Her clear bias against Trump should have disqualified her from instigating the investigation in the first place. Under these circumstances an unbiased, independent special prosecutor should have been appointed to conduct the case - assuming one could be found in NY.
I know what the answer is but I would like you to at least admit it publicly so others can see.Ahhh ... I see now.
You weren't actually asking a question in good faith ... in order to have a conversation.
Thanks for clearing that up.
I already said previously: Leftist judgesWell, I'm sure everybody is interested in what YOU THINK the answer is ... and I'll be happy to tell you my reason.
After you answer my previous question:
"Who is they?"
I'll be happy to ... once you answer the question I posed previously (and share your thoughts on what you think the reason is) ...
Just keeping in line with the normal back and forth a conversation is supposed to have.
You brought up "they" and didn't want to elaborate ... maybe you were just laughing hysterically at yourself ?
BTW: I'm fine with elaborating ... once you do (both on "who is they ?" and what you think the reason is)
A Democrat judge.
You asked me what I thought YOUR reason was. I gave it.No idea as to his political affiliation.
Correct.
But there's a little more to it than that.
It was basically because you tend to see certain judicial decisions by judges as being partisan (regardless of the actual partisan affiliation of the particular judges involved)
That's quite a case of projection you have going on there.
Epic in fact.
You may wish to get a tuneup on that mind reader hat.
I'm pretty well inclined to see judges' decisions in light of what I believe the law to be.
Where those decisions depart from that however, I am certainly willing to entertain the possibility that ideology or partisan bias plays a role.
Judges are human after all, and although they are supposed to place their judgements above such things, there are some who apparently can't.
No big surprise there.
I tend to agree, as long as it is also agreed that probable cause to begin an investigation (Cohen's public statement under oath) exists.
I have not kept up with the details of that story but I think you are correct. Bad news for Trump when his lawyer turns against you. His accounting firm did the same.
Not far off am I though?Yes - you gave it (wide partisan split in the state in the Presidential election)
Just before diving into all that projecting.
Sure ...
No surprise there. However, the thing that caught my eye was the spin used by Lawrence Hurley, the Reuters reporter in his description of "last year's deadly attack on the Capitol" (emphasis mine). The only death was that of Ashli Babbit, a Trump protester/rioter who was shot in cold blood by a Capitol policeman. To this day the mainstream media still consider her death to be insignificant.Supreme Court rejects Trump's appeal....
U.S. Supreme Court formally ends Trump's fight over Capitol attack records
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday brought a formal end to former President Donald Trump's request to block the release of White House records sought by the Democratic-led congressional panel investigating last year's deadly attack on the Capitol by a mob of his supporters. The court's decision...www.yahoo.com