deflect criticism for his past actions, and demonizes the husband to Bush's supporters.
Was Michael Jackson guilty of child abuse?
In the minds of most of the world, he was.
To the courts, he is innocent.
The court findings do nothing to change the perception of guilt.
Now, I agree with that perception, regardless of the verdict.
BUT if Jackson was really innocent, how does he regain his reptation?
Regardless of the truth or falcity of the accusation levelled by Bush, how can Michael Schaivo defend himself from the damage to his reputation caused by the post-facto accusation of murder by a politician?
There is zero chance of a successful prosecution at this stage. Therefor, what is the potential reason for introducing the question, especially a question of such flimsy substance.
The question is:
There seems to have been some inconsistencies with the timeline you have presented in public over the past *15 YEARS*, a timeline you a recalling that occured during a crisis situation...
The facts are that the inconsistencies being pointed out are such that they could not have actually taken place, since your wife did survive in a coma for *15 YEARS*, but we shall initiate an investigation anyways.
The thing is, Jeb Bush is starting an investigation into allegations that can not be valid based on science, and is doing so even though there is NO chance of proving wrong-doing.
The only interpretation for such a defiance of reality is political gain. And that, child, is why the whole investigation is utterly and completely WRONG.
Bush has a history of doing the wrong thing, for political motivations. That is why even the idea of him demanding the investigation, again doing the wrong thing for a political motivation, is anathema. |
