SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : The Trump Presidency

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
Recommended by:
bentway
To: i-node who wrote (284286)4/26/2024 11:32:14 AM
From: Lane31 Recommendation  Read Replies (1) of 362330
 
Of course you can. Not just prosecutors but judges. It is intuitively obvious to an idiot.

Intuition is not evidence. It's pretty much the opposite of evidence.

Not one of these cases to date has co e with sufficient evidence to warrant even a hearing.

Note that you seem to understand when it suits you the need for evidence.


How can you not put 2+2 together after all this?


We're not talking about "all this." We're talking about whether it's even theoretically possible in your mind that prosecutors, who are paid to prosecute crimes when they come to their attention, might be even remotely invested in the crime part. You say not, that it's 100% witch hunt.

Surely there are at least one or two crimes amid all the charges against Trump. Tampering with evidence, for example, is a crime. That a prosecutor may be tickled to death at the prospect of having something to pin on Trump does not mean that it's not also his job to prosecute the crime. You are denying that both things can be true. That is not apt. People might dicker over whether the split in his motivation is mostly witch hunt or mostly doing his job but you can't reasonably claim it's not at least a little bit the doing of his duty.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext