“Instructing jurors that they are obliged to take Trump at his word that stolen documents are personal records is functionally an instruction to acquit.”
It’s also an instruction that flagrantly lies about what the law actually says. How can it not be grounds for removing the judge if they are blatantly, deliberately lying to the jury to force an acquittal?
“Instructing jurors that they are obliged to take Trump at his word that stolen documents are personal records is functionally an instruction to acquit.”
It’s also an instruction that flagrantly lies about what the law actually says. How can it not be grounds for removing the judge if they are blatantly, deliberately lying to the jury to force an acquittal?
“Instructing jurors that they are obliged to take Trump at his word that stolen documents are personal records is functionally an instruction to acquit.”
It’s also an instruction that flagrantly lies about what the law actually says. How can it not be grounds for removing the judge if they are blatantly, deliberately lying to the jury to force an acquittal?