Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy❤
No. of Recommendations: 2
No. of Recommendations: 1
I would be interested to hear Dope's take on this. I can guess. - ges
----------------
Not Dope nor do I play him on TV.
But my take is since the merits of the case can't be decided until after the election but releasing the prosecutions necessarily one sided version of the events before the election is purposeful election interference.
No. of Recommendations: 17
But my take is since the merits of the case can't be decided until after the election but releasing the prosecutions necessarily one sided version of the events before the election is purposeful election interference.
I know what you mean.
I remember how you and Dope1 were so angry and upset when James Comey purposely interfered with the 2016 election. Twice.
No. of Recommendations: 3
but releasing ... before the election is purposeful election interference.
Reminds me of Comey's letter.
No. of Recommendations: 5
But my take is since the merits of the case can't be decided until after the election but releasing the prosecutions necessarily one sided version of the events before the election is purposeful election interference.
Would have come sooner, had it not been for the roadblocks thrown up by Trump’s lawyers and the Supreme Court’s thumb on the scale.
Tump didn’t want any of this stuff to come out-ever.
As it is, he was only able to delay it till now, and unfortunately for him, only one side of the legal contest is in the public domain.
Sucks to be him.
Bill Z
No. of Recommendations: 2
The thread title kinda threw me. There were a few different ways to take that. Did he expose himself to someone who has come forward? That was my first thought, given that his other criminal exploits have already been exposed. He's been convicted of many, and is pending prosecution for many more. I thought this was something new.
No. of Recommendations: 14
“releasing the prosecutions necessarily one sided version of the events before the election is purposeful election interference.”
In the words of a former President who was in the midst of attempting to subvert the peaceful transfer of power when he was interrupted by an aide who informed him that the Vice President was in immediate danger, “So what?”
More generally, we could have been done with this unpleasantness months ago if Trump were as innocent as he claims and simply took his day in court.
No. of Recommendations: 5
More generally, we could have been done with this unpleasantness months ago if Trump were as innocent as he claims and simply took his day in court.Indeed. And for some reason, team Trump apparently doesn't even want to present "his side" before the election in response to Jack Smith's 165 page explication of all the evidence that isn't shielded by presidential immunity. I wonder why?
https://www.newsweek.com/judge-chutkan-gives-donal...S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan agreed Thursday to allow former President Donald Trump to file his response to the Justice Department's special counsel Jack Smith's immunity filing until after the presidential election, a filing shows.
Trump's lawyers had asked for until November 21 to submit their retort to the filings submitted by federal prosecutors, but Chutkan set the deadline for November 7—two days after the election, which is still an extension from the original October 17 deadline.
On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan partly unsealed Smith's lengthy filing aimed at convincing Chutkan, who is presiding over Trump's federal election subversion case, that the former president's alleged offenses are private, rather than official acts of office, and can therefore remain in his indictment.
