59
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2024
59 points (71.9% liked)
politics
19104 readers
1544 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Colangelo was the acting associate AG which means it was never intended for him to stick around. He worked with Bragg prior to that and went back to doing that. Saying he demoted himself is not reality.
But again, that would not matter because it was a jury that found Trump guilty. The prosecutor just laid out the substantial evidence against him.
Bragg didn't become DA until November 2021. Colangelo was #3 at the Justice department for 3 years before leaving to prosecute Trump. https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-prosecutor-quit-top-doj-160009861.html And yes, a jury did convict Trump based on the instructions they were given from the corrupt judge in the case that also happened to be a Biden donor and anyone that says it doesn't matter who the judge or prosecutor is doesn't understand our system very well because it absolutely does matter. It's also very obvious that Matthew Colangelo's main job over the last several years has been to get Trump any way possible.
That is not how this trial nor any trial works. It is pretty bad that you fail at that basic knowledge which seems to be what your whacko conspiracy relies on. Sorry but that part is wrong which makes your whole premise fall apart.
Historically, most successful appeals were the result of overlooked errors in jury instructions – often these errors were verbose instructions that confused jurors. For an appeal to be successful, the jury instructions have to be read as a whole and found to contain errors that were not harmless, but rather which ultimately made for an unfair trial. ---Cornell Law School
Guess what has not been done yet? A successful appeal.
Here's your source, BTW since you failed to actually link it:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/jury_instructions
It goes on to say:
The instructions given to the jury were clear and standard. They were unanimous in their decision. So keep grasping at straws.
Standard? Right...keep telling yourself that. And if you really knew much about law, you'd know that a successful appeal can't happen that fast. The process has been started though, and they've already delayed his sentencing, so we'll see
He used the standard for instruction. You can delude yourself into thinking he did not but all it will be is a delusion.
Okay bud, whatever you say
Thanks for finally agreeing, bud. Glad that the delusions are fading.