Trump Found Guilty On All 34 Counts . . 

Trump Found Guilty On All 34 Counts . . .

Posted By: SpaceCommando [Send E-Mail]
Date: Thursday, 30-May-2024 17:20:38
http://www.rumormill.news/241129

Via Zerohedge:Former President Donald Trump has been found guilty on all 34 counts in his New York ‘hush money’ trial. The outcome makes him the first former president to become a convicted felon.The trial centered on allegations that Trump falsified business records in order to conceal a hush money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels ahead of the 2016 US election.Trump reportedly stared ahead motionless as the verdict was read.Read more here:

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/trump-jury-says-it-has-verdict

Cornell Law School: “kangaroo court” is an idiom referring to a court whose proceedings deviate so far from accepted legal norms that they can no longer be considered fair or just

Posted By: NaturalWisdom
Date: Thursday, 30-May-2024 17:59:39
http://www.rumormill.news/241130

In Response To: Trump Found Guilty On All 34 Counts . . . (SpaceCommando)

kangaroo court
Legal Information Institute
Cornell Law School
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/kangaroo_courtThe term “kangaroo court” is an idiom referring to a court whose proceedings deviate so far from accepted legal norms that they can no longer be considered fair or just. The label of kangaroo court is a severe condemnation and is generally only levied against judges presiding over egregious miscarriages of justice.The term “kangaroo court” carries an implication of wrongdoing, meaning that mere incompetence is generally not enough to warrant its use. Common reasons a court may be accused of being a kangaroo court include accusations that:• The court exhibited extreme bias against one of the parties.
• There was collusion between the judge and one of the parties.
• The due process rights of the accused were not respected.
• The process was completed with such excessive haste that the parties could not have a fair trial.
• The jury was not impartial.
• The proceedings lacked decorum.
• The court interpreted the law in a way that would have forced a party to act in a completely unreasonable manner.

FULL REPORT

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a comment