(11-03-2023, 07:55 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote:

(11-03-2023, 05:37 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: Great.

Now that we've all properly called each other names on the school playground like proper children, here is some light reading to consider on the topic of "who might meaningfully testify against Trump."

So Far - these are the folks who made a deal - reportedly more deals are being negotiated that may require testimony as witness for the prosecution. 


Text borrowed from a legal blogger. I don't see any inaccuracy.

I don't see how the people responsible for providing legal advice can implicate Trump, as his defense would just be that he did what he was advised. Unless they have hard evidence, this is going to turn into he-said, she-said. Those who want to believe the shes will believe the shes and those who want to believe the hes will believe the hes. Is any Trump hater here willing to demand hard evidence, or are you just ok with finger pointing?

Lawyer or not. Once a witness under oath testifies for the prosecution - it is a bit more than finger pointing. Sugar coat it if you like. 
The emails between Cheseboro and Guliani, combined with the internal memos admitted into evidence and now apparently Trump's twitter DMs that have been entered into evidence, are all going to lay out who directed whom in this illegal plot to alter a fair election. 

I wouldn't worry too much about any burden of proof being answered on intent and direction. 

From everything I've read the prosecution believes they already have that in hand and these flipped witnesses will merely corroborate it.

---