smart_creature

6 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by smart_creature 5y ago

   "She doesn't have a current defense in the court.The defense in court is all that matters in the trial, not media" Huh? I don't even know what this means. According to you her defense is "that she was not of sane st
2. 2.▲
   by smart_creature 5y ago

   You are technically correct but I don't see what the contradiction is. You could say that his testimony was 'overwhelming evidence' (he practically admitted to doing what he was accused of). Yes, improperly obtained and inadm
3. 3.▲
   by smart_creature 5y ago

   Not a lawyer or legal expert. But American juries are generally unpredictable and overwhelming evidence doesn't always decide cases (look at the O.J Simpson trial or more recently Bill Cosby or the first Epstein case). I think the gene
4. 4.▲
   by smart_creature 5y ago

   Those are not exactly the same thing. And it would undercut her current defense which is "I was just doing my best and we failed and business failure isn't a crime"
5. 5.▲
   by smart_creature 5y ago

   She didn't just "using public money and delivering a bad product". She lied to investors and regulators. That is called fraud and it is definitely a criminal offense. Her defense rests on proving she did not do it knowingly o
6. 6.▲
   by smart_creature 5y ago

   I've followed the case fairly closely. I'm not aware that this is part of her defense. Where did you get this from?