I've already seen it spun as "solid bipartisan support says Trump is guilty of insurrection."
While parts of this statement are technically almost sort of bordering on true, it's incredibly misleading, incorrect and, you know, not how trials work.
But, yeah, I've honestly seen people claiming that the outcome of this sham "trial" declares Trump guilty of insurrection. It's batshit insane, but there you have it.
Also the only trial where the judge is also one of the jurors! And lets not even get into the legal miscarriage arguments that can be when said judge has already deemed the defendant guilty before the trial.
A solid bipartisan majority in both chambers of Congress finding Trump guilty of inciting an insurrection.
Now points to this option: 14th Amendment disqualification from future office for those who swore an oath and gave aid and comfort to insurrection.
And here is his bio:
Former Special Counsel @DeptofDefense. Co-editor-in-chief @just_security. Chaired Professor NYU Law. Former Chaired Professor Harvard Law. Co-director @RCLS_NYU
Just Security:
Forum on law, rights, and security. Editorial Board includes former senior government officials, top civil society attorneys, and law professors. Based
@nyulaw.
Imagine the utter confusion on a judge's face if a prosecutor found out that 9 of 12 jurors voted guilty on a criminal case, and he just took that as a win.
"Counselor... we have a hung jury. I'm going to have to declare a mistrial. Why are you celebrating?"
"Your honor, a solid bipartisan majority of the jury declared him guilty!"
"... okay, but it needs to be unanimous."
"Yeah, but that means he's basically guilty. I can use this against him in another case!"
"... ... How did you get here and why are you in my court?"
Underlining precisely why they wanted to do this in the Senate ... the plan, all along, was to pull the kinds of stunts that would get you kicked out of any court worthy of the name.
I've already seen it spun as "solid bipartisan support says Trump is guilty of insurrection."
While parts of this statement are technically almost sort of bordering on true, it's incredibly misleading, incorrect and, you know, not how trials work.
But, yeah, I've honestly seen people claiming that the outcome of this sham "trial" declares Trump guilty of insurrection. It's batshit insane, but there you have it.
The only trial where the witnesses also get to be jurors!
Also the only trial where the judge is also one of the jurors! And lets not even get into the legal miscarriage arguments that can be when said judge has already deemed the defendant guilty before the trial.
According to the prosecution, the constitution and due process don't matter. That was literally his argument.
The Washington Post told me that an an anonymous source was briefed on someone who read the definition of hearsay, so I know what it is, stop asking.
Places American officials have argued the Constitution does not apply to excuse illegal conduct:
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The Senate Chamber, District of Columbia.
I am aware, which was part of my point.
One might even refer to him as Leaky Leahy, based on his proclivity for telling "Chyna" everything he has access to.
That's ... that's very special logic.
"We're using the reason this shouldn't be an impeachment at all to not follow the rules for impeachments during this 'impeachment'."
So... not even the Vice President. It was the "President Pro Tempe of the Senate"?
Well, at least they had someone with a position of authority presiding over it.
It's the only trial I've seen where the original judge said, "Fuck it, I'm out"
i wonder if anyone's going to fall on the sword for putting fake evidence up
Here's bluecheck Ryan Goodman's statement:
And here is his bio:
Just Security:
@RCLS_NYU = Reiss Center on Law and Security.
That's certainly an interesting way to spin a "not guilty" verdict.
Perhaps such a standard should be applied to certain members of the current administration.
Imagine the utter confusion on a judge's face if a prosecutor found out that 9 of 12 jurors voted guilty on a criminal case, and he just took that as a win.
"Counselor... we have a hung jury. I'm going to have to declare a mistrial. Why are you celebrating?"
"Your honor, a solid bipartisan majority of the jury declared him guilty!"
"... okay, but it needs to be unanimous."
"Yeah, but that means he's basically guilty. I can use this against him in another case!"
"... ... How did you get here and why are you in my court?"
Underlining precisely why they wanted to do this in the Senate ... the plan, all along, was to pull the kinds of stunts that would get you kicked out of any court worthy of the name.
Wait, you can't introduce new evidence in closing statements???
"Despite his acquittal, he's mostly guilty!'