Two Questions For Jim Jordan, Et Al

Whatever today’s charges turn out to be, I have two questi0ns:

If the Stormy Daniels expose had NOT been hushed up two weeks before the 2016 election, with early voting already underway, might Trump have gotten 77,745 fewer votes in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin?

That’s my first question.

I ask, because, as you know, all it would have taken for Hillary to win the Electoral College was for 38,723 Trump voters to have flipped blue.  Not a lot out of nearly 14 million votes cast in those three states.

Or, if no votes would have flipped, then all that would have been needed was for fewer than 1% of the Trump voters in those states simply to have stayed home.

Some may think the Stormy Daniels story wouldn’t have affected the outcome, but I’ll tell you someone who thought it was worth $130,000 not to take that chance.  (More than that, really, because to make Michael Cohen whole, after taxes, Trump apparently paid about twice as much — and he is not a man who parts with money easily.)

So as trivial as the porn star pay-off seems to Jim Jordan, et al, it’s not crazy to think that without it, Hillary would have been president and our third branch of government solidly progressive instead of right-wing.

So is Trump innocent of whatever he’s charged with today unless proven guilty?  For sure.

But is it outrageous for a grand jury to think he should not be above the law?  And for objective observers to think that paying off Stormy Daniels may have changed the course of human history?

I don’t think so.

And here’s the second question I’d put to those Republicans who think today’s indictment is an “outrageous abuse of prosecutorial discretion”:

Was it an outrageous abuse of prosecutorial discretion for Trump’s Justice Department to indict and imprison Trump’s co-conspirator?

WOKE IS BROKE:  With some of my fellow Stanford Law students, there’s no room for argument.  

So well said.

Pass it on.