546
Comments (49)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
27
NavyGuy 27 points ago +27 / -0

Or... it could it be that she knows that revealing his financial records sets a dangerous precedent... because then its grounds for looking into dems too.

10
NocturnalPatrol 10 points ago +10 / -0

But we don't have law in this country. That's the thing. What's good for the rest of the country is not good for the left. If a Democrat doesn't want to obey the law, they are under no obligation to do so, as demonstrated by the fact that they face absolutely zero consequences for flouting the law, while a private American citizen who lives between the coasts gets thrown in prison for taking a selfie on a submarine.

9
Maladog 9 points ago +9 / -0

Precedent? The fuck do you mean about precedent. Dems don't operate based off of precedent, they operate based off their feelings. Feelings don't care about your precedents.

3
HighEnergyD 3 points ago +3 / -0

its harder for a court to deny the republicans request for financial records when its already been done before.

2
fdagasfd 2 points ago +2 / -0

Theoretically this should be true.

Like in a non-corrupt system of laws where one party does not have outsized power and influence you have spoken the truth.

2
craftmo 2 points ago +2 / -0

It absolutely does. The whole premise of roe vs wade hinges on the notion of privacy. Which is why I'm completely flaberghasted by the left these days. It doesn't take a supreme court justice to figure out that there are potential consequences.