you out. Here are the bios of a few of the lawyers I get my info from, who you claim don't get it and are lost on the merits of the case.

How does that help me out? I don't dispute the professional credentials of those folks. Just as (I assume) you don't dispute the professional credentials of the accomplished lawyers who have laid out arguments for the strength of the prosecution as well: Tribe, Turley, Cobb.

You have qualified lawyers who hold different views of the strength of the prosecution's case. This so frequently as to be ubiquitous. For almost any position in almost any case, you can find a solid lawyer who can advocate for that position.

Here's the solution to that:

Don't weigh their bios. Weigh their arguments

The problem with your approach is that you keep trotting out the qualifications of the people who agree with you, rather than actually taking a look at their arguments and seeing whether they're making good or bad arguments. For example, in your most recent post you linked to a video of Dersh criticizing the prosecution's case. But all of his arguments were poor arguments. He's got great credentials, but his arguments are still very poor - he obviously hasn't informed himself about what the prosecution's case actually is, or researched what New York law actually says.

So rather than posting links to these guys' bios, or what networks they appear on, perhaps you could tell me why substantively you think their positions are correct?

en.wikipedia.org - Laurence Tribe
en.wikipedia.org - George Conway
Wikipedia: Ty Cobb - Wikipedia(attorney)