In Reply to: Wouldn’t the stronger case of election inter… posted by Fuzzy on April 25, 2024 at 06:52:30
But perhaps you are not to blame given the media reports on what has been actually argued by prosecutors at trial. The fact that Judge Merchan, who I am told is totally unbiased, has allowed the prosecution to thus far almost exclusively argue a case of "election interference" or "election fraud, pure and simple" when the actual legal claims for which Trump is being prosecuted stem from state business records laws tenuously tied to alleged federal campaign finance violations (which the relevant federal authorities chose not to pursue), says all you need to know about the legitimacy of this clown show of a trial.
Of course, the strategy being deployed by prosecutors is to create the illusion of some great societal crime--a nefarious "scheme" and "conspiracy" to commit "election fraud"-- even though the conduct prosecutors are focusing on (catching and killing stories, and entering into NDAs) are not illegal. The aim being to further prejudice the democratic jury and make them overlook the fact that we are breaking a 250 year precedent of not prosecuting a President based on boring allegations of misdemeanor state law business records violations.
This ruse is clearly working on Fuzzy, and perhaps will work on the jury assuming these biased democratic Manhattanites are even attempting to examine the merits of the case rather than waiting for their opportunity to convict their hated political enemy.
It would be great if we could just skip to the part where the inevitable conviction is overturned on appeal. Of course with his carefully chosen timing Bragg ensured that likely won't happen until AFTER the election. Talk about election interference!