The UN charter of human rights, which is a matter of universal jurisdiction, like piracy, any prosecutorial authority in the world can charge Obama for rights violations
Well, if that is true then he must have the absolute most incompetent lawyers in the world. Why wouldn't his lawyers have already tried to tell the multiple Judges that have seen this case that "he didn't do it?"
Why are you focusing in on Obama again? Is that the new diversion tactic?
Well then move on from Trump. The writing is on the wall. He is just a poor billionaire victim. But like a good cult member, you won't. Face it...no matter the outcome, Trump is done. His time has passed. Move on from Trump.
Clinton also had his Arkansas law license suspended for 5 years as a result of the Monica Lewinsky matter .... and he faced being disbarred by the US Supreme Court, but agreed to surrender his license there. After 5 years, Clinton did not seek reinstatement to the Arkansas bar.
Well, see, the problem is this: a Grand Jury found evidence to support their finding of probable cause that Trump *did* violate it. In other words, the Grand Jury found it "more likely than not" that Trump did violate NY Penal Law 17510 -- some 34 times.
It's really not complicated. It's sociologically fascinating that they model their cult leader so well in their desire to systematically dismantle the credibility of the entire justice system - all for ONE person.
Just a quick heads up for you; Trump isn't president and hasn't been for almost four years. Some might suggest he never really was; he just played at president, and failed spectacularly.
You're wasting your time. You might as well ask for a citation from a brick wall. He or she just makes stuff up to get a rise out of people on here. It's called being a troll.
So, now the Conservative position is that the United States has surrendered its jurisdiction to the UN?? That right?
Can be public.
The triple deep state with sugar on top! Isn't it obvious? I mean, if you would just watch 2000 Mules, you would understand. Obama orchestrated it all.
I guess I was more along the lines of why the Judge would think that the posts being used to decline jurors wouldn't be on the up and up. I can imagine quite a few folks in NY are not fans of Trump, and would post accordingly.
It would be a fascinating experiment to find out how many of them still thought OJ Simpson was guilty of murdering his ex-wife and her friend.....even though OJ was acquitted by a jury. And remember, OJ was found liable for their deaths in a civil suit - where the standard is "preponderance of evidence" (i.e., the evidence barely tilts one way).
The judge rejected SOME jurors based on social media posts brought to light to by Trump's attorneys because they showed actual bias against Trump.
Absolutely. They certainly aren't up in arms over Santos, but that is likely because he appreciated the style of wearing a dress, make up, and a wig.
Everything posted on the internet is public information. Which means that everyone who viewed or accessed those posts would also have to have accounts set to private for them not to be publicly accessible.
I hope these Jurors take their oath to vote only on the evidence and not just to on their political out look seriously. , unlike Sen. McConnell and several others did during Trumps impeachment, McConnell even came out and said the evidence did show that Trump did what he was charged with but he was not going to vote to remove him from office.
How has he argued his case himself? What are you afraid of? Hmmm?
Sorry to hear that. I lost my mother a couple of months ago.