Most of Trump’s and his legal team’s arguments and filings are often incoherent ramblings without a shred of anything such as evidence, logic, or forethought that can often be easily dismissed as frivilous.
But in this case, they’re talking about specifics. Dates, times, places, etc. If that filing doesn’t deliver the goods, the lawyers involved would be disbarred and sued into oblivion for defamation. If they’re giving that level of detail about what they claim to have, they either have the goods or have got to be the absolutely worst lawyers in the history of the universe. I wouldn’t dismiss this so easily.
And I’m not necessarily saying she did anything wrong. Who she spends her personal time with is her business. And the evidence is obviously on her side. The case itself would be rock solid based on the facts alone. But even the appearance of impropriety is sometimes enough to get an otherwise-solid case thrown out. I see two ways this ends: One is that it’s a whole bunch of nothing, the filing is wrong, and the lawyers are about to have one hell of a bad time. Two is that they deliver the goods, the case gets thrown out on a technicality, and Trump coasts to victory by using the entire debacle as “proof” that the entire system is corrupt and out to get him.
Add comment