‘In Jail For 150 Years!!’ Trump Blurts Out Attacks On Criminal Trial Into Social Media Night As Case Heads To JuryFormer President Donald Trump was up ranting late into the night about his criminal trial, as the case heads for closing arguments and jury deliberations next week.
...
Trump has been bombarding Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and Judge Juan Merchan with attacks throughout the case, but on Memorial Day weekend, Trump was up until 2 in the morning ranting about the case — sometimes in ALL CAPS shouting.
Just before midnight, Trump blurted “LEGAL EXPENSE = LEGAL EXPENSE!!!”
“Let’s put the President in jail for 150 years because a LEGAL EXPENSE to a lawyer was called, by a bookkeeper, a LEGAL EXPENSE to a lawyer!What else could you call it. Crooked Joe Biden Witch Hunt. Election Interference. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!” Trump wrote after midnight.
https://www.mediaite.com/news/in-jail-for-150-years-trump-blurts-out-attacks-on-criminal-trial-into-social-media-night-as-case-heads-to-jury/others:
I HAVE A GREAT CASE, BUT WITH A RIGGED AND CONFLICTED JUDGE. HISTORY PROVES, HOWEVER, THAT I WOULD BE FAR BETTER OFF WITH A BAD CASE AND A GREAT, FAIR, AND HONEST JUDGE!!!
The City of New York’s D.A., Alvin Bragg, is trying to prosecute a Federal case, which cannot be done, and where there is NO CRIME, that has been turned down by everyone, including the Federal Elections Commission, SDNY, the D.A.’s Office, and Bragg himself – Until I announced that I was running for President. This case could have been brought 7 years ago, but wasn’t. It is another Crooked Joe Biden Election Interference Hoax!
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL – OPINION. ALVIN BRAGG HASN’T PROVED HIS CASE IN THE TRUMP TRIAL. THE EVIDENCE SHOWS WHY THE CHARGES SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN BROUGHT. New York Prosecutors rested their hush-money case against Donald Trump this week, but after 20 days in Court, and a trial transcript of 4000 pages, the missing piece is still missing. The question is whether Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg presented the evidence necessary for a conviction, and if we were in the jury room, we’d say NO.