There has, as you would expect, been plenty of right-wing blather about the outcome of the Trump trial over the last week. What kind of commentary is fair, and what isn’t?
It is completely fair to point out that the prosecution’s legal theory was convoluted, and that a few of the judge’s decisions were arguable. Those issues are properly decided by a New York appellate court (not the Supreme Court, Mr. Johnson). In addition, you can make a good faith argument that even if Trump was guilty, the prosecution was unwise, because the crime was too limited and remote to justify its divisiveness. I wouldn’t agree with either of those points, but I would respect them.
It is not fair, however, to say that Trump’s guilt wasn’t established by the evidence, or that the jury was biased, or that the judge was corrupt. If you take any of those positions, you are questioning the premises of the legal system without any evidence and exposing yourself to the argument that you are a hypocrite. After all, Hunter Biden is being tried for no obviously good reason for a victimless crime before a Trump judge even as we speak. More on that in a later post.