[FreeReign]

From the article...

Sunny Hostin, a former federal prosecutor, believes the state wanted to avoid presenting a clear-cut case that would have led to an indictment. "Prosecutors generally present very streamlined cases to the grand jury," she says. "As a prosecutor you should not present witnesses in front of the grand jury that you wouldn't present at trial."

Apparently CNN is criticizing the prosecutor for presenting all the witnesses, both trustworthy and untrustworthy witnesses.

I bet CNN would have criticized the prosecution if the prosecution didn't produce all the witnesses.

Damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Unbelievable.

[Bogey78O]

Winner winner chicken dinner.

He presented the physical evidence without too much commentary. Then witness statements to the media. Then the witnesses.

He let the case speak for itself.

He could have gone to trial bit the evidence was so weak it’d be a waste of money.

[randita]

Damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Exactly. The prosecutor was taking great pains to appear non-biased.

In a way, I wish the case had gone to trial and all these delusional, agenda driven witnesses paraded up there and torn apart.

But all that popcorn wouldn't have been good for my waistline.