There was no evidence that he did failed to represent himself as working for the Clinton campaign.
Your evidence is?
Is what?
It was presented and ignored. It is a DC jury. Just like KKK juries in the south. KKK members always got off in-spite of evidence and that goes for OJ Simpson. The left does not care about justice
No. It was never presented.
PROVE YOUR CLAIMS
Yup. Some of the analysis I've seen describes the prosecution as being unable to make a convincing case (re. beyond a reasonable doubt).
The jury took less than a day, and one juror said they were all on the same page.
You've got a love it. If you're elitist you can lie in writing, and be found innocent of lying.
Fascinating that you should mention the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard when the lie was in writing. That is like trying to slide reasonable doubt between the pain, and the metal in your car hood. This is a bit like that CS Lewis observation, that the fish doesn't know what it feels like to be wet. Democrats don't know what a lie looks like, because all the things they profess to believe fall into that category.
The jurors have not been identified. How can you claim they are "elitist", whatever that means?
Because I read the transcripts of the proceedings when the jury was being selected. We may not know their names but we know what they all do. And we know they were all contributors to the Democratic Party and or Hillary Clinton.
Watters just went thru how they are interconnected. The fix was in. Including the judge. One juror said it should have never got to trial. The whole thing was a rigged farce. Why are we surprised? Rewards will be forthcoming. May God see and judge.
another one of them there conspiracies of yours?
The jurors were asked about their political contributions? Do you have a link for that?
Are you related to Kamala Harris?
Fascinating that you should mention a lie in writing when no such lie was presented to the court.