(11-13-2023, 06:49 PM)NYC4jags Wrote:

(11-05-2023, 12:03 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote: That's ridiculous. You and I are weighing in on the same "evidence." That phone call is all the public has to go on regarding Trump's election interference, and it's weak on its own. As to your belief they have more evidence than that, sure that's a possibility. It's not been true historically, but you believe that if you want. As to Trump suggesting that Raffensberger do a better job investigating the election results, I just don't believe that qualifies unless the law is written in a way that makes it so, which I have not seen and you have not provided.

Wait... You think you the prosecution doesn't have any evidence beyond what you and I have seen? 

Seriously?

wow

---

In other news:

The plea deal flippers are beginning to sing their songs in proffer sessions with prosecutors.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/boss-leave-pro...=104831939

Yup. And this is the type of [BLEEP] I suspected they'd bring to the table. Finger pointing. If that's your "evidence," only people who already think that about Trump will believe it. He said, she said. 

Is it on tape? Do they have it in writing? Is there context? I'll wait for something tangible, and I don't believe they will bring it. I'd love to see it if it's true, but it's probably more activism disguised as justice.

---