The thing is they’ve actually made a mistake charging him with terrorism. It is surprisingly narrowly defined so even without a sympathetic jury he might get a not guilty verdict for it and it weakens the whole case against him. But most of all by including it they’ve made all his intentions and politics central issues to the case. All the evidence and his statements about this will have to go into the public record. If he had pleaded guilty that wouldn’t happen nor would there be a chance for jury annulment. Pleading not guilty is simply the smarter option to take.
That’s the one thing that tells me he’s not just going to walk, he’s going to walk on fucking water where he’ll be able to look down to see the Prosecution drowning
The thing is they’ve actually made a mistake charging him with terrorism. It is surprisingly narrowly defined so even without a sympathetic jury he might get a not guilty verdict for it and it weakens the whole case against him. But most of all by including it they’ve made all his intentions and politics central issues to the case. All the evidence and his statements about this will have to go into the public record. If he had pleaded guilty that wouldn’t happen nor would there be a chance for jury annulment. Pleading not guilty is simply the smarter option to take.
That’s the one thing that tells me he’s not just going to walk, he’s going to walk on fucking water where he’ll be able to look down to see the Prosecution drowning
A jury could just find him not guilty on that one count but guilty on all others. Not seeing how it weakens any other part of the case.
I think it’s along the lines of ‘if the prosecution presented an accusation that is obviously false, how well standing is the rest of the case’
If I were in the jury, a case that is part bullshit would definitely compel me to think again about how well the investigation was done
Hope this is true