I'm skeptical about the idea that Weisselberg's testimony is necessary to establish criminal intent (for Trump and his kids).
Just look at Trump's history.
Circumstantial evidence is often used to prove criminal intent. law.cornell.edu/wex/intent
Just look at Trump's history.
Circumstantial evidence is often used to prove criminal intent. law.cornell.edu/wex/intent
https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1411012112776892417
Depends on what you mean by "really hard."
Prisons are filled with people who were convicted based on circumstantial evidence.
Unless a person confesses, you need some circumstantial evidence.
Testimony also isn't 100% reliable.
Prisons are filled with people who were convicted based on circumstantial evidence.
Unless a person confesses, you need some circumstantial evidence.
Testimony also isn't 100% reliable.
https://twitter.com/ferrix/status/1411162388469059588
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.
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 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.
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.
https://twitter.com/ilovaussiesheps/status/1411165967003140097
Actually, I probably shouldn't have said that so absolutely.
It depends.
I suppose, technically, the correct answer to any legal question is "it depends."
https://twitter.com/DonnaThorson/status/1411166173031325698
It depends.
I suppose, technically, the correct answer to any legal question is "it depends."
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
