Sorry if you don't like Hannity (or Cruz for that matter) but the drop comes near the end of the clip. Cruz says that ironically, the theory of the case as laid out by Bragg would EQUIVOCATE EXACTLY with the infamous actions of another person: Hillary Clinton.
In the same year, 2016, in the same place, SDNY, Hillary Clinton paid over $1 million dollars to have the Steele dossier created - she paid through her campaign funds, via her lawyers (Elias), and ALSO logged the expense as "legal fees."
If they make this stick to Trump, it would set a precedent for Clinton to be prosecuted over the dossier, which was used in FAR more damaging ways, and would likely have MUCH MORE extensive ramifications and crimes attached to it in her case.
Now in reality, the overall legal theory is SO BOGUS that it wouldn't really hold up BUT the principle is what counts. What I tend to see with these issues of "mirroring" when they go after Trump and he pulls these reversals like now is that the real aim ends up being to highlight some area of our laws or government that is need of STRUCTURAL reform.
Rather than roll around in the mud and do exactly what the weasels do, it seems like what the WHs want is to change the law and fix the problem completely. That is why this stuff plays out the way that is does and the optics show such blatant unfairness. They are getting the whole audience to see that they need to just fix this and prevent such things from ever coming about again in the future.
That's assuming you ascribe to the "watching a movie" angle like I do, and think ALL these moves are as actually put in motion by the good guys, at the end of the day. I'd just note also that TRUMP announced this one, once again, same as the Mar-a Lago raid. If not for that, would we have a committee on Weaponization of the Feds now?
I found something that seems to fit in exactly along these lines.
Sorry if you don't like Hannity (or Cruz for that matter) but the drop comes near the end of the clip. Cruz says that ironically, the theory of the case as laid out by Bragg would EQUIVOCATE EXACTLY with the infamous actions of another person: Hillary Clinton.
In the same year, 2016, in the same place, SDNY, Hillary Clinton paid over $1 million dollars to have the Steele dossier created - she paid through her campaign funds, via her lawyers (Elias), and ALSO logged the expense as "legal fees."
I do also. I can’t stand Hannity now, but I can’t believe that the patriot that I think he is, would not be one of the first to help save the country.
If they make this stick to Trump, it would set a precedent for Clinton to be prosecuted over the dossier, which was used in FAR more damaging ways, and would likely have MUCH MORE extensive ramifications and crimes attached to it in her case.
Now in reality, the overall legal theory is SO BOGUS that it wouldn't really hold up BUT the principle is what counts. What I tend to see with these issues of "mirroring" when they go after Trump and he pulls these reversals like now is that the real aim ends up being to highlight some area of our laws or government that is need of STRUCTURAL reform.
Rather than roll around in the mud and do exactly what the weasels do, it seems like what the WHs want is to change the law and fix the problem completely. That is why this stuff plays out the way that is does and the optics show such blatant unfairness. They are getting the whole audience to see that they need to just fix this and prevent such things from ever coming about again in the future.
That's assuming you ascribe to the "watching a movie" angle like I do, and think ALL these moves are as actually put in motion by the good guys, at the end of the day. I'd just note also that TRUMP announced this one, once again, same as the Mar-a Lago raid. If not for that, would we have a committee on Weaponization of the Feds now?