3 ms·
Agreed....this case is the lamest of lame and would not have been brought against anyone other than Trump and only because he was running for election. It is qu
by lazyeye 2y ago
Agreed....this case is the lamest of lame and would not have been brought against anyone other than Trump and only because he was running for election.
It is quite obviously a politicization of the justice system to anyone who is not a partisan ideologue.
Dems can try to deny this but it really doesn't matter.
They are just shooting themselves in the foot and losing support as a result.
- throwaway25664 2y agoYou’re saying that entities exceeding legal limits on political contributions and attempting to conceal it by committing financial crimes is not a big deal, is not election interference, and doesn’t weaken our democracy. Thankfully, the jury, selected by both sides, that unanimously agreed on the 34 federal felony counts, disagrees with you.
- lazyeye 2y agoLol...selected by "both sides" in one of the most left-wing jurisdictions in America.
- throwaway25664 2y agoConsidering when the affair occurred, when the payment occurred and surrounding context [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormy_Daniels–Donald_Trump_scandal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormy_Daniels–Donald_Trump_...], and the strength of the evidence [Wapo article — https://archive.is/kmFCs https://archive.is/kmFCs], do you actually think “financial crimes occurred in order to conceal campaign finance crimes” is a far-fetched verdict that was made up by a unanimous 12-member left-wing jury?
- lazyeye 2y agoYes. Absolutely.