Is this not the point of a trial? To ascertain fact and adjudicate appropriately? Hell, this is explicitly the point of a grand jury, to determine if a trial is merited in the first place. And they've found, several times, that taking the charges to trial is justified. Not even that he's guilty, but that it's worth looking into.

Additionally, what facts am I missing? He wasn't exactly subtle with seeking to commit crimes ("Only stupid people pay taxes" comes to mind as a softball, but the fact that he was never held to the emoluments clause also stands out. Plus all the fraud and rape). Where is the misunderstanding in all this? He was found to be a rapist by a judge. He was found to have committed fraud by a different judge.

[–] InputZero@lemmy.ml 8 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The misunderstanding isn't yours, it's the general publics understanding of the legal system and it's processes. Which has been misinformed by decades of American criminal dramas like Law and Order, CSI, and NCIS. No one in this thread will go to rich people court like Trump gets to, we all get regular court if we get the privileged right to a court date. So when misinformed Trump supporters hear the judge ruled from the bench they see an overreach. When Trump's legal team presented such a bad defense and showed a complete disregard for the court and it's ruling in their opinion it wasn't his team who did a bad job, but a judge who never gave him a chance.

[–] maniclucky@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago

I imagine the mental gymnastics are way easier if you're uninformed about how things work.

Does it qualify as bad faith if I ask my previous questions knowing that he had nothing and/or complete unhinged nonsense?