![]() I'm asking where you draw the line on that, because nearly every action taken by a candidate during an election is done with the intent to influence the outcome. You claimed that doing something legal (ie, paying for non-disclosure) can become illegal if done to influence the outcome of an election. ![]() 0ĭon't quite follow the logic of that one. The only reasonable explanation for the DOJ's murky sloth and seeming lack of interest in prosecuting other politicians is that it would decimate the US political establishment that loves to strut the stage in their "Emperor's New Clothes" while poor "Justice" face-palms standing forlorn and ignored. True, but the bigger "elephant in the room", the truly shocking coverup are all the president's men as well as the many Republican members of Congress and Senate who enabled their leader's corruption and who have remained inexplicably free to conduct their nefarious anti-American conspiracies under the tacit protection of Garland's DOJ. And in the hush money case against former President Donald Trump, prosecutors say the coverup made the crime worse. The coverup is worse than the crime, the expression goes. Bragg's trump card is not just "convicted perjurer" and the Don's consigliere, but more so the joker in the pack (of lies), David Pecker, who, I believe, has been flipped (also Alan Weaselberg, if Bragg knows his business) and will be produced as co-conspirator(s) along with a mountain of corroborating documentary evidence to convince a jury to convict. OK, Prof! But to millions of ordinary folk who have been following the sleazy shenanigans of 45 and can remember stuff, this 34-count felony case against Trump is no murkier than a bottle of Trumpwater. “The bottom line is that it’s murky,” said Richard Hasen, an expert in election law and professor at the University of California, Los Angeles law school. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |