@
MistyCee I'm not certain of that. Yeah, he appointed them, but just like there were many public officials who believed in him, voted for him, pledged their loyalty to him, insisted they would vote for him again, when they were forced into making a choice of doing the right and legal thing vs. "paying him off," they chose the right and legal thing to do. Many people see that as a risky situation: what if they had jumped off the cliff for him? I see it as that's what democracy really is. There is a lot of self-interest, no doubt, but when it counts, when it is needed, protecting democracy by doing the right and legal thing is more (not always, not amongst all) the norm.
And, the judge did put a time limit on the "Special Master" review and did require him to pay for it at 100%. So, for the sake of media attention, yeah it can be reported "he won." But, under scrutinized measurement, what did he really win? The next test will be to see what the judges (several of whom he appointed also) on appeal do.
