the evidence to a prosecutor who will convene a grand jury and give a panel of average American citizens the opportunity to review the evidence to see if it is solid enough to indict anyone.
The issue of Article III standing was a major obstacle challenging Obama’s eligibility via civil lawsuits. The people who would have had standing to sue, did not file suit or choose to enter any lawsuit as co-plaintiffs (McCain, Palin, Romney, Ryan or the Republcan Party on their behalf).
There are no issues of standing on the criminal side of the judicial system.
The bottom line for me is that I would have liked to have had a panel of average American citizen grand jurors review the evidence to see if they felt that it was probative enough to hand down an indictment.
You’re obviously confused and your confusion has reduced you to mindless repetition.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No, this is the essence of your argument - Begging the Question. It is a circular argument, hence my repetition in ridiculing it.
Your argument, as I perceived it:
For there to be true document forgery, we would have known it because it would have been brought up in a criminal court. But since it didn’t get brought up in a criminal court, there was no true document forgery.
That is a circular argument. Criminal proceedings do not prove or disprove wrongdoing. Wrongdoing may be done and not brought to criminal court.
Maybe I got the logical fallacy wrong, maybe it’s the “no True Scotsman” one. At any rate, it’s a circular argument that doesn’t move the discussion forward.