You cited one case as evidence that legal overreach is his modus operandi? Is this your only example?Fancypants wrote: ↑Aug 21st, '23, 21:25No he's not, overreach is Jack Smith's modus operandi. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_McDonnelleasyrider16 wrote: ↑Aug 21st, '23, 06:23 I doubt it. It's further evidence to support the conspiracy charges already indicted, but I think Smith is being very careful in trying not to overreach.
Just for some history on this case, McDonnell admitted to accepting a lot of high-value gifts from donors, things like sweetheart loans, golf outings, stays in vacation homes, and a Rolex watch. In return for those gifts, he was accused of doing favors for the donor, things like setting up meetings and making phone calls to officials on that donor's behalf. The case got overturned because the alleged quid pro quo to the donor was not sufficient to meet the standard of the law.
I'm not sure it was a bad idea to go after a politician who had been accepting gifts from a donor and then doing favors for that donor. That doesn't strike me as much of a legal overreach. Also, the Supreme Court was criticized for their decision here because the judges had all accepted gifts like this in the past, and thus could potentially be subjected to prosecution if they upheld this case.
I quoted to you Barr's and Cassidy's very direct statements on how they think these cases against Trump are legitimate. Do you have any response to those statements?
