I think there is more than sufficent proof. She obviously had no problem talking shop, she only objected to some of the details. No matter how much you try to spin it, it's all there in the phone tapnope you proved my point... there is no proof and I don't think we should bring up that bit...
and millions more that are not corrupt....what's your point ???? you don't need proof now to judge someone.... or don't you want to talk about that bit....there are a million corrupt people out there that haven't been found guilty in a court of law. That doesn't make them any less corrupt.
were not talking about them were talking about Gladysand millions more that are not corrupt..
No. You don't. This isn't a court of law. Public opinion doesn't give the benefit of 'reasonable doubt'. You've been watching to many Perry Mason rerunsyou don't need proof now to judge someone.