Lawyers for Trump on Tuesday repeatedly argued that old social media posts by many of the prospective jurors or their friends showed that they were not being forthcoming about their animosity toward him, while prosecutors argued that old dumb jokes on the internet were not a cause to dismiss someone from the panel.
So despite this jury’s empirically verifiable heinous bias, we’re going to pretend that said bias will not grotesquely corrupt the final verdict? Wow!
We might as well select a jury of Klansmen to sit in judgment of a Rabbi or a Black preacher accused of any crime imaginable.
It’s especially disgusting when we recall how Hillary Clinton got away with using campaign funds to manufacture an artificial Trump-Russian-Collusion yarn only to then claim them as “expenses.” For that she got a slap on the wrist from the FEC.
And yet not even the FEC saw enough evidence to fine Trump over Bragg’s claim that Stormy Daniel’s NDA equals Trump falsifying expenses.
It’s noteworthy that in 2012, presidential candidate John Edwards provably did far worse with funds regarding the mother of his love child, filmmaker Rielle Hunter. The DoJ’s case fell apart like a plane on fire out of the sky.
Finally, this Bragg case is based on an alleged crime from before the 2016 election which is only a misdemeanor under a state law that had already expired under the statute of limitations!
Anyone with an IQ above anal leakage sees this for what it is – cartoonishly camouflaged election interference.
Thankfully (from the recent past to the present), voters have not been fooled:
Only 1 in 3 US adults think Trump acted illegally in New York hush money case, AP-NORC poll shows
April 16, 2024
Analysis-Hush money trial could help Trump in 2024 presidential race
Trump’s Trials Are a Political Gift to His Campaign
62 percent in new poll say federal charges against Trump politically motivated