There are some lawers on the forum who would be better qualified to answer. I’m just doing google searches.
Hopefully, with the U.S. splitting up.
That was only one of the options. From the jury instructions:
"Although you must conclude unanimously that the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you need not be unanimous as to what those unlawful means were.
In determining whether the defendant conspired to promote or prevent the election of any person to a public office by unlawful means, you may consider the following: (1) violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act otherwise known as FECA; (2) the falsification of other business records; or (3) violation of tax laws."
Point 2 is especially ridiculous to me. The other crime could have been falsifying other business records. And the jury does not need to agree among itself what the crime actually was. That’s absurd.
3 Likes
They did conclude unanimously.
We don’t know. They were not asked to conclude unanimously on what the underlying crime was. They were unanimous that the records were falsified for a criminal purpose but not necessarily on what that purpose was.
2 Likes
They’ve comitted actual crimes and used multiple agencies to obfuscate them.
Hunter has more protection from more departments in our government than any ex-presidents.
Dude has hard evidence against him for drug crimes, gun violations, underage sex abuse, and coercion of foreign governments.
Those are magnitudes greater than an NDA with a porn star. Like, not in the same universe. Because what the Biden family does is actually illegal. What Trump did may be morally reprehensible, but not illegal at all.
2 Likes
I am going by what Jonathan Turley and other constitutional lawyers have been saying
Who has two thumbs and isn’t a constitutional lawyer?
Edit - I mean me, not you.
I was listening to NPR as the verdict was delivered live. Their legal analyst explained the basis for the verdict as “legal karma”.
Government radio making up new terms to describe new legal theories in an effort to spin it as beneficial to Americans is not a good sign, in my opinion.
The purple hairs and cow ring people in my circle seem elated at this development.
3 Likes
As a person (he/him) whose political views are an incestuous mix of southern libertarianism, west coast progressivism, and someone who has had purple hair and not a cow ring but that nose to ear chain, this is is 100% correct.
I’m happy with this.
1 Like
The bottom line is this
Hate Trump, Love Trump should not matter
This is bigger than Trump and any other American whether they are politicians or not
This is about the Justice system being used as a weapon against its own citizens for political reasons
and none of you can deny with integrity and honesty that this was not political
if you do, then you want to live in a fascist system
2 Likes
And they want fascism until it hits them home
Lol at anyone believing Trump had a true jury of his peers in NY city, one of the most heavily democratic states in the union. Does anyone not think that if this case had been moved to…oh, I don’t know, Alabama or Texas, or Oklahoma, etc that the outcome might’ve been entirely different? That is what has been really irritating me, hearing all the democratic talking heads, who apparently are all “legal experts”, trying to defend this horrendous verdict by repeating “But he was tried by a jury of 12 of his peers, and all of them unanimously found him guilty, so it must be just and true!” And that’s not even addressing the multitude of other problems within this sham trial and judge.
3 Likes
The only way trump (a lifelong New Yorker) could have had a truer jury of peers, would be to have a jury made up of Rikers Island inmates. New Yorkers, and felons.
It’s sad your sinking so low as to defend such a terrible person. The guy fucked an overthehill pornstar while his wife was home with their newborn! Just say he’s a sleazeball and move on to a different GOP candidate with tact and class.
Peers dosen’t mean people who are part of your friend group. And since he’s lived most of his life in NYC, I think the jury was his peers.
Not a crime.
We’re discussing a legal matter, not personal tastes.
1 Like
Two separate issues.
On one hand a felon.
On the other, a sleazeball of epic proportions who should cause a moral person to spit after mentioning his name. Yet he receives many posters enthusiastic support. Stupid.
Nah. No one is saying he’s a good guy.
What people are saying is that this is a monumental miscarriage of justice.
Cuz it is.
If you could see even a centimeter past your spiteful vindictive nose you would know that.
But you fixate on one thing you can be right about, which has nothing to do with…
(Once more for the cheap seats)
A MONUMENTAL MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE.
Or, justice was served and the GOPs best lawyers will do their best to overturn on appeal prior to any sentencing. Which is how the system works. The system trp is attempting to undermine.
You truly have absolutely no idea what so ever how this stuff works.