She gets right at the point:
"If you maintain a belief that you won an election based on no evidence supporting it and ample evidence to the contrary, is your subjective, completely out of touch, narcissistic commitment to your victory enough to shield you from legal liability for actively trying to interfere in an election?"
If Trumpler actually believed he won an election when all the evidence is against him, is there a legal provision that his willful ignorance either convicts or acquits him of responsibility for his criminal actions?
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.