Thread by @adamfelber

Just a quick logic exercise:

IF Donald J. Trump has committed multiple crimes, including money laundering, tax fraud, obstruction of justice, and even collusion with a foreign power,

THEN it is almost certain that investigators know all about that shit by now. (1/x)

And IF the investigators know all about that shit by now,

THEN it’s a certainty that their communications about Trump are expressed in the way you’d communicate about any perp. Things like “We gotta stop this guy.”

THEREFORE: Trump and his people will have an easy time claiming that the investigators are biased.

Because they are.

Government investigators are “biased” against criminal behavior and people who commit crimes.

When you stop a guy on the street and shake him down with zero evidence - that’s bias.

When you see a guy in a hockey mask, spattered in blood, carrying an axe, and chasing a group of fresh-faced teens, and you try to detain him for questioning... that’s not bias.

Jason Voorhees doesn’t get to complain about biased investigations. Even if he’s yet to be convicted.

“Your honor, Officer McClean’s radio transmission, ‘Holy shit, we have to take this bastard out before he splits another kid’s skull with an ice pick!’ shows clear bias against my client.”

“But-“

“Also, ‘another kid’s skull?’ Your honor, my client had yet to be convicted of splitting ANY skulls with any implemements whatsoever. We may ask ourselves, WHO exactly had the REAL ‘axe to grind’ here?”

“Ha. I see what you did there.”

“Thank you, your honor.”

“*Sigh* OK, in light of clear investigatory bias, Mr. Voorhees is free to go. The bailiff will return his chainsaw and other gardening tools on his way out.”

“Thanks, your honor. He’s anxious to return to his landscaping business.”

It doesn’t work that way, is what I’m saying.