She did not take anyone for a fool. She was fighting hard like anyone else. She did not have the power necessary to do more. Had she been made special counsel, she would have accomplished more.
I didn't say anything about her doing something outside of her powers. She's just a layer after all.
But I was here all this time. And I haven't forgotten all her hype. So, there can be only two possibilities:
a) She failed to see that the courts would bail out. I also failed to see that. But I'm not a high profile lawyer with her position.
b) She saw it, and took us for a ride for her personal benefit.
No matter which case is true, why would I be happy with her now? And even more, why would anything she advises have credibility?
Sure. But she's smart and accompliced. So did she know and took us for a ride? Or was she taken a fool?
She did not take anyone for a fool. She was fighting hard like anyone else. She did not have the power necessary to do more. Had she been made special counsel, she would have accomplished more.
I didn't say anything about her doing something outside of her powers. She's just a layer after all.
But I was here all this time. And I haven't forgotten all her hype. So, there can be only two possibilities:
a) She failed to see that the courts would bail out. I also failed to see that. But I'm not a high profile lawyer with her position. b) She saw it, and took us for a ride for her personal benefit.
No matter which case is true, why would I be happy with her now? And even more, why would anything she advises have credibility?
No one predicted all the courts refusing to listen to the evidence. Not even Rudy.
My point exactly. There don't seem to be any people in our side who predict well. Ironically enough, the other side rolls with no breaks.
So if they're proven to not be special people, why do I care about their "advice"?