Ah, no, I am in the camp that when two of the major witnesses are proven to lie about the defendant, that should create reasonable doubt in a neutral jury.
Unless, of course, their testimony is corroborated by other witnesses, documents, emails, text messages, recordings, etc., right? Or maybe the defense just did a bad job of convincing the jury that those lies indicated that the testimony was unreliable? Maybe even more so when those proven lies from said witnesses were made to benefit the defendant, when either working for him or subject to an NDA that would require said lie?
And what reason do we have to believe that the jury was not neutral? Them simply coming up with a verdict with which you disagree doesn't get you there. Is it simply because they came from a largely democratic area? Are people who vote for democrats not capable of being impartial? Were all the jurors even democratic voters? I mean, you're aware the defense had the opportunity to dismiss jurors they didn't believe could be impartial, yes?
That was my point, JM. He wasn't charged with violating fed election law although the alleged crime (whatever it was) was alleged to take place in conjunction with and because of the federal election. Even more reasonable doubt for a neutral jury.
That makes no sense. THIS trial didn't have anything to do with federal election law. He was charged with violation NY state law, so whether or not he violated federal law has no relevance.
So, again, you're admitting to drawing conclusions despite a lack of evidence. Again, at least you're consistent.
I and millions of others drew a conclusion from the OJ case that was contrary to the verdict,
That doesn't mean said conclusion was actually justified, although the later civil trial and his subsequent behavior would certainly point that way. But also, the jury didn't say he was innocent. They could've, in fact, believed he was guilty, but were forced to find not guilty based on the high standard required to rule he was guilty.
and I am drawing a similar conclusion from this absurd case that is certain to be overturned,
Quite the claim. On what grounds do you know it will be overturned?
but not until after the election - which was the political plan of the desperate Crow administration in the first case.
Evidence that such a plan exists? Yet again, you're making very confident statements of what you believe as if you are certain you are correct (like that I am JM) despite little to no evidence existing that supports your position.
And I want to be clear here. You're certainly welcome to believe the things you've stated here. I'm just trying to ascertain how you can be so confident when there isn't actually any evidence you can point to.
