• NoSuchAgency@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    35
    ·
    5 months ago

    You’re just buying everything the MSM is selling, hook line & sinker. They wouldn’t let Trump have much of a defense. They wouldn’t even let an expert witness testify for the defense. And sure, the jury decides the case based on the instructions given by the judge and this is the only time a judge has ever given instructions like the ones in this case. You really don’t know much about the justice system if you believe that the judge in a case doesn’t play a major role in how a case is decided.

      • Ragnarok314159@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        5 months ago

        Yeah, but you didn’t read this particular article posted on a random website by a guy who said he totally knows, and that makes him more qualified than all of us here.

      • Ragnarok314159@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        5 months ago

        Superpatrioteagle50caljesus dot com only has the best news.

        Tune in tomorrow for how we explain how NASA spies on your poop!

        • barsquid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          5 months ago

          No, that’s not correct. You are receiving delusional propaganda about disallowing expert witnesses from somewhere. Where is that from?

          Bradley Smith was definitely allowed to testify as an expert, but the defense declined to call him. Here, since you like pretending to have read things direct from the court. He was not allowed to show up and instruct the jury, which is the same as decided in the prior cited cases in NY and OH.

          Where is your delusional propaganda from? The things you are claiming are lies that Donald has been tweeting. So perhaps your delusions are coming direct from the source: a lifelong con man and fraud who committed election interference in 2016.

          • NoSuchAgency@reddthat.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            12
            ·
            5 months ago

            “I direct you back to page three of my decision,” Merchan said, reiterating that Brad Smith could testify as to what the FEC is, its purpose, background, what laws if any FEC is responsible for enforcing and general definitions and terms that relate to this case, including contribution and expenditure. So he was only allowed to testify the definition, purpose, and backround of the FEC which would be pointless really.

              • NoSuchAgency@reddthat.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                15
                ·
                5 months ago

                Don’t know what to tell you. It’s his own words so if you’d rather it be someone else speaking for him then go for it

                • barsquid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  No, the article is clear he was allowed to discuss facts about the law, he was disallowed from presenting his opinions as if they were facts. So they declined to have him.

                  You are delusional and in a cult, which is why you won’t explain where you are getting your information from. You are getting it from liars and other cult members.