• Absolute dumbass commentary. The jury decided the case, not the judge. Trump literally had no defense to the allegations other than bald denials. The evidence that he did the crimes was written in paper and undeniable.

    • NoSuchAgency@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      You’re just buying everything the MSM is selling, hook line & sinker. They wouldn’t let Trump have much of a defense. They wouldn’t even let an expert witness testify for the defense. And sure, the jury decides the case based on the instructions given by the judge and this is the only time a judge has ever given instructions like the ones in this case. You really don’t know much about the justice system if you believe that the judge in a case doesn’t play a major role in how a case is decided.

          • barsquid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            No, that’s not correct. You are receiving delusional propaganda about disallowing expert witnesses from somewhere. Where is that from?

            Bradley Smith was definitely allowed to testify as an expert, but the defense declined to call him. Here, since you like pretending to have read things direct from the court. He was not allowed to show up and instruct the jury, which is the same as decided in the prior cited cases in NY and OH.

            Where is your delusional propaganda from? The things you are claiming are lies that Donald has been tweeting. So perhaps your delusions are coming direct from the source: a lifelong con man and fraud who committed election interference in 2016.

            • NoSuchAgency@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              5 months ago

              “I direct you back to page three of my decision,” Merchan said, reiterating that Brad Smith could testify as to what the FEC is, its purpose, background, what laws if any FEC is responsible for enforcing and general definitions and terms that relate to this case, including contribution and expenditure. So he was only allowed to testify the definition, purpose, and backround of the FEC which would be pointless really.

                • NoSuchAgency@reddthat.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Don’t know what to tell you. It’s his own words so if you’d rather it be someone else speaking for him then go for it

                  • barsquid@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    5 months ago

                    No, the article is clear he was allowed to discuss facts about the law, he was disallowed from presenting his opinions as if they were facts. So they declined to have him.

                    You are delusional and in a cult, which is why you won’t explain where you are getting your information from. You are getting it from liars and other cult members.