Trump Criminal Trials

Originally posted by hersuit: ↑

Well why am I not surprised perhaps THE most welded-on advocate for the "justice" this trial purports to offer... ignored the post

Your pedantic meaningless nitpick means ZERO but it gives you you the excuse to continue in your delusion

So tell me where when I say
"...1.The trial's basis is that DT is charged with 34 felonies alleging he falsified documents in orderto further commitanothercrime...a federal crime..."
and
your position is that its wrong but rather the REAL STORY is:
".....records were falsified to conceal another crime...Link" (behind paywall, btw)

So explain to me the material difference? Did he commit the crime? Is he just concealing the crime? Did he do both? Is there a material difference in those things? If I even amend the post to say "conceal" vs "commit"...does it change the fact that the points posted are all factual and speak directly to the farce you clearly buy into?

No.
Not in the slightest

And bullshit...you DID read 'em all but you have nothing of substance aside from a monumental meaningless nitpick

So below the "nonsensical" fatally flawed point (cough cough) here the rest of the points that you didn't bother to read but implied were nonsensical as well
Go on show us what ya got
~~The trial's basis is that DT is charged with 34 felonies alleging he falsified documents in order to further commitanother crime...a federal crime..."~~
The prosecution has NEVER cited what law that is. Fact
The prosecution has not led anyevidenceof what the underlying crime is. Not in their filings nor in the testimony led
They led testimony from MC who alleges somehow, something allegedly happened between he and DT which constitutes a campaign finance offences &
That was meant to unlawfully influence an election.
The jury is invited to accept this amorphous crime - the "crime" as expressed by MC and MC alone that ties DT to the "crime"
The jury is instructed THEY have to decide what that crime might have been in spite of no evidence of any merit. MC is it...utterly impeachable.
The judge refused to allow an expert...a leading expert on campaign violations. to giveevidenceto the jury on the law. {shaking head}
Elsewhere btw, the guy made it clear of the complexities of the law, what is and what isn't a violation and the payments would not be a crime
The FEC, fully aware of this, decided no crime was committed and dropped the action
The former DA in NY arrived at the same conclusion
Bragg himself arrived at the same conclusion
The prosecution has not led anyevidencethat connects DT to the ledger entries {the epicentre of the alleged "crime"}
The Prosecution has led noevidencethat DT knew of the payments and then....decided on a course of action to illegally affect an election

Expand

'The evidence was very strong,' former prosecutor on what to expect from Donald Trump jury