Stormy Daniels appears to Tropical Soulvanglical as thinking that the court's about to issue a full acquittal of -trump-. This is just after the cross examination of Michael Cohen, and how supposedly there are enough nicks and cuts on Cohen's character for the jury to embody reasonable doubt. TSV's pretty sure the very day after Stormy Daniels took the stand, she had her agent contact the naturalization office to assure Ms. Daniels' passport is up to date in her threat to leave the country. TSV also doesn't think it's going to matter if the prosecution reminds the jury in closing arguments about how the documents prove their case if the jury's like, well, this Mike Cohen guy, well, I don't know if I can convict regardless of what -any- documents say. This gets to the social criticism that 99 percent is made to be a failing grade for the prosecution, but there's a larger point TSV observes for the post-trial era. You can argue about The Court Of Public Opinion, but TSV points us to The Court Of Reasonable Certainty, which he insists is a constitutional citizenship right. This is the court that steps in when actual "official" courts inevitably fail, and TSV doesn't see how this court -is not- going to fail. The CRC steps in to make sure that pending court cases still in effect 12 hours after the -trump- trial ends regarding whether poor teenagers with no economic opportunities should go to jail for shoplifting or drug dealing are affected by the aftermath of the -trump- trial. Also as part of The CRC is TSV not ruling out reps in Congress or a state assembly or a city council as taking official objection to the upcoming -trump- acquittal on substantive grounds. Up to now, TSV's giving the courts leeway to try to do their part to truly assure justice, but he's not in any way bound by those courts' decisions. He embues his citizenship right to actively respond to the courts' failures, whether it's an acquittal of a clearly guilty defendant, or a decision by a given judge to "defer" another case against said defendant, or the increasing unlikelihood -trump- could ever be tried for anything else, or the condemnation of poor teenagers with no opportunity, or the overturning of established precedents the people have consistently favored, like reproductive choice for example. He doesn't think much of what "legal scholars" have to say about anything, because their findings don't factor constitutionally as much as how the people respond, particularly if they object to the upcoming acquittal. There's more that TSV would like to think about with respect to The CRC and the citizenship right and duty to actively respond to a failing court system, but here's the thing. He doesn't think that the election, as non-binding in the larger scheme as history as he thinks it is, is going to be solely result from voter self-interest as per Ben Franklin. He's seeing perhaps an additional 5-7% ready to vote against -trump- (besides those already planning to do so) -mainly- because of the upcoming acquittal. He's wondering if 2/3 of the 5-7% are Nikki Haley voters and/or Conservative Democrats also objecting to the non-peaceful protest on college campuses, but these he sees are not people saying, well all I care about is whether I get to save $2 on a jug of milk like conventional wisdom seems to think that's all that swing voters care about. He sees a Moral Outrage Mandate forming that may very well overcome both the swing voters and the -trump- voters in response to the courts. If they get Biden to win and -trump- to lose, it won't matter if -trump- gets acquitted. He will have morally lost that court case anyway.