Thanks John. I said you would be naive to think so. And you're free to prove me wrong of course.

Allow me to address this another way. While your comment raises important points, it does not permit underhand tactics and strategies of this court case for the purposes of winning another term in Government.

We can argue the merits of the court case itself but even this strays from the point.

The point is this: The court case and all indictments are a clear motive for removing a candidate with strong likelihood of winning the Presidency.

To think this has anything to do with hush money or other would be naive.

Had Trump not decided to run for President this court case would be unlikely to have happened at all.

Regardless of your political persuasion the objective facts show that this is a policitcally weaponised strategy to remove a strong candidate from winning the election.

You can seek to defend this strategy if you wish, but all it does is to prove a one-state approach to victory akin to a Putin styled Government.

The rising concern even among Democrats is this:

A vote for Democrat will not be one to protect democracy or justice. Ironic really.

Thanks for reading.

p.s. yes I did learn to use pejoratives as a debate skill.

While the connotations are assumed by those more sensitive I use them by their more strict definitions.

Definition: expressing contempt or disapproval

As for the definition of naivety I am referring to that of your judgement, not wisdom or experience.

Definition: showing a lack of experience, wisdom, or judgement