Even CNN Doesn't Think Prosecution Has Proven Case Against Trump
Let's face it, CNN's Jake Tapper is high up there on the list of folks who don't like former President Donald Trump.
But on Tuesday, as the closing arguments were being made in the Manhattan trial of the former president and the case was about to go to the jury, even Tapper and other members of a CNN panel that included legal experts didn't think that the prosecution had proven the so-called "hush money" case against Trump.
“It‘s not even about that he didn’t know about the reimbursement, it’s that he didn’t know that the bookkeeper used the drop-down menu to say legal fees, that that was not something that Donald Trump said, ‘yes. Use that drop-down menu so that we can conceal this and lie,'” former Trump attorney Tim Parlatore said.
It's perhaps not surprising that a former Trump attorney would think that. It is surprising, however, that Tapper thinks that. When the truth is that obvious, even Tapper gets it.
“What Tim just said … to me makes sense because I don’t know that they have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that … even if you believe the prosecution’s theory of the case … I don’t know that they’ve have proven that Donald Trump knew,” Tapper responded.
Then, criminal defense lawyer Brandi Harden replied:
"They have not, absolutely have not...Time and time again, people keep talking about what might be missing or what’s not quite there,” criminal defense lawyer Brandi Harden said. “That is, in fact reasonable doubt when things are missing, when there are facts that to want to hear and you look to the prosecution and say, so where is that thing that means unfortunately here, he should be acquitted. And I think that because there are certain things that the government has to prove here, certain specifics that he knew, he had specific knowledge of these things. Those are just things I think that have fallen by the wayside. They just have not established those things in this particular case.”
Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Tom Dupree explained how the prosecution made things far too long and complex, that if you had to take "four and a half hours to present your case" in closing arguments, "it’s too long and too complicated for a jury."
Indeed. There's an old expression, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bulls**t." They have no case and they're trying to baffle the jury into a conviction by going on for so long, trying to make a lot of talking substitute for a lack of evidence.
But if even CNN gets it, that shows you just how awful the prosecution's case was.
Let's hope that the jury gets it now too. The facts aren't there. But will the jury be able to see clearly through the smear?
HOT TAKES: Let the Mockery Begin of Insane Biden Effort at Trump Trial—and How It May Help Trump
Trump Team Excoriates the Crazy Biden Campaign Presser, Details How Desperate Dems Are
Post a Comment