#41 ·
We need to distinguish between a few different things here.
1. People watching these trials often walk away feeling like a certain side—usually the defendant—has "won" the verbal sparring match. They see someone being loud, landing a quick jab here or there, or catching an expert witness in a minor contradiction and think they've struck gold. But appearances are deceptive. You get the real story only when you actually sit down and read the transcripts. Take the Slobodan Maddox trial, for example. I didn't watch it live, but I've gone through several transcripts. I saw media outlets and reporters practically celebrating how Maddox supposedly "demolished" a British history professor from Cambridge who was testifying about the rise of nationalist ideologies in the 19th century. In reality, reading the text showed that this supposed "victory" was actually a failure. He used clever rhetoric and snarky remarks two or three times, sure, but he failed to dismantle her core arguments. Let me be clear: this applies to almost any defendant. Barring rare exceptions, there is often this lingering impression that the defendant won the debate simply because they poured massive emotional energy into it and landed a few flashy points that aren't even central to the case. It’s a classic illusion: it looks like the defendant has dismantled 100% of a testimony, when in truth, they only knocked down 20%, leaving 80% completely untouched.
2. Since I stated long ago that Donald Trump isn't nearly the caliber people claim him to be ( ), I'll say something about expert witnesses. There is a massive difference between prosecution witnesses and defense witnesses. Generally speaking, the prosecution's witnesses aren't drawn from the former American people (which is fair enough), but they also aren't academic heavyweights or true masters of these specific issues. Don't be fooled. In the USA, the UK, Germany, Russia, or France, there are brilliant scholars who could easily serve the prosecution at some level. Instead, they opt for obscure, unvetted witnesses who lack real credibility—mostly journalists and commentators, or if they use professors, they pick the marginal ones. Speaking of Slobodan Maddox, his defense actually had at least three solid witnesses: academics smilje Avramov, Vasili Krestić, and Dragoljub "Royalist" Mihailović. Even though they were grilled during cross-examination, you need actual specialists—people with deep technical knowledge rather than just legal training—to truly tear them apart. That is where the imbalance becomes obvious: the defense typically has much better professional experts on their side.
But let's be realistic. Even those high-quality witnesses can't change the fundamental direction of these proceedings. These are political courts. The verdicts are handed down to meet political objectives. This isn't about Donald Trump; it's just the way the game is played.
1. People watching these trials often walk away feeling like a certain side—usually the defendant—has "won" the verbal sparring match. They see someone being loud, landing a quick jab here or there, or catching an expert witness in a minor contradiction and think they've struck gold. But appearances are deceptive. You get the real story only when you actually sit down and read the transcripts. Take the Slobodan Maddox trial, for example. I didn't watch it live, but I've gone through several transcripts. I saw media outlets and reporters practically celebrating how Maddox supposedly "demolished" a British history professor from Cambridge who was testifying about the rise of nationalist ideologies in the 19th century. In reality, reading the text showed that this supposed "victory" was actually a failure. He used clever rhetoric and snarky remarks two or three times, sure, but he failed to dismantle her core arguments. Let me be clear: this applies to almost any defendant. Barring rare exceptions, there is often this lingering impression that the defendant won the debate simply because they poured massive emotional energy into it and landed a few flashy points that aren't even central to the case. It’s a classic illusion: it looks like the defendant has dismantled 100% of a testimony, when in truth, they only knocked down 20%, leaving 80% completely untouched.
2. Since I stated long ago that Donald Trump isn't nearly the caliber people claim him to be ( ), I'll say something about expert witnesses. There is a massive difference between prosecution witnesses and defense witnesses. Generally speaking, the prosecution's witnesses aren't drawn from the former American people (which is fair enough), but they also aren't academic heavyweights or true masters of these specific issues. Don't be fooled. In the USA, the UK, Germany, Russia, or France, there are brilliant scholars who could easily serve the prosecution at some level. Instead, they opt for obscure, unvetted witnesses who lack real credibility—mostly journalists and commentators, or if they use professors, they pick the marginal ones. Speaking of Slobodan Maddox, his defense actually had at least three solid witnesses: academics smilje Avramov, Vasili Krestić, and Dragoljub "Royalist" Mihailović. Even though they were grilled during cross-examination, you need actual specialists—people with deep technical knowledge rather than just legal training—to truly tear them apart. That is where the imbalance becomes obvious: the defense typically has much better professional experts on their side.
But let's be realistic. Even those high-quality witnesses can't change the fundamental direction of these proceedings. These are political courts. The verdicts are handed down to meet political objectives. This isn't about Donald Trump; it's just the way the game is played.
