is she a miley cyrus jar baby
Oh I know I just have never seen a jar baby her, taylor and the huma clones sure.
or as I like to call them sluts with fake small tits competitions.
not lawfag but can help a bit I think. The judge did give them 3 choices and they could choose any one of those to apply their justification for in the jury room meaning a few could think choice 1 is the answer a few think choice three, but as long as they have that choice they never have to declare which crime specifically. It gets further complicated because none of those jurors are experts in each of those supposed areas and no instruction really was given on how to determine that from my understanding and lastly Trump was not allowed to have his witnesses for the defense help squash some of these ridiculous claims again a consistent showing of neglect of due process.
it gets hard to keep it all straight for myself, but this is how I understand it. If this was a real thing it would have been a misdemeanor with a statute of limitations of 2 years because of the implication of the federal charges it was bumped up to a five year statute, but it was placed on hold during covid so the statue of limitations could be stretched out. This is the crux of the legal problem. They are not declaring him guilty of a specific crime. But its choose your own adventure in the jury room. As long as he is implicated in your belief on these three concepts that are a stretch as well that is another issue, but the problem is Trump still has no clue what he was found guilty for really since the Jury did not have to agree on what he was guilty of only that he was guilty of one of three choices. SO no one really knows what crime he committed. Since the jury never determined it. Only that he was guilty.
they should also go after New York for election interference for their state by criminally charging potus.
the problem is you are using a corrupt system to fight itself. This is what I think could happen you could have anons (citizens) sue the state they reside in for the charge stating they are not taking action against new york. Because of the standing issue you would have to start out in your state of residence. Then claim that due to the inaction of the state government you live in ignoring the illegal actions of another state it is creating a states rights blah blah issue. I think the battle needs to be done between the states since there is a certain level of control each state has over the elections. I think there was a case like this previously that the SC denied like 3 years ago maybe.
that is creepy. He knows what he is doing