Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
Posted
9 hours ago, Homelander said:

 

So if this claim of "evidence" was valid and demonstrated violation of the law explain why the DOJ didn't file charges against Trump and his inner circle while Garland was AG?

Maybe because what is called "obstruction" by this Dem account was procedural actions within and allowed by the law? And calling an on-the-record meeting a conspiracy by definition invaldates the use of the word. Because conspiracies by design are secret. 

That could be it, right? 

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Posted
5 hours ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

So if this claim of "evidence" was valid and demonstrated violation of the law explain why the DOJ didn't file charges against Trump and his inner circle while Garland was AG?

Maybe because what is called "obstruction" by this Dem account was procedural actions within and allowed by the law? And calling an on-the-record meeting a conspiracy by definition invaldates the use of the word. Because conspiracies by design are secret. 

That could be it, right? 

 

Garland should have moved faster but once Jack Smith took over, DOJ filed two major indictments: one in DC (election obstruction) and one in Florida (classified docs). Trump was charged with 4 felonies including conspiracy and obstruction.

 

Conspiracies don’t need to be secret just an agreement to break the law.

×
×
  • Create New...