Now, onto my critique..
NO MENTION OF COLANGELO and the fact he was SENT BY THE WH/DOJ TO SERVE AS LEAD PROSECUTOR ON THIS CASE?
Posted on 06/01/2024 6:28:27 AM PDT by Lazamataz
Actually I read they weren’t asked. So any claim of being all democrats or anti-Trump aren’t based in fact. And there was one individual that claimed to get most of their news from Truth Social. That would be an anomaly for a liberal. For that matter to even know about it.
T-shirt slogan.
“This NOVEMBER, I’m giving President Trump 34 votes.”
Now, onto my critique..
NO MENTION OF COLANGELO and the fact he was SENT BY THE WH/DOJ TO SERVE AS LEAD PROSECUTOR ON THIS CASE?
...and that is why Trump is going to get 35% of young black male voters. They know what happen to Trump during the trial.
The point of posting material on this forum is for people to read it.
If you won't digest my material, but come here and still assert it was a fair trial, then you are being willfully ignorant... as a rabid liberal tends to do.
I have a lawyer friend who does not participate in this forum. He reviewed my work, and told me that except for one assertion, I was right on point. He told me I should be an attorney.
I almost became one.
The more people who see it, the better off we are.
Before this is over, President Trump will become America's Alfred Dreyfus and take down the entire deep Democrat state that is persecuting this man just to hold onto their corruption of power.
-PJ
That is correct.
However, time will unfold the truth. They will not be able to help themselves. They will speak.
'RANDOM', MY ARSE.
This ENTIRE SHOW TRIAL was RIGGED, just like our FAKE news media, our FAKE elections, and our FAKE president.
Joe Burden is KNOWINGLY ALLOWING MILLIONS OF ILLEGALS INCLUDING TERRORISTS to cross our border, yet TRUMP gets prosecuted for a NEBULOUS BOOK KEEPING ENTRY concerning a prostitute?
If Trump is re-elected, he should be declared as an honorary black President... the second one.
Thanks!
Now, onto my critique.. NO MENTION OF COLANGELO and the fact he was SENT BY THE WH/DOJ TO SERVE AS LEAD PROSECUTOR ON THIS CASE?
You know, I was going to say "I don't think that is necessarily a valid point", but on reflection, I don't recall much DOJ participation in a state trial... so maybe this is a valid point after all.
I have seen YouTube videos made by black men and women who are claiming he is the first black president.
Please consider this as another slogan.
If you still don’t understand why there are so few honest, intelligent people in the government, look what they did to President Trump
I still stand by Trump hurt himself by not testifying. Had he charmed and directly answered questions, he likely would have done himself a favor. But alas, after a lot of blustering, he didn’t.
First they (the communists who now rule us) helped with the chicom virus sneak attack...
Second, in plain sight, they stole a presidential election...
Third, they railroaded and imprisoned the J6 protesters...
Fourth, all the U.S. borders were flung open for the worls;s vermin to flood the nation...
Fifth, The American serfs did absolutely nothing about any of the above...
No specious warning has worked in the past, and it is too late to do anything at this late date...
Americans believe that it is best to not rattle their chains and draw undue attention...
Oh, yeah. Whatever happened to them?
Yes, Trump will triple his percentage of the black male vote, but that will be counterbalanced by Biden’s tripling of his percentage of the black female vote, to 270%.
Gaffer, I agree with your conclusion — the case cited by joesbucks won’t affect Trump’s appeal — but I do so for a different reason.
SCOTUS had already established that a verdict of Guilty in a criminal case must be rendered by a unanimous jury. The issue in the new case was retroactivity: Where there were people sitting in prison because of non-unanimous jury verdicts that had preceded the SCOTUS decision, were they entitled to a new trial? A divided Court held that they were not.
This will affect Trump only if, between now and any later appellate decision, there’s a similar CHANGE in the law. Something that was permissible in May 2024 becomes impermissible.
I haven’t heard of any prospect of that happening. In the OP by Lazamataz, he makes arguments based on existing law. Those arguments will stand or fall without regard to the question of retroactivity.
The 12 jurors were mad at Trump for defeating Hillary in 2016 and wanted their revenge. He couldn’t have charmed them, and if he had testified Bragg would have discovered some inaccuracy, however trivial, to charge him with perjury. Trump wanted to testify but his lawyers were able to talk him out of it.
I think most Americans understand it but do not realize how it will affect their lives.
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.