Regarding oral argument, the author simpers, "It was almost jarring to watch justices [sic] question the very essence of charges that had been under a public microscope for five years." Almost jarring? Either it was jarring or it wasn't.
The author reports that members of the appellate panel had tough questions for the prosecution, and quotes three of them. But she doesn't report what questions, if any, were asked of the defense, or what answers defense counsel gave. And there's no comment from legal experts about the merits of the assertions implicit in the judges' questions, even though the author asserts that "It [presumably meaning the questioning] was a stunning 180 from what those of us who had covered the legal case for so long had heard from jurists in that very same building." (God, that sentence blows on many different levels.)
The article not only fails to tell you what might happen with the appeal, it fails to give you any basis for reaching any intelligent conclusion.
So, not typical after all. This is garbage even by PoliticHo's low standards.