So what? The law was properly followed with the appointment of special counsel, just as it was with your failed hero, John Durham. Trump doesn't get his own special set of rules just because he used to be president or a lot of people don't like him. As a former prosecutor, I can assure you prosecutors are prejudiced against criminals...as you should be. Unless you are suggesting there was insufficient evidence to indict Trump, that the evidence against him was manufactured or that the evidence was illegally seized, you are persistently whining about a nonissue simply for the purpose of whining.
Yes and the massive right wing FBI and SDNY bias against the Clintons paid no part in the election actions against her in 2016. But that's all fair game I guess. But taking this dumb argument at its face value, it's actually good for the system if Party A has a likelihood to prosecute criminals from Party B for crimes committed by their pols. It would make any rational pol less likely to commit the crimes out of fear of this scenario coming to pass or to not run at all.
Trump is screwed. I don't even think "screwed" does it justice, but I want to spare myself from the potty mouth. Why you would behave in this fashion knowing damn well they're looking for anything they can to get you is beyond me. It is impossible for that man to bury his ego. I've really never seen anything like it.
You mean like in 2020, when the electorate threw Trump out on his ass, but he refused to go peacefully and stole "my boxes" on the way out?
If these are the only factors you're considering with this indictment, there's absolutely nothing wrong with the indictment. But I think that's missing the bigger picture. It's missing the forest for the trees. And it's putting one case ahead of the institutional reputation of the Department of Justice. It's really that simple.
No, you're missing the big picture...complying with the law. Had anything else occurred other than the appointment of special counsel to investigate and pursue an indictment, if warranted, THAT would have tarnished the reputation of America's entire criminal justice system, here and abroad. You can not allow the the wealthy or powerful to avoid prosecution for their crimes due to their wealth or status, whether they are rich, politically powerful, Rep, Dem, Ind or Green party.
You also cannot allow elections to be decided by the arbitrary prosecutorial whims of the Justice Department entirely based on when they feel like enforcing the law. I think that is the bigger issue right now.
By flailing, you mean his describing exactly what happened? Literally explained my view on “motives” in the post you quoted. I guess your brain short circuited at the Jack Smith question, so there you go.
You're contradicting yourself. You just claimed that Biden, Garland, Smith, the DOJ and the grand jury conspired to file these charges to enhance Trump's prospects in the GQP primary and hurt them in the general election. There's nothing simple about this BS claim.
He blatantly violated the damn law, there is nothing arbitrary about it. He deserves everything that's about to happen to him. Sorry, but that asshole doesn't get a pass because you voted for him twice. Under your ridiculous position, every prosecution of a public figure is arbitrary. What's going on with Hunter Biden right now with is far more arbitrary, but I'm fine with it. If he broke the law, indict him and punish him.
OK. As a hard-line conservative, you think the DOJ is unfairly picking on Trump and anyone who disagrees is being partisan. Got it.
