But as we have seen all the principles involved with Trump have fallen on their swords to protect Trump. All that is left is circumstantial evidence of a crime. Is it enough to convince a jury? I don't know. But as we have seen all the principles involved with Trump have fallen on their swords to protect Trump. All that is left is circumstantial evidence of a crime. Is it enough to convince a jury? I don't know.
This is always the case in RICO prosecutions. It would not be a RICO prosecution if witnesses didn't try to cover for each other. In this case, they have all those emails, text messages, and paper documents. Those are actual evidence, not testimony not eye witness accounts. People greatly overrate testimony: Co-conspirators lie. Eye witnesses make false identifications by accident. But there is a mountain of hard evidence. Like a taped phone call in Georgia. Like forged "electoral results" sent to the feds. Like the documents Haba sent to the DOJ swearing under penalty of perjury that all government records had been returned. Like all those bank, insurance company, and tax records Trump sent to other people in order to commit bank, insurance, and tax fraud. He even filed fraudulent tax returns with both New York and the IRS. Filing a fraudulent state tax return is a different crime than filing a fraudulent federal tax return, so he can be tried for both.
Maybe a corrupt Supreme Court will overturn his federal convictions, but his New York convictions would have to be overturned by the New York Supreme Court or pardoned by the New York governor. Not a chance.
