Stormy Daniels cleared Trump from crimes

[para bellum]

Donald Trumpâs Trial of the Century

Manhattan prosecutors have argued that the Stormy Daniels case—the first criminal trial of a former President in American history—is about much more than hush money. And legal experts believe that a conviction is likely.

www.newyorker.com

Lol. I finally got around to this New Yorker piece. I noticed two things.

The first is this one:

"...Daniels decided to go public: her encounter with Trump had taken place while he was already married to his third wife, Melania. Searching for an outlet that would handle the story with the delicacy it required, Daniels’s agent reached out to the National Enquirer."

The delicacy it required. LMAO, that's what the Enquirer is known for, it's delicacy. World renowned...

The other was this, buried way down in the piece:

"There are lingering questions about Bragg’s case: why did federal prosecutors not bring these charges against Trump, for instance?"

It's not the question that caught my attention- lots of people have asked that question. What caught my attention was that I had to read the entire piece just to find out they were not going to offer an answer. The entire remainder was about Trump and the various court battles, not one word about that "lingering question".

Any decent editor should have caught that sentence and just deleted it. Or moved it to the very end, as a gimmick to leave the reader in suspense.

The piece was what I expected to find, a justification of sorts for Bragg's case, but sloppy editing. I kind of expect better from the New Yorker.

Not really relevant, just a comment since the piece was linked here...

 

[Robert W]

No, I'm pointing out you're too scared to answer that question.

So your object is to scare posters.

 

[Faun]

So your object is to scare posters.

Holy fuck, what is wrong with you??

Again -- I didn't scare you, my question did.

And I didn't ask the question to scare you, I thought you would simply answer it. It was a simple yes/no type of question. When I asked, how was I to know you're too afraid to answer?

 

[AntonToo]

You can’t be serious. There are plenty of serious legal objections to this case against Trump, in fact, more than the number of serious legal agreements with the prosecution’s case.

The case is frivolous at best.

Guilty on all 34 criminal counts....or as DBA put it "frivolous at best"

 

[DBA]

Guilty on all 34 criminal counts....or as DBA put it "frivolous at best"

Led by a partisan judge who make multiple “mistakes” all in favor of the prosecution. The jury instructions alone will nullify this conviction when it reaches a non-partisan court.

 

[AntonToo]

Led by a partisan judge who make multiple “mistakes” all in favor of the prosecution. The jury instructions alone will nullify this conviction when it reaches a non-partisan court.

By "non-partisan court" you simply mean a court that will find Trump not guilty, right?

See if you can answer that question without lying to me and yourself.