slatten49 wrote:
https://theconversation.com/trump-is-no-navalny-and-prosecution-in-a-democracy-is-a-lot-different-than-persecution-in-putins-russia-223840
Excerpt:
"Often, distinguishing good faith proceedings from bad faith “witch hunts” is not a fact-based exercise, especially for the targets of investigations and among their supporters.
But the law and evidence help to elucidate some themes that lead any reasonable observer to categorically differentiate Navalny – and other victims of bona fide maltreatment – from Trump."
https://theconversation.com/trump-is-no-navalny-an... (
show quote)
All we have to do is look at the similarity and parallels here; the use of the courts to make it appear legitimate as one party (candidate) uses the courts to eliminate their opposition. Oh, the claim is that WE apply the rule of law. Well the Russian courts and Putin make and have made the very same claim.
The we look at the cases individually and see that is not the truth. in one case, a judge makes a summary judgement of fraud without even hearing the witnesses or the testimony of the alleged "victims," because they are not victims. Others in the very same business have spoken out defending how the real estate business works all over the country, but no matter to this judge. And then, the very same judge defies the constitution and hits Trump with an outrageous fine and places undo burden on Trump to try to prevent him from appealing the judges verdict. Rule of law???
Then there is the one where a woman from nearly 30 years ago makes an uncorroborated claim of rape in a department store , without evidence at all. When Trump denies it they claim he is "defaming" her. He says it didn't happen. They claim he is defaming her by denying it. No matter what the language, he has the right to deny it happened and declare her a liar. The contents of her book, which she is coincidentally now promoting, certainly supports Trump's claims about her. But no matter, if one cannot deny an accusation without being accused and convicted of defamation, then we have no freedom of speech. In fact, the one being defamed is Trump. But wasn't he denied his reverse defamation case by the courts???
But there is more, the cases of "Trump said this and that on a phone call, he said this or that and incited an insurrection." ALL hearsay blabber by those making outrageous interpretations of his words. Of course they delete the words which say just the opposite of what they claim he means; words like peacefully and patriotically. And, of course, the suppression of evidence which supports Trump's claims and not theirs; testimony of witnesses who contradict their chosen witnesses who weren't even there, but rather, just 'heard" from someone else what Trump did or didn't do.
And all brought to the court system during the year Trump is running, once again, for president.
oh, these cases and Nalvany cases are most certainly similar with the only difference being that Putin doesn't even need to do it; use the courts to get rid of an opponent. He's a supreme dictator, right!???? Or, maybe he isn't. Or maybe Biden is one, it just hasn't become clear to the people yet.
Either way. your article is bull.