Reading comprehension problem, heh? I said "weasel words". Okay, here's a couple of glaring examples:
Reality: My office would have much preferred to see Aldrete convicted and sent to prison for his crimes. We are in the business of putting guys like Aldrete behind bars. In fact, this office leads the nation in the number of drug smuggling cases we prosecute.
Funny how this scumbag can successfully prosecute border agents who were doing their job but give the drug smuggler full immunity and the red carpet treatment.
Reality: Aldrete has not been subsequently arrested for drug smuggling.
Notice that word "subsequently" thrown in there? The stench of weasel couldn't be stronger.
Whatever.
I'll continue to support and take the side of the guys on the front lines who shot the drug smuggler, and you can take the side of the drug smuggler and the scumbags who gave him a pass.
Absolutely not. That's why I'm able to read the factual information listed in post 44 and understand it. You claimed it's full of "weasel words". That implies it creates a picture that isn't accurate. Yet, your two most "glaring" examples happen to be statements of fact that you can't even try to refute. In fact, your comments regarding those statements prove you either did not read all of post 44, or its contents are beyond your comprehension. I'd suggest you have a reading comprehension problem, but that would be like diagnosing a rusted out and seized motor as only needing an oil change.
And for the record "subsequently" means "following" or happening later in a sequence of order. Again, you have posted a statement of fact and called it "weasel words".
Finally, you take the side of law breakers. I take the side of the law. It's as simple as that.