people keep saying this "all 34 counts" thing but was it ever really logically possible to convict him on some but not all of the counts. aren't they all the same misrepresentation on different documents
I thought there was a strong chance of a some-yes-some-no verdict on the grounds that, when faced with a tough/politically-weighted decision, a lot of people will try to come up with a compromise, even when one makes no sense, just out of social instincts.
oh juries are 100% capable of reaching split-the-baby verdicts that don't really make sense, even in far less politically charged cases than this. i was just wondering if there was any logical basis for doing that (turns out there was though)
Yeah, I'm definitely not going to push back against people like Cowherd making a big public deal about "all 34 counts!", because that framing is good for beating Trump. But this was an all-or-nothing prosecution for sure.
My understanding is (and my guess is that this is what the third note was really about) is that some of the checks were signed directly by Trump and those were tied to 24 of the counts and 10 of the counts were tied to checks that Trump didn’t sign.
I heard some legal scholars suggesting a possible outcome of a mixed ballot with 24 guilty and 10 not guilty based on drawing an inference about Trump’s involvement and intent on checks he didn’t sign.
Comments