Federal grand jury indicts former Trump adviser Steve Bannon for contempt of Congress

[ancianita]

127. I hear you

Last edited Tue Dec 7, 2021, 08:37 PM - Edit history (1)

about the 2017 DOJ behavior as a myth, and that what I'm saying is not absolute.

I get your reasoning, but do not see Garland's weighing of the consequences as political.
His weighing based on law.

Why? Because Garland does not agree with your presumption of men as "powerful."
Because he does not swear an oath to rule of men, but Rule Of Law -- to protect and defend law, not men.

Therefore, no. No one who understands constitutional law bases its validity at all on some oath taker's interpretation.

So neither my interpretation nor yours nor the oath takers' are valid but by enforcement in word and deed.

Heh heh. Sure. Definitely, truth and fact exist whether "some people" debate it or not.
Only a Gallup Poll would give us their numbers.