Originally posted by: Charles Higgins
I didn't say a damned word regarding conservative DA's indicting only conservatives...don't accuse me of that ( if you did), Margaret. Further, I said nothing regarding the hypothesis that this case was triggered by Trump's announced candidacy, either ; lay that accusation at somebody else's feet ( I'm fully aware that it's out there, admittedly).. Further, Beatrice...my admission that we don't know what the specific charges are or even a scintilla of the sum total evidence makes it pretty clear that I indeed don't know the significant facts about this case..neither you nor the general public knows, either. I'm concerned about the strength of this case on the surface from what is publicly available, though. And I was only talking out of the right side of my mouth..I didn't stutter. Maybe you misinterpreted..it's an alien language / syntax to you I know..but that's cool.
I do ( albeit somewhat painstakingly) agree with a couple of your points.
1). D's want Trump to run
2) Let the facts / evidence play out in this case
Did I miss your personal opinion regarding the strength of this case from what we know currently? I might have missed it as one or both of us may have been off on some elliptical pigtrail somewhere.
Have fun, Gertrude..I'm out.
I can't possibly have a valid opinion of the strength of the case, even if I had ALL of the info presently available to the public. So I don't offer one.
Asking whether Bragg is a liberal or not kind of queers your argument, but you did, correctly, backpedal from it. You want to, and should, believe that our justice system, while flawed (like all human endeavor), is essentially fair. Maybe I didn't make my fundamental point very clear. If we even allow a whiff of the "this prosecution is political" stench, that poisons the entire process. So maybe it's better to have unwarranted faith in it than unbridled suspicion? Call me naive, but no prosectutor with even a vague remnant of ethics would pursue an action against someone when he wouldn't do so against an otherwise identical defendant of the opposite political affiliation. I don't think that that kind of corruption is common at all.
But maybe neither you nor I should be anything but despairingly cynical about this process. After all, the highest court in the land, driven by glaringly naked politics, just made not just one, but several of the worst, most evil, unconsitututional, and unAmerican decisions in a generation. If that venerable institution perverts itself because an evil clown managed to get them to ignore their oaths, should we do anything besides throw up our hands and walk away?
But don't worry too much for right now. The most Trump can suffer here is some huge fine and maybe six months of enforced golf at Mar-El-Asshole. When you consider that his just punishment should be to get his genitals burned off with a blowtorch on live pay-per-view, he'll be treated quite leniently.
