The odd timing of Trump indictments

I hate to rely on something that comes from Don Jr., but facts are facts. The timing of Trump indictments is very interesting, as Megyn Kelly points out in this video.

3 thoughts on “The odd timing of Trump indictments”

  1. Obviously Don Jr. is in the business of creating noise to distract people from the blantant criminality of his father. Megan Kelly got snubbed first by FOX and the Trumpists, but then by the so-called Left because she seemed to be okay with blackface. Now she poses as a lone wolf, but is naturally finding a niche in creating noise to engage of distractions from Trump’s unabashed criminal character and conduct. The timing makes perfect sense when you consider that it first had to be established that a most dreadful crime was committed on Jan. 6. That is done by going after that goofball with the horns, Oath Keepers, Proud Boys, and many others who were active participants in the crime. After that you go up the chain, all the way to the top. This is not at all odd in criminal proceedings.

    1. Wait! I thought the following was the rule of thumb …

      Don’t believe anything you hear…it’s come to the point (actually we’re well past the point) that you should never believe anything you hear in the media until it’s confirmed by multiple sources on opposite sides of the partisan divide.

      Yet, we are to consider Don Jr. credible in a case that involves his father? No conflict of interest there, right? This guy lied during a federal investigation to avoid incriminating his father. As for Megan Kelly, it seems this is all about likes, clicks, and views…especially when the focal point is about timing and whataboutism.

      That said, it strikes me as odd that the primary focus isn’t on the allegations, charges and evidence…especially by those who say they are the party of the “rule of law”. Why aren’t they discussing the legal implications and perspectives of the former Trump administration AG, sycophant, chief boot-licker Bill Barr? Surely he’d have unique insights relative to this matter, right? Well, he’s out there talking, are they listening?

      Bill Barr: Yes, I think it’s a legitimate case. I don’t understand the attacks on the department and saying it’s abusive or it’s weaponization for bringing this case. When someone says, you know, this is unfair, this is — there’s some other motive here, the first question is, OK, was the crime done? Was there serious wrongdoing here, or is this a case of going after somebody who really didn’t do anything or a technical violation or stretching the law way beyond where it should be? No. There was very grave wrongdoing here, and I think it’s reasonable to say that it falls within the obstruction of a proceeding. That’s not weaponization. That’s enforcement of the law.

      https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/bill-barr-trump-committed-a-grave-wrongdoing-in-jan-6-case

      So, “maybe” there is something to the timing of it all. Still, this seems to be an ancillary issue…aka red herring. Shouldn’t the “law and order” crowd want to first know if Trump is criminally culpable…especially given he’s running for POTUS…the ultimate defender of the rule of law? Yet, it seems they’d rather go with a side show with speculation and conspiracy…featuring those that might not be so credible.

  2. Moreover, I think that these bellowers would have found problems with the timing if it had been different. The point for them is to bellow, whatever the circumstances may be.

Comments are closed.