Of course, you think that...and a few shallow-minded folks agree with you
So tell me where in any of MC's evidence is there any evidence
aside from his word that
- DT knew about the payment (not a crime), and
- he MC acted on his behalf (not a crime) and then
- DT was party to the decisions to label the payment as one thing or another (still not a crime) and then...
- that all of this was done to influence an election
And btw....you can choose to believe MC re 1,2 and 3...and all ya got MAYBE is a misdemeanour, if that, on which the SoL has run out....so you then have to
prove #4....that's the felony and thats the basis of the charge that Bragg is trying to get up
And all you have is the
word of a perjurer and disbarred lying lawyer who is on the record - multiple times - telling all and sundry - convincingly, I might add - that DT was in no way involved and not a party to it all. So was he convincing then or now?
Where is there a shred of evidence of any of it aside from the unbelievably impeachable testimony of a lying, DT-hating man making a fortune out of this and stands to make even more if the jury believes him
The cross tomorrow and the next day or two will be brutal. They should start with the
videos of MC testifying under oath - multiple times - exonerating and distancing DT from any crime
Particularly fun will be the cross that points out when he was under the pump and facing huge legal jeopardy, he was given the lifeline and out to throw DT under the bus and at that very point - he reiterated DT was not involved
Gonna be epic
Truly... only a retarded person or a rusted-on leftie moron would think this evidence laid a glove on DT.
