Judge: To convict Trump of felonies, jury does not need to unanimously agree on what 'predicate' crime he committed
(www.politico.com)
🚔 Crime & Democrats 💸
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (59)
sorted by:
BS article from Politico.
If you didn't already hate the Fake News.
We do already hate the fake news.
But we needed more proof that this is a bullshit case in a kangaroo court: Jurors don't have to agree on a crime to convict a man as a criminal in our 2-tiered system of pseudojustice.
Other countries be like "Emulate the American system of freedom and justice? Yeah, no thanks. It's a shit-show, and the shit is the star!"
Hate for fake news will increase exponentially during the next 6 months.
The day will come when they will be slapped every time they open their stupid lying mouths. And I will clap & cheer.
Classic post from you.
As in, it has already gotten old and you're what, 20 days old?
It's BS that they play this game, but if a dude "killed" a black dude they get to intimidate or threaten jurors until they all agree, but when it comes that some jurors may not agree against Trump, it doesn't matter because it's (D)ifferent.
OK. This is an old article from when they discussed jury instructions after the defense rested. But the judge did say this.
Some of the decisiona were held off on, but this was announced in court
It will be expanded on in a written ruling.
He told the lawyers this would be done Thursday night
So it's possible the lawyers already know