Mostly agree. I'll just add a few points. Not prosecuting a 'slam dunk' case would itself be a political decision, motivated by the calculation that it provides a political advantage to Trump (which I think we both agree on). Failing to uphold the law and pursue justice solely for perceived political gain would be an egregious dereliction of duty and a subversion of the principles of equal justice under the law. If Trump were to be a relatively unknown political figure alleged to falsify business records to hide a hush payment to a p*rn star, all to improve his chance of winning an election, and the prosecutor has the evidence to prove this, I think pretty much everyone would agree: absolutely move forward with the case. The people, with one glaring exception, hate corrupt politicians. When a politician is alleged to be corrupt and there is a strong case against him, there wouldn't be any controversy with the prosecution bringing the case. Menendez isn't even an unknown, but he is an example of that. (Menendez's corruption trial starts this week, and he, like Trump, is running for election in 2024). This whole situation is sad and unfortunate. The challenge of ensuring a fair trial for someone as polarizing and well-known as Trump is almost impossible. Given the public discourse surrounding Trump, it's near-impossible to find a jury pool that has not been exposed to commentary, analysis, or opinionated narratives about him. IOW, the jury is already 'tainted.' Trump would likely have legitimate grounds to argue that any guilty verdict should be overturned on the basis of violating his constitutional right to a fair trial. It's also legitimate to consider that a non-guilty verdict may not be fair. Guilty or not, I doubt anything will change much. Depressing state of the union. Special thanks to all the normies out there who turned a blind eye to their upbringing, morality, and supported such a man.
Guilty people are usually instructed by the lawyer to not justify. Especially when they are known liars.
Have you seen enough? Guilty? I am guessing this NY jury will agree with you. Not sure about the appellate judges though.
Goldman used to be a federal prosecutor, so I guess he's giving advice on how to not fall into traps laid in cross-examination. I'm not sure how the judge or the judge's daughter enters into it though. Goldman would need to be actively coordinating with the judge on what questions to allow and what objections to sustain. But that isn't even being alleged. I'm really not sure how this conspiracy is supposed to work to get Trump convicted.
These people have no work to do? This is really just a sad look, why not just get down on their knees and kiss the ring or other parts in front of crowd while they're at it.
I'm disappointed you can't offer a theory. Yeah, maybe I'm trolling a bit in some of your other threads, but that's just because you start too many. But here, I was really hoping to do some of that debating and discussing I hear so much about.
