Sounds like a normal judge would certainly grant Trump's motion to dismiss, but since this is a left wing judge that hates Trump, that won't happen. By doing that, he's creating a precedent that will be used against Hillary and the DNC for actual crimes.
It’s not about the correctness of the law as much as it is about the systemic brainwashing of the American public. It’s about navigating the enemy’s biggest weapon, which is their control of the media. The Mar-a-Lago raid made it permissible in the media and therefore in the minds of the American people for Biden’s homes to be raided.
Sounds like a normal judge would certainly grant Trump's motion to dismiss, but since this is a left wing judge that hates Trump, that won't happen. By doing that, he's creating a precedent that will be used against Hillary and the DNC for actual crimes.
What would that precedent be?
That a biased non-leftard judge can do this as well, to the opposite side?
There is no need for that. What is needed is actual application of the law. Which doesn't happen in banana republics or totalitarian dictatorships.
Why would a precedent need to be set to indict Hillary? She's never been President.
It’s not about the correctness of the law as much as it is about the systemic brainwashing of the American public. It’s about navigating the enemy’s biggest weapon, which is their control of the media. The Mar-a-Lago raid made it permissible in the media and therefore in the minds of the American people for Biden’s homes to be raided.
Ok, I understand better what you're saying now.
It's more about breaking through the psychological barriers the public has with the idea of former presidents being indicted.
All this time I've been looking at "the precedent is now set" as a legal issue, which makes little sense.