Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman
Ok counselor, enlighten me, what am I missing, other than what I quoted...
That an:
"When Giuffra challenged the idea that any district attorney in the country could bring a case against a presidential candidate for FECA violations, Associate Justice Bahaati Pitt-Burke endorsed that notion, saying “there could be conflicting approaches, and that wouldn't necessarily serve the purpose that you're necessarily trying to accomplish.”
“That’s exactly right, your honor,” Giuffra replied."
So, if you can explain how that nullifies the charges, I'd like to hear it. It seems to me the associate judge's statement is double-talk in that while there may be an alternative approach that wouldn't fit the AGs narrative, it doesn't preclude the application of the law in the manner presented in the case brought by the AG.
The same associate judge seems to go off again on some obscure tangent when he says this:
"Steven Wu, a lawyer for the Manhattan district attorney’s office, told the judges that the White House-related evidence was “unofficial conduct” or, in the case of some of the president’s social media posts in question, part of the public record."
"And, he said, Trump’s lawyers are challenging “a drop in the bucket” of the evidence used at trial, making any of the evidence they are protesting amount to “harmless error” that doesn’t merit overturning the conviction."
"Pitt-Burke, however, expressed skepticism, saying, “if you take all of those things cumulatively, right? ‘And there’s a problem with this evidence, there’s a problem with this evidence.’ At what point does it stop being harmless error and turn into something else?”
Huh? What?! What's being taking "cumulatively"?? Answer nothing except in that associate judge's head. And then he says, "At what point does it stop being harmless error and turn into something else?” That's an absurd and imaginary hypothetical that did not occur in the trial and didn't, in reality, happen...
