“But for Mr. Trump’s election and imminent return to the presidency, the office assessed that the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial,” the report said.
“But for Mr. Trump’s election and imminent return to the presidency, the office assessed that the admissible evidence was sufficient to obtain and sustain a conviction at trial,” the report said.
“Oh yeah, he definitely would’ve been convicted.” “Then why wasn’t he?” “We’ll see, what had happened was…”
Corrupt judge is what happened. No one remembers this?
Oh yeah, but my comment wasn’t serious. It’s always corruption.
An AG that waited 2 years before even trying…
Garland is a Republican and they always protect their own.
So you didn’t remember anything. At least you’re admitting it.
deleted by creator
So, was Smith appointed BEFORE then, and I missed it?