Imagine there is a murder trial that takes months and involves many witnesses, and then, at the end, the prosecutor announces that he's done such a great job of arguing guilt, he's not going to send the case to the jury.This whole article is built around one key belief of Ms. Saunders - Trump is innocent and the Democrats know it. That's not fact. Trump is guilty as hell of what he is accused of (as evidenced by the ever shifting narrative around whether he did what he is accused of doing). That is simply the core belief of Saunders and her tribe regarding this manner.
If you start with the theory that he's innocent and Democrats know it than Saunders idiotic article makes sense (she does suffer from temporal confusion, unable to reconcile why Democrats said one thing when it looked like Republicans were going to be objective and something else when it was clear they were all or mostly all partisan hacks.
If Saunders were capable of honesty she would imagine a trial where the defendant consulted with the judge on how best for the judge to throw the case out of court. That would be crazy - but that's also where we are.
No comments:
Post a Comment