ically, all right, let me just say it. He created a new way to get bribed. It's totally legal. So if you imagine that he would have lost, let's just say, $200 million of his own money if he built it, and you're a company that can say, well, I can't pay for the whole $200 million, but I can take $10 million off your plate so you wouldn't have to pay that personally, is that a bribe? Is it a bribe when you say, I will reduce your expenses by $10 million. I'll take that off your hands. I don't know. I'm sure it's probably legal because there's no quid pro quo, you know, nothing in return. It's all public, it's all transparent, etc. It's well reported, but it is kind of brilliant the way he handled that.

Apparently there was a prosecutor in Virginia who was looking into the Letitia James mortgage question and decided that they couldn't find enough evidence to make a case out of it. And so Trump's firing him because he couldn't make a case against James. Now, does that suggest that he's looking to do a little lawfare? If the guy who was in charge says we don't have enough evidence that she knew what she was doing. So it was the knowing that she was doing it was the part that mattered. Now, I don't know how you prove that she knew it. I used to think that ignorance was no excuse. Does that change? Didn't it used to be that ignorance of the law was no excuse? So would it matter if she intended? Well, I suppose if it were a pure clerical accident or just an oversight, that would be probably allowable, but it does seem to me that Trump is looking to lawfare her for revenge.

I