Wow a lawyer with a doctorate, oh, impressed I am. Don't all lawers have to have one, including Binger? The above ^^ only shows that you are adept at giving yourself a blow job. This does prove, in this case, that you suck.
Simple fact is, without the need for nuance, the Supreme Court intervened in the Presidential election. That some how has escaped you and your argument.
Good evening, Counselor.
The Supreme Court made Florida follow their own law. They are allowed substantial leeway in what law they make, but they weren't allowed to make up rules as they go along. They had to follow the rules they made, which their refusal to do so created a substantial federal question that the Supreme Court had to rule on to prevent a constitutional crisis.
If somehow in your head, without reading the opinion, without having any real knowledge on what happened, you formed some opinion that you think has some merit, good for you. But you don't get to just ignore the facts of a case just because 37L1 says so. Courts rule on ACTUAL controversies, not bullshit hypotheticals. I'm sure they didn't want to even opine on it, but realistically, they had to.
As to Binger, Binger ain't so bad. He's a bit amateurish but inexperience will do that to you. Everyone's frustration against Binger is just ignorance of the process. He's a good lawyer, but not a great one. He presented the case he had. And after watching four hours of Rittenhouse's testimony yesterday, it's clear to me why the jury acquitted. But the process doesn't allow Binger to interview Rittenhouse or know what he would say at trial until he has introduced enough evidence in court that it could go either way. He did that (which is why he won the inevitable motion for directed verdict/acquittal/whatever the hell they call it in Wisconsin). Then, after that, as I said all along, Rittenhouse testified, the reasonability of his actions was assessed by the jury (as the law requires), and he was acquitted. I'm glad you're such a genius that you could have predicted that all that in advance, without anyone taking the oath and facing the jury, but fortunately for all of us, we don't live in a world where you get to make that decision. The jury gets to decide and their decision, if unanimous, is final.
We live in a world where you get to pretend your "opinion" if I may call it that, is equal to my expertise. But long after you've forgotten about this case, I am going to continue doing what I have dedicated my life to doing. You base your opinion on watching, whereas I base mine on advanced education in the topic from some of the best in the business, followed by years of actually doing it. If you want to pretend those are equal, who am I to interfere with your little fantasy? That said, I'm not going to pretend like you watching is comparable to my doing. Because it isn't.