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."
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."