Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Fed election violations was one of the many choices the hack Merchan gave the jury in his verbal instructions since the prosecution never specified the underlying crime they used to resurrect dead misdemeanors, moron.
I'll take a Constitutional expert and professor over an innerweb troll sitting in his underwear in his mom's basement any day.One doesn't mention the Supreme Court at all. And the other raises a moot point, as the jury was unanimous in BOTH its conviction for 175.10 AND the felony enhancement.
Making any concerns on how 'sacrosanct' the Supreme Court holds unanimous decisions by juries to be gloriously irrelevant. Let alone so important that the Supreme Court overturns a jury verdict on NY Laws.
You're spamming links to articles you've never read and arguments you don't understand.
I'll take a Constitutional expert and professor over an innerweb troll sitting in his underwear in his mom's basement any day.
Tell us again how the Supreme Court doesn't hear state cases, moron.
I read my links. You didn't. That's why you got caught lying about what Turley said, Simp.You're asking the wrong fella if you're directing that question at Nostra. He's a regurgitator. He'll spam links to articles he's never so much as looked at....as he genuinely won't do the research necessary to have an informed opinion on any of this.
There's no federal issue regarding a NY criminal trial for falsifying business records.
Ask the hack Merchan.. He is the one who gave the jury the option.......among many others since the prosecution never identified the underlying crime that resurrected dead misdemeanors.What 'fair election violations'?
Again, no court has ever found that any charge against Trump is any form of election interference, or any violation of any fair election laws.
Why then would the Supreme Court randomly jump in and declare that NY criminal case about the falsification of business records was somehow a FECA violation?
Your claims make no sense
Hmmmm................let's think about this.......................has there ever been a case the SC looked at where the jury was unanimous?Laughing.....and how would the 'sacrosanct' nature of unanimous jury verdicts be violated when the jury voted unanimously?
Twice?
You really haven't thought this through, buddy.
nypost.com
Hmmmm................let's think about this.......................has there ever been a case the SC looked at where the jury was unanimous?
Hmmmmm.......
nypost.com
How many cases the SC overturned involved unanimous verdicts by a jury in a lower court?Hmmm...lets think about this. Why would the SCOTUS overturn a NY State case on the basis of a unanimous verdict.......when the verdict was unanimous?
Laughing! Oh, Nostra. You never fail to fail. You're just an incompetent delight.
You ignore the fact there are appeals. This case isn't a done deal, no matter how much you want it to be.Here's another Turley prediction gem.
Don’t count on a Trump conviction — none of these cases are slam dunks
This week, Chris Christie declared that “it’s over” for Donald Trump and predicted that the former president would be a convicted felon “by the spring.” He was specifically referring to the prosecu…
Um....less than a day in deliberation and the jury coming back unanimously on ALL courts, convicting Trump of 34 felonies.
That's a slam dunk. A literal perfect outcome for Bragg.
Looks like Turley didn't know what he was talking about yet again.
6th Amendment. No due process for an uncharged unspecified crime. The state simply declared guilt without providing any evidence of such or even providing evidence the charges at hand even related to an uncharged and unspecified crime.
Not to mention the choose your own adventure jury instructions.
www.foxnews.com
Who made illegal campaign contributions? And why did the FEC say nothing was worth a fine, much less a trial?Poor, brain-dead con. The underlying crime was specified. It was illegal campaign contributions. And yes, it was charged. Michael Cohen went to jail for it, among other crimes.
Here's another Turley prediction that fell flat on its fat face:
Turley: Trump indictment is 'legally pathetic' | Fox News Video
Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley said the New York grand jury's decision to indict former President Donald Trump appeared to be politically motivated on 'Special Report.'
Legally pathetic, huh? Apparently it was strong enough to survive every attempt by Trump to get it dismissed, including the State Appeals Court and the Federal Court, both of which ruled that the case could go to trial.
And strong enough to result in 34 felony convictions after barely a day of deliberation.
Turley fails again!
That idiot doesn't think the SC gets involved in state cases.
www.foxnews.com
