Forgive the simplistic view but the jurors aren’t being asked to determine if the sequence of events constitute a crime or the severity of it, they’re being asked to determine based on the evidence presented if Trump participated in it or directed the events.
Maybe the “yeah he did it but I don’t think it’s really a crime” thinking works in marijuana possession cases but I don’t think juries will apply the same logic to election finance felonies.
Seriously? I’m amazed someone could say this. There is a huge difference between lying about an affair (even under oath) and a candidate conspiring to fraudulently falsifying business records to cover up payments made to a mistress so her story didn’t come out during an election.
If Starr had uncovered that on Clinton it would 100% definitely meant the end of Clinton’s presidency. It would have been Watergate part 2.
I very much wrote that wrong.
That is my mistake.
I meant to say the actual crime is worse than lying about doing it.
Sorry about that.
Edit: just read last post
Though I think this is not super relevant to the OP. People get off (or are given a smack on the wrist) for heinous crimes that are a big deal all the time. And people are given long sentences for crimes that are not a big deal.