[bigbob]

Agree mostly. Our laws ARE weak when it comes to abuse of power. IANAL and yet I can google and find this, for example:

Ҥ 11.448 Abuse of office.

A person acting or purporting to act in an official capacity or taking advantage of such actual or purported capacity commits a misdemeanor if, knowing that his or her conduct is illegal, he or she:

(a) Subjects another to arrest, detention, search, seizure, mistreatment, dispossession, assessment, lien or other infringement of personal or property rights; or

(b) Denies or impedes another in the exercise or enjoyment of any right, privilege, power or immunity.”

---

Note the word “knowing” in this statute. How do you prove someone was “knowing”? Probably doesn’t take much of a defense lawyer to throw a lot of shade at that - “plausible deniability”.

But completely agree you don’t attack the king first and you don’t telegraph your moves in advance.

The Grenell declas of unmaskers was new information to Durham, he can no more get classified info than anyone else. So now he has it and we know someone committed a crime by leaking the phone call. So that’s one criminal matter that has only now just been added to Durham’s pile and there will be more.

[little jeremiah]

The Grenell declas of unmaskers was new information to Durham, he can no more get classified info than anyone else.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

How do you know this? I would only accept this with very hard evidence.

Also keep in mind how many times Q has said “Knowingly” in a very weighted manner.