Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Your conceit that "the"* motive bending the decision to bring the case was political is pretty decisively refuted by the fact that Trump had no good defense, factual or legal, and was convicted. It's clear that he did what he did, and that it was a crime. Calling it "political" is meant to persuade people who weren't paying attention that Trump didn't actually do the crimes, and that the convictions weren't fair, to change the subject from what he did and feed the grievances of him and his followers. But he did do the crimes, and he was fairly convicted for them.
* There can be only one?
|
You could’ve just said, “I’ve no retort of any merit.”
“Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime.” - Stalin’s Chief of Secret Police
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/ne...r-brought.html
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/arti...d-the-law.html
And like it or not, my assessment, not your apologist’s justification, is the consensus. On the eastern seaboard (and we’re what counts), nobody treats that conviction as real.
Similarly, nobody treats Cannon’s dismissal as real. That too was a nakedly political move. Bragg and Cannon should both be fired from their positions for lack of ethics. Then they can open a firm together.
