521
Comments (28)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
10
chuckachookah 10 points ago +10 / -0

It doesn't matter.

It is purely for political innuedo and spin.

The plaintiff will make an outlandish, unsubstantiated, and "wrong" statement (e.g., Trump paid Russian hookers to piss on a bed).

The president's counsel will dismantle the claim and put them in the "right".

The headlines that night: President accused of paying for prostitutes

Meanwhile in paragraph 67, "Opposing counsel proved the claim wrong. But, Trump was probably thinking it so he might as well be guilty".

This isn't about right and wrong, it's about the destruction of the President and now the Supreme Court is throwing their hat into the ring with the Deep Staters.