That is because Trump is not a candidate. It is investigations too close to election, where evidence is still not there...so they must quit until after the election, as to not interfere. Trump is not running, yet. He is not a part of the general rule where it's too close to a candidates election and you are still investigating...writing about it and no evidence yet. A former candidate sued saying it wrecked his race and they had nothing the whole time. He won a 28million dollar settlement.
So Feebs quit when it's too close.
Same thing happened with Florida gubnatorial candidate Andrew Gillum. The meth, laying in vomit, closet gay guy running for gov. They didn't have enough evidence before the election and they had to stop at a certain point, if they have nothing.
Trump is not a candidate where the general rule with case precedent resides.
I'm the biggest Trump fan ever! But the rule he speaks to, does not apply to him at this time.
I'm confused a little.... It is an unwritten rule that has to do with honesty and integrity so close to an election. (I know, honesty and integrity and dems???) The dems are using this shit show to sway an election, obviously. And somehow Trump is not a politician involved in the election? How can you cite specifics of an unwritten rule?
I get it. Why are we mincing words about an unwritten rule is my point. Are we trying to be fair?? Follow the "rules?" Using courts or legal committees to sway an election has been off limits.... until now..... and we want to err on the side of being strictly true to the unwritten rule?? Sorry, but we are up against a ruthless, lawless bunch of globalists and I don't care to play "nice."
...which demonstrates exactly why that unethical practice- protecting criminals from prosecution based on the assumption that justice needs to wait until after an election to be decided, is wrong.
Political figures are NOT a special class of citizen- despite their insistence, and posturing to pretend that they are. The US constitution does not apply laws differently to political figures (unless specifically stated in the constitution) and trial dates should never factor in election dates for determining when trials should be held.
By playing into that unethical, and basically illegal practice, the door has been opened to allow for abuse of that unethical practice by whoever wants to violate that "longstanding tradition," without any legal recourse available to the victim. Because, the "tradition" was never legal, nor ethical to begin with. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
While Trump is basically correct in what he is saying, he is basically defending an unethical, and arguably illegal "longstanding tradition." Tough shit. Next time, end the unethical "tradition" before your enemies use it against [the American people] you, while protecting their own swamp asses with that same "tradition."
Even written rules and laws are ignored by this bunch. Hard to win if you play by the rules and your opponent has no rules.
I imagine that he has thought of a way to turn this against them...
I'm sure he has, and it will be a beauty to behold, I hope.....
His rallies and endorsements are working.
That is because Trump is not a candidate. It is investigations too close to election, where evidence is still not there...so they must quit until after the election, as to not interfere. Trump is not running, yet. He is not a part of the general rule where it's too close to a candidates election and you are still investigating...writing about it and no evidence yet. A former candidate sued saying it wrecked his race and they had nothing the whole time. He won a 28million dollar settlement. So Feebs quit when it's too close.
Same thing happened with Florida gubnatorial candidate Andrew Gillum. The meth, laying in vomit, closet gay guy running for gov. They didn't have enough evidence before the election and they had to stop at a certain point, if they have nothing.
Trump is not a candidate where the general rule with case precedent resides.
I'm the biggest Trump fan ever! But the rule he speaks to, does not apply to him at this time.
It's all about Trump
I'm confused a little.... It is an unwritten rule that has to do with honesty and integrity so close to an election. (I know, honesty and integrity and dems???) The dems are using this shit show to sway an election, obviously. And somehow Trump is not a politician involved in the election? How can you cite specifics of an unwritten rule?
I get it. Why are we mincing words about an unwritten rule is my point. Are we trying to be fair?? Follow the "rules?" Using courts or legal committees to sway an election has been off limits.... until now..... and we want to err on the side of being strictly true to the unwritten rule?? Sorry, but we are up against a ruthless, lawless bunch of globalists and I don't care to play "nice."
...which demonstrates exactly why that unethical practice- protecting criminals from prosecution based on the assumption that justice needs to wait until after an election to be decided, is wrong.
Political figures are NOT a special class of citizen- despite their insistence, and posturing to pretend that they are. The US constitution does not apply laws differently to political figures (unless specifically stated in the constitution) and trial dates should never factor in election dates for determining when trials should be held.
By playing into that unethical, and basically illegal practice, the door has been opened to allow for abuse of that unethical practice by whoever wants to violate that "longstanding tradition," without any legal recourse available to the victim. Because, the "tradition" was never legal, nor ethical to begin with. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
While Trump is basically correct in what he is saying, he is basically defending an unethical, and arguably illegal "longstanding tradition." Tough shit. Next time, end the unethical "tradition" before your enemies use it against [the American people] you, while protecting their own swamp asses with that same "tradition."