cajunrevenge
Well-known member
1. If the law decides he's guilty and will find the crime to prove it, that's very bad
2. If the law decides that Trump's crimes matters but Bidens don't, that's a huge problem.
You're basically begging for a civil war
If he was presumed guilty and had to prove innocence the defense would go first in the trial. Since I know you use different logic for each side let me put this in terms you can understand. Lets say Joe Bidens lawyer for 10 years was caught paying off someone in Burisma to not come forward with an allegation against Joe Biden during the 2020 campaign. During that lawyers prosecution he flips and admits he did so for the benefit of and at the direction of Joe Biden. Biden then disguises his repayment to that lawyer as legal fees. That lawyer also has a tape recording of Biden plotting with that lawyer to make a secret payment to another person from Burisma earlier in the campaign but the statute of limitations ran out on that one, but its still evidence Biden was in the loop on these hush money payments. This couldnt be a more open and shut case if Trump walked into a bank with a gun and a note that said "give me all your money". So yeah, presumed innocent but the evidence is overwhelming against him.
No AG is prosecuting their own President. Republicans desperately tried to find anything criminal they could use against Biden and came up well short. If you think theres ample evidence then you need to blame all the Republican people who had the chance. If William Barr and Jeff Sessions cant find evidence to investigate Biden I dont see how you can expect Merrick Garland to find it.
Last edited: