Alleged voter fraud follow up

[missydog1]

quote:

---

Originally posted by joshkai

quote:

---

Originally posted by snorkle

What kind of criminal wouldn't be charged because they hadn't made a statement to the Police yet?

Why a Not Guilty one, obviously. If the Police had enough evidence to bring charges, They surely would have. Then the accused has an opportunity to answer. Then if there's enough evidence, it goes to trial. Then if the accused is found guilty, they pay the consequence.

---

What is possibly wrong with the rules of how "law" works?

Just because you don't agree with the law, does not make your point valid.

"WRONG" is simply an incorrect answer when the law is quoted verbatim to you.

---

Part of snorkle's post was right but part was incorrect, so in its sum -- wrong. He did not quote any actual law. I do agree with the law. That is why I think she should be charged, because of affidavits she signed under penalty of law that furnished false information.

Honestly, I certainly don't know if she will be charged or not. The process is not certain, and the office here only charges cases they are certain they can win, and that requires a lot. Plenty of guilty people are not charged here because of that.

However, what is certain is that the investigation is currently active and that she has retained defense counsel, Steve Strauss.

I am curious whether Rob ever got a response from the police or the Trib.
I have heard that Stephen's Media is waiting for the lava to do something and for the election to be over, but they have plans for more coverage.

ed to fix formatting
Kathy