I found his argument... unconvincing at best. He's a lawyer? And he doesn't really seem to discuss the case per se, moreso the setting and tactics.
I dunno, call me old fashioned. I still prefer things like... what actually happened... the way those facts will be interpreted under the law... etc.
This guy makes the whole thing sound like who can throw on more window dressing.
So he's a lawyer. So am I.
Unless I'm the prosecutor, my opinion on whether charges will be brought ultimately mean nothing!
I'm with you Finny. Facts are what mean something.