Comments by "MrEkzotic" (@MrEkzotic) on "Harmeet Dhillon tells Tucker Alvin Bragg's case against Trump is 'election interference'" video.

  1. ​ @half-breed Does that mean you're ok with framing a person because you don't agree with their politics? Pretty sure that's not how the US justice system is supposed to work.
    36
  2. ​@Ερμής Τρισμέγιστος Then don't. Nobody is forcing you to. Just don't try to tell others they can't say it.
    8
  3. It's a little different with grand juries.
    5
  4. ​ @AskMississippiAskMississippi  Don't care.
    5
  5.  @BrjanBuckmaster  That's true, but I think you're missing a critical point here. If a prosecutor knows that the person is innocent based on privately held exculpatory evidence in his/her possession, any attempt to indict/charge/try that person would he grossly unethical and would be deemed prosecutorial misconduct. If this is true, Bragg should he disbarred.
    3
  6.  @charlestidwell4970  There is exculpatory evidence, that's the point of the segment. Or did I misunderstand your comment?
    3
  7. That's what we call a fact free statement.
    3
  8. ​ @g.p.b.  Exactly. These leftists are very dangerous to the security and prosperity of our country. They loath American values.
    1
  9.  My Opinion  Even if indicted (which I highly doubt), there will be no "perp walk."
    1
  10.  My Opinion  Why? Wanting someone to be arrested because you don't agree with their positions on certain issues is antithetical to America's founding values. You could always move to a banana republic if you like it when your political opposition is persecuted for not complying with the corrupt system.
    1
  11.  @blerblybliggots9801  If Trump committed an actual crime, then of course he should be indicted, but based on the law and the evidence, he clearly hasn't committed a crime...especially in this case.
    1
  12.  @blerblybliggots9801  I'm sure you're aware that Hillary and the FBI attempted to frame Donald Trump for "Russia collusion," right? When you manufacture and tamper with evidence and pay people to launder lies, that's absolutely an attempted framing.
    1
  13.  @half-breed  According to Cohen's attorney back in 2018, Trump didn't even reimburse Cohen for the payment he made to Daniels. Unless someone can prove otherwise, this case is over: "But in a February 8, 2018 letter to the Federal Election Commission (FEC), Cohen’s attorney Stephen Ryan wrote: ‘Mr. Cohen used his own personal funds’, and that ‘Neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford, and neither reimbursed Mr. Cohen for the payment directly or indirectly.’ The letter was written in response to an FEC probe launched after complaints of campaign finance violations, lodged by Paul Ryan and the organization Common Cause. ‘In a private transaction in 2016, before the U.S. presidential election, Mr. Cohen used his own personal funds to facilitate a payment of $130,000 to Ms. Stephanie Clifford,’ Cohen’s lawyer, who worked at McDermott Will & Emery, wrote. ‘Neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford, and neither reimbursed Mr. Cohen for the payment directly or indirectly."
    1