Re: election interference

On Sat, 19 Oct 2024, JAB wrote:

On Sat, 19 Oct 2024 11:16:48 +0200, D <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>

Behaviour like that shows

>
I'm not aware of a legal doctrine suggesting a person's claimed "dirty
laundry" should be hidden for a candidate.  In a democracy, making an
exception for political candidates would not be fair, since the rest
of us can't choose a time when the dirty laundry is exposed.  And,
needless to say, voters should have a 'fair/balanced' understanding.

My interpretation is that in order to do that, an active action has to be performed, which clearly shows the political agenda of the judge and an perversion of the law. If it would have been the default, without any active action, no one could have complained.

In any event, those voting for the moralless one are not concerned
about his piles and piles of dirty laundry.

The smart people know that this is just lawfare and discreditation, and will not let themselves be persuaded. Trump has God on his side.