This was the most biased “trial” I’ve ever heard about. The “conviction” was based on the testimony of a convicted liar (convicted of giving false testimony under oath). The Trump defense was blocked from offering testimony about the underlying theory of the case (e.g. “Election Fraud” that turned this misdemeanor improper accounting entry case into a felony (which was necessary to overcome the statute of limitations that had already expired the simple accounting entry issue). At every turn, the Judge blocked Trumps efforts to rebut the evidence. Trump did not take the stand because the defendant does NOT have to testify. If Trump did take the stand, then the prosecution would have been able to ask irrelevant questions simply intended to make Trump look bad, but have nothing to do with the charges in the case. Jurors are instructed to give no “weight” to a defendant who does not choose to testify. Finally, go on line and look of Alan Dershowitz’ commentary on the trial. Dershowitz is a life-long Liberal Democrat, but has complained significantly at the legal abuse in this trial. (It is a sad day for our country that the jury did not have the guts to acquit — but the Judge’s jury instructions were “almost” a directed verdict of guilty.) The U.S. has entered the realm of “banana republics” where (fake) legal actions are made to interfere with political campaigns. This is just like the way that Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Peru have “settled” political issues over the years.

Note: I am not a lawyer, but my father was a lawyer, judge, and Democrat majority leader in the California Assembly during my childhood. I discussed legal issues with him frequently and have taken a number of law classes in connection with my education. I also worked for a major railroad where I held jobs that provided written testimony before the Interstate Commerce Commission. So I am familiar with general legal principles, etc.