Excellent post! I understand exactly where you’re coming from and in essence agree with you.
When it comes to Gabbard’s statements I am not inclined to apply such a rigid standard. She is not indicting anyone or submitting legal filings she is just expressing her opinion to the news services and the public on the evidence she has found and declassified and now referred to Justice.
I look at her comments as a negotiating tactic. She is setting the narrative high. Trump does it all the time and he seems fairly competent at negotiating things. It will now be up to Pam Bondi to find the specific crimes per the specific persons and when she announces indictments she should, and I expect will, be very legally precise as to what statutes are involved and characterize them in the proper legal terms.
She can say, for example, “We charging Barack Hussein 0bama with sedition. It is not treason, as some have said his crimes rise to, but sedition is only a hair’s breadth lesser crime than treason and very much in the same category. It is a heinous act that greatly damages the foundations of our nation. We intend to prove it beyond any shadow of a doubt.”
I knew that; I'm just tired of the hyperbolic nature of it and fear that it can therefore be used to take the force out of the potential charges. I want those people punished.
She is setting the narrative high. Trump does it all the time
To me, that's one of the more irritating things about Trump, because it obscures where he really stands, making it harder to formulate where it goes for purposes of either negotiation or constructive repost. After all, he doesn't know everything as "Warp Speed" amply demonstrated.
What Bondi eventually says will be very interesting.