[bert]

In times of war, the public is not entitled to secret evidence.

[xzins]

Rand Paul would tell you we’re not at war, but to be fair, our troops are in harm’s way.

But there is a way to state that incontrovertible evidence exists and that it involves spies or techniques that cannot be revealed.

I listened on one Fox show yesterday to a host reading of DOD Secty Mattis affirming that evidence exists of the attack but guilt has not yet been established.

[dfwgator]

In times of war, the public is not entitled to secret evidence.

How conveeeeeeeeenient.

[DesertRhino]

“In times of war, the public is not entitled to secret evidence.”

Well, since there isn’t the slightest legal justification for us to be there, I guess we are entitled. There is no Congressional authorization for force, no declaration war (like we actually live under the old constitution!) No NATO resolution (not recognized under international law anyway), and no UN authorization of force.

So in times of illegal undeclared war, yes, we are entitled. There’s even some really old theory that the government answers to the people.

[WilliamIII]

“In times of war, the public is not entitled to secret evidence.”

So you trust our government on faith. Does that go for Mueller and Comey as well? Trust them, because they have secret evidence that isn’t safe for the rest of us to know?