From: jecorbett4@gmail.com   
      
   On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 6:13:39 AM UTC-5, Gil Jesus wrote:   
   > On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 2:27:33 AM UTC-5, NoTrueFlags Here wrote:   
   > > It really doesn't mean anything other than the Official Story is that a   
   person is guilty. Of course, the Nutter Retards are going to believe the   
   Official Story verdict, but that's all it is. The rulers say Oswald did it.    
   > > Everybody knows that.   
   > The term "historically guilty" is the brainchild of a pompous ass named   
   Charles "Chuck" Schuyler. Since Oswald was never convicted of either murder,   
   he needed to have something to hang his "Oswald-did-it" hat on to. And the   
   fact that the idiot can    
   invent a phrase that incorporates the word "guilty" is a big plus for them.   
   But of course, like the case itself, the prhase makes zero sense. History   
   cannot determine the innocence or guilt of an individual. Only a judge or a   
   jury can do that.    
   >    
   > It's nonsense, which is why it makes all the sense in the world to jackasses   
   like Corbett and Bud.    
   >    
   If there is no such thing as historically guilty, why do you put so much   
   effort into historically acquitting Oswald? What has    
   been the purpose of your efforts all these years?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)