Posted on 06/01/2024 6:28:27 AM PDT by Lazamataz
Check my new tagline!
BKMRK.
“You are the 454th Satisfied Customer!™
Do you remember her name, Laz?
Lol
Changed my tagline. Nothing personal :-)
GREAT POST!
PING ......and they WILL.
Please put me on the list
They’ve been doing it to us for years.
Loved A+Bert.
We just had our Treaty of Versailles moment.
Did they ever release the political affiliation of the jurors?
No, EJI’s article mainly discusses the ruling (from 3 years ago) about a single state’s conviction where there wasn’t a unanimous jury and then cites Kagan speaking mainly for the losing side of the case. In looking at its makeup, EJI is primarily interested in defending (and overturning) cases where there’s a racial/economic minority involved using any possible avenue where they can get a reversal, IMO.
Regardless of EJI and your thoughts it somehow is a stopgap to a Trump appeal up to USSC, there are a couple of noteworthy factors that puts this case right up the USSC’s alley.
1) Bragg’s case (and the judge’s complicity in allowing free reign to it) revolves around a crime(s) [34 charged for the same thing] that isn’t a crime for an action in which the FEC is the sole arbiter as to impact. Knowing this, and refusing to hear it, the judge disallowed testimony as to this underlying basis which is exculpatory to Trump. Instead, Bragg creates broken state laws for conspiratorial bookkeeping, etc. For a Federal/state ‘crime’ that isn’t a crime and to which it was never proven he knowingly was aware of the exact bookkeeping that occurred after the fact (i.e, no conspiracy). Ignored FEDERAL Election Laws and denial of 1st Amendment (gag orders) and Equal Protection Amendments. Essentially, Trump was denied a defense on multiple occasions.
2. This is not just a NYS state law case. This case affects 49 other states (definitely in USSC’s purview) where one state judge and prosecutor set out to deny the other states their choice - for the same amendments.
You can search for a way to argue against it, but in the end Trump was denied a fair trial. Merchan’s pitiful and transparent enmity towards Trump was clearly evident even before the trial began. One only needs to see the tome of instructions he had to issue to the jury to see that.
It will take a while (well into Trump’s term) for the USSC to hear it but this Democrat election interference action will be heard by the USSC and overturned. It’s just going to have to go on up through the NYS SC first.
Reasonable explanation. Thanks for sharing it.
12, O/Bidenassties!
Link to that, or just gut speculation?
BRING IT!
I really don’t have the time to do anything but snipe at you.
But I see that someone did take the time and you accepted his (or her) argument.
Based on my article above, do you STILL assert that Trump had a fair trial?
High praise, coming from you!
I'm certain no official office would do that.
If they wish, though, they can talk about their leanings themselves.
I'm certain each and every juror will be releasing a book, probably ghostwritten, and major Democrat institutions will buy them in bulk (likely as a form of a bribe payment.)
In general I still think yes. But I haven’t had time to totally digest what was shared. Or see any reasoned counter points.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.