(11-04-2023, 10:43 AM)NYC4jags Wrote:

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

I’ve stayed out of this argument because if crimes were committed, this is all appropriate. Trump should be convicted.

With that said, from a legal and political standpoint, they better have this buttoned down. I say this as neutrally as I can: If they can’t convict Trump with these charges, [BLEEP] is going to hit the fan. Big time. It will be labeled, and rightfully so, as a political witch hunt and the blowback will come from all sides because they’re setting a precedence here that is fraught with potential danger.

---