Posted on 05/02/2024 8:13:59 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Bfl
Their issue is , all the cases are equally as weak.
But the juries those kangaroo courts approved (or the dem judges in case Trump wanted to leave it to them) are capable of convictions.
What other explanation? To keep him from campaigning.
for later
There *will* still be a guilty verdict on each and every charge. And the judge *will* sentence DJT to 5 years at Attica.
Luckily the kangaroo court is only one stop on the cases lifecycle. These cases will go on forever. So many issues for grounds for appeal. Its embarrassing to watch and I suspect Trump is loving every minute of it. Every day these case look weaker and weaker and even folks that dont like Trump see something wrong here.
None of this matters. It’s a soviet-style show trial. The judge and jury decided DJT was ‘guilty’ before he even walked into the courthouse. Of course any ‘conviction’ will be laughed out of appeals court. That’s not the point of all this. The point is to keep him from campaining and being elected.
Weaponizers of the law have forfeited all rights to life, liberty and happiness.
Thank you.
haps Alvin bragged a bit too soon.
“Weird lawyer, helped her with her statement which said she didn’t have a relationship with Trump, but “understands” that she did. Doesn’t that mean he helped her commit perjury?”
Which is the type contradiction allowing either side’s attorney to destroy a witness’ credibility by asking “were you lying then or are you lying now?”.
I keep seeing “So and so destroys Braggs case” over an over.
I really think folks, this case can fall apart in every way covncievable, and there still wil be a conviction.
We are looking at this as if it is a legitimate trial and analyzing the merits and the evidence therein.
...we should NOT be looking at it that way.
The make up of this Manhattan jury reminds me of the jury in the novel: TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD
RE: Good news is always welcome.
The problem is NOT in the merits of the case, the problem is THE JUDGE and THE JURY.
If one initially votes not guilty, Merchan will tell the jury to go back and get a unanimous verdict. And that non-unanimous juror is unlikely to be as persuasive as Henry Fonda in Twelve Angry Men. And that juror might have a job and family who want him/her back. A guilty vote would do the trick.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.