Various people have mentioned the “deadline” for prosecutions that might have an effect on an election. Here is one:
https://twitter.com/paulsperry_/status/1300465694392320004
Friday is the DOJ’s soft “60-day” deadline for Durham to make prosecutorial announcements in his #Spygate probe or to file an interim report detailing the search-and-destroy campaign the Obama-Biden administration launched against Donald Trump in 2016 ...
... but I’ve been thinking about this and what I think is “Since when has something like a “soft deadline” stopped Trump and his team from doing what needs to be done? Trump does not play by the unwritten rules that have prevented previous Rs and RINOs from doing things that might be perceived as “not polite”.
So while I think it will be interesting to see if something happens by Friday, it would not surprise me to see announcements or indictments at any time. The day before the election. Election Day. Any time.
I’m expecting plenty of “October surprises”. Not necessarily from Durham, but possibly.
Which would be worse: indicting Biden just before the election (which might be perceived as a political “trick”), or allowing the voters to go to the polls without legitimate information about a candidate? IMO it is not a political “trick” if the information is true. It would be a worse political trick/deception to withhold major information from the voters.
JMO.
A few days ago, probably from twitter but I’ll have to go back and check my comments, I posted some stuff about this supposed 60 day deadline before elections. If i can find I’ll post link or copy/paste. I don’t think Trump and the DoJ are going to be hampered by non-legally binding “traditions”.
Posted on 8/31/2020, 1:32:22 PM by ransomnote
LAW & ORDER!
First episode date: September 13, 1990
Done in 30.
2 days ahead of schedule would place it on Friday September 11th.
The movie "The War Room" (1993), which detailed many Clinton Campaign activites, at one point showed George Stephanopoulos giving stern advice to someone on the phone. Later it was made clear that the person on the other end of George S's call was none other than third-party candidate Ross Perot. (IOW, Perot was the Clinton campaign's willing accomplice to cripple Bush's chances.)