> I didn't mean "weak" in any legal sense.
So having a strong legal case is not enough for you?
> These are all technicalities
How do you know, the case is sealed. Like you keep arguing against something you cannot possibly have any knowledge of.
Like one of the crimes can be multi million dollar tax evasion from Trump org. Or killing a dog with a dog with a shovvel. Who knows what the 34 charges are. All that is known is that the investigation started on the payment to Stormy Daniels.
> many people will not think that any real crime has been committed.
12 people have already agreed they have seen enough evidence to warrant an indictment. who cares about any number of people who have not seen the evidence?
> Furthermore, things you present here as facts still need to be proven in a court
The things I presented as facts, ARE facts. All those events have been either sworn under oath, or are so easily factual as to not need any verification (like the dates or ammounts of the payments).
What has since been uncovered, in the 3 year investigation we do not know as it is sealed. All we know is a jury saw the evidence and saw enough to convince them to indict.
> which might be another technicality that evens out the other technicalities.
Going from manslaughter to murder is based on the technicality that you planned it and meant it. It being a technicality doesn't make the crime not stick. What kind of silly defense is this?
Yes legal charges are based on technicalities, depending on the ones you did you are charged for a crime or another.
