Witnesses don't always tell the truth.
Juries don't always believe the witness.
Witnesses who "flip" were usually involved in the criminal scheme, so their testimony can also be suspect.
Documentary evidence is harder to discredit. Witnesses can help connect the dots.
I think a problem with charging Trump himself isn't lack of evidence; it's getting an impartial jury and conducting a trial that doesn't turn into a media circus.
Holdout jurors can be a problem.
An acquittal would make Trump more dangerous than not charging him.
Holdout juries are rare, and with Manafort, even someone sympathetic to him felt she had to convict because the documentary evidence was overwhelming.
Federal prosecutors have something like a 96% success rate because they don't take chances.
They make sure cases are airtight.
Documentary evidence can be stronger than witness testimony, but of course, it depends on the documents and the witnesses.
The video was a bit longer than my usual video (almost 16 minutes!)
But it's totally not my fault!
It's because there are so many bogus defenses out there.
2/
By amazing coincidence, I talked about this one in my video.
But I don't think people like this ⤵️are actually interested in the difference between political prosecution (which abandons rule of law) and rule of law prosecution (grounded in facts and evidence).
Weisselberg was "one of the largest individual beneficiaries" of the criminal scheme.
So there were others.
He wasn't even necessarily the largest beneficiary.
Today, those others are probably having a Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day.
I should do this as a thread.
This is important: The scheme is systematic and ongoing. In other words, we're not talking about a few isolated incidents, but pervasive over a period of years.
This is my surprised face. [sarcasm]
The defendants "and others."
The scheme was to compensate Weisselberg "and other Trump organization executives. . . " off the books.
It's hard to believe those others get to skate free. There's just too much noise in here about them.
I think you could use a refresher on the history of the parties. I can recommend a few books, including @HC_Richardson's To Make Men Free (I'll put the covers in the next tweet.)
1/
How Lincoln’s anti-slavery, strong federal government pro-industry party morphed into the party of the Proud Boys is a little complicated, but I'll break it down.
Unless otherwise indicated, all facts taken from these books ⤵️
I wonder what would happen if, across the nation, people started holding signs in front of Toyota dealerships and handing out leaflets about why money spent on Toyota funds insurrections.
The book is detailed and complete and there’s no way to do it justice in a Twitter thread, but (after I fill my ☕️) I'll try to hit a few main points.
Ben-Ghiat, a historian, tells the stories of an impressive list of strongmen👇 Patterns emerge.
🔹They all use their public office to enrich themselves.
🔹Most come to power with a history of lawbreaking.
🔹They act like gangsters.
🔹They encourage violence.