I'm not a lawyer bud, but when the lawyers I respect claim the defense closing argument was weak, I suspect it was weak. If you think Tribe and CONway are non political lets just move on.

Again, you can't assess the strength of the arguments by deciding which lawyers have the better bio. Or by which lawyers you choose to respect or not respect - because that choice will invariably be affected by whether they are advocating a position you agree with or not.

I'm not arguing that Tribe or Conway are non-political, any more than I would argue that Turley or Dersh are non-political. I'm arguing that they have the better arguments. On the merits, the things that Dersh and Turley are saying are mostly: i) inaccurate presentations of the prosecution's case; or ii) inconsistent with what NY law actually is.

They can fulminate all they want about how Trump wasn't required to disclose a contribution until after the election, or that he wasn't involved in claiming the Daniel's payment as a legal expense for tax purposes, or how awful it is that the jurors don't have to agree on the object crimes - but none of those are valid criticisms of the prosecution's case. Because the prosecution's case isn't based on the timing of the contribution reporting (because the contribution itself exceeded the legal limit), or whether Trump claimed a deduction (the alleged tax fraud took place on Cohen's return, not Trump's)....and the reason the defense lost the argument on unanimity on the object crimes is because there's pre-existing case law saying that's not necessary.

You keep trying to rely on the fact that Turley and Dersh are accomplished lawyers as a shortcut for actually figuring out whether their arguments are good, whether they're actually helping you understand the strength of the case or not. That's not going to work. There's accomplished lawyers on both sides (and every side in between), so there's no way to do that effectively. Lawyers with solid credentials are all over the map on this.