>>9647518

>https://twitter.com/SteveScalise/status/1272661471382700032📁

>It's not what you know but what you can prove.

>Q: can we prove it?

>Q: can we prove coordination?

>Q: can we prove deliberate action to inc death count to justify >vote-by-mail, stay-at-home, bail-out-state, kill-economy, kill-P->rallies, inc unemployment, etc?

>Q

LawFags,

Apart from optics, is there any good reason, if prosecutors already have evidence to convict, to bring Cuomo before this subcommittee?

Is it that these congressional committees are supposed to provide information to inform policy decisions, while prosecutors are concerned with justice?

Is this a way to get more evidence? Or just a dog and pony show?

>>9653725

It certainly seems like a possibility. But it's also not "period, end of story."

For one thing, what would be the point? Trump is an egomaniac that just wants to "play" president for a while? And his team devises a psy-op to get reelected at the risk of it blowing up in their faces?

Why the vociferous hatred from an otherwise complicit media?

Why do all the enemies of the people - media, post-modern neo-Marxists in academia, Hollywood, etc. - want him gone to be replaced by BIDEN, of all people? Why hasn't even one journalist that hates him asked him who Q is?

There are too many questions for this to be an open and shut case.

>>9653819

sick burns