At this point, I don’t get really what is gained by flipping people against Trump. The argument isn’t that he did or didn’t do something. The argument is (in the minds of the jury at least) is what he did against the law. Yes, it might seem clear to us that it was, but to some Trump supporter on the jury having someone else say ‘Trump did a thing’, doesn’t change their mind that the thing he did and admits to doing is illegal.
Cooperation from co-conspirators is always helpful.
Trump’s current strategy (or, at least what we can discern from his lawyers’ TV appearances) is to blame the lawyers he had at the time of the election. If all these co-conspirators point the finger directly at Trump, that goes a loooong way to proving that he was the ringleader. Not some lawyer. Not some aide. Trump called the shots.
Just imagine someone close to the whole situation turns against Trump as a witness.They could provide the extra juicy bits that would make impressing the jury much easier.
At this point, I don’t get really what is gained by flipping people against Trump. The argument isn’t that he did or didn’t do something. The argument is (in the minds of the jury at least) is what he did against the law. Yes, it might seem clear to us that it was, but to some Trump supporter on the jury having someone else say ‘Trump did a thing’, doesn’t change their mind that the thing he did and admits to doing is illegal.
Cooperation from co-conspirators is always helpful.
Trump’s current strategy (or, at least what we can discern from his lawyers’ TV appearances) is to blame the lawyers he had at the time of the election. If all these co-conspirators point the finger directly at Trump, that goes a loooong way to proving that he was the ringleader. Not some lawyer. Not some aide. Trump called the shots.
That’s what they want.
Just imagine someone close to the whole situation turns against Trump as a witness.They could provide the extra juicy bits that would make impressing the jury much easier.