How so?
Like most of your posts, tl,dr. Because it’s insufferable.
In other words, and correct me if I am wrong, you just came here to spout your hate Trump clap trap.
.
2 Likes
This.
How you extol a trial by jury, but slag this jury because they didn’t find the verdict that you wanted.
1 Like
Exactly.
I see you edited my fully statement in order to post your insulting charge.
You read all 55 pages?
Sure.
You saw that, didja? 
What do you think, hotshot?
everything about this simply bypasses the very first element of the crime. Listing a legal expense as a legal expense. Its not the Jury’s fault that the Judge allowed this to go on. I’m just surprised that every member of the jury swallowed this ■■■■■■■■■ and no-one had the common sense to say, “what do you call money you pay a lawyer that includes his expenses if not a legal expense?”
4 Likes
It wasn’t a legal expense. It was campaign contributions intentionally mislabeled as legal expenses to cover up the crime of suppressing a story to affect the outcome of the election.
The jury unanimously agreed that he is guilty. Even the juror who consume their news only from Truth Social.
If I’m not mistaken, wasn’t the one person qualified to explain [Former Federal Election Commission Chairman Bradley Smith] if the payment made to porn star Stormy Daniels was a campaign contribution or not, was not allowed, by the judge, to give such testimony?
2 Likes
If it’s just reimbursement for expenses, why would they need to bump it up to cover taxes on it? A reimbursed business expense would not be taxable.
Witnesses testify on facts, not the law, which is what Trump wanted him to testify on. The judge rightly said no.
Expert witnesses are always, except in this case, given the latitude to expound upon such technical questions. Stop making ■■■■ up. The jury was misled.
1 Like
Swing and a miss.
Can you cite some cases where this latitude was given to testify on the law? I would be interested to read about them.
I’ve served on 4 juries during my lifetime. I’ll never forget the first time I served. It was on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. I recall vividly the judge honoring that day, and intertwining that with the importance of service on a jury. I’ve always considered it a sacred duty, as I’m sure the jurors in this case did.
And I can tell you this - the role of the jury is not to give some proverbial finger to “judicial tyranny.” That is the role of a protester.
The role of a jury is to look at the evidence presented in the trial, and make a determination in the case based on that evidence. Period. And that is exactly what the jury in Trump’s trial did.
I am thankful for this jury and all juries who serve. It provides the opportunity for we the people to make decisions, based on evidence, in issues that are brought before courts.
8 Likes
Oh my God.
