They were “concerned that it would have an impact on the election”
Not “they were concerned their candidate had comitted criminal acts and was unworthy of the office”
Funny how their thinking works.
Whenever someone mentions that releasing info could have an effect on the election, they fail to admit that not releasing relevant information also could have an effect on an election. They only want to support an effect of their choosing.
This is the classic example of cognitive dissonance, whereby the mechanics of disclosures are blamed, while the contents of the disclosures are completely ignored as if they never existed in the first place. It’s a rather conspicuous form of dissociative amnesia.
And I thought Justice was suppose to be Blind to things like this. Scuse me.