What's the issue they have with this verdict? It was handed down by a jury of 12 of his peers. One of them was even a follower of his on Truth social. Unanimous on all 34 counts. So again I ask, what is the issue?
this post was submitted on 04 Jun 2024
172 points (95.3% liked)
politics
18828 readers
4787 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.
- 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.
- 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
I read that the "Truth Social" juror actually just read posts on Twitter/X where he saw reposts about what he said on TS... and that he wasn't actually a follower on that platform. Could be wrong, but thought I should point that out.
But yes, what problem do they have on the verdict? Either he and others of his ilk are lying or they really believe in conspiracies.
by a jury of 12 of his peers
You dare suggest the God Emperor has peers?!
The issue is they’re traitor cunts.
the issue is that it was against their Orange Fuhrer.
Conservatives don't believe they have peers. They think we're all Serfs
I didn't realize I had a constitutional right to commit fraud.
Unless you're a wealthy Republican, you don't.
Exactly, and I bet you feel fucking stupid as shit now. Don't you?
Well, I'm not getting left behind this time. No fucking way.
I'm not waiting for the SCOTUS ruling to get in on this action. I've already got the ball rolling on all types of fraudulent and criminal financial dealings.
What's the opposite of a statute of limitations?
An NRA sticker and thin blue line somewhere on your pickup truck whisks that pesky statute away
Or a constitutional right to censorship.
This fucker needs a slappin'
And a solid kick.
then a tossing.(preferably from a very high window.)
Of his salad
I wouldn’t wish that on my worst enemy.
Not that trump could toss his own salad.
If it helps, I live in a high-rise.
I love how they've been on various witch hunts for decades yet they can still somehow pretend that they have anything left that would escalate their 'war'.
If you're looking for an actual war, maybe it was a bad idea to fuck over a lot of military officers with your pointless grandstanding. I doubt they have forgotten that their promotions were held hostage to your theatrics.
What was the fox news host quote "This was an act of lawfare"? Dumbasses all around.
Edit: Yup, it was Laura Ingram.
Tuberville's Stupid
Pretty much covers it.
When are we going to stop playing nice, and treat these people like the domestic terrorists that they are? If we continue to let them throw our tolerance back in our faces without any serious consequences, they’ll make our democracy an even bigger joke than it already is.
We’re not. The call is coming from inside the house.
Good thing it's not a real war or his obstruction of military promotions would have helped weaken them when they're needed. Tuberville doesn't care about anything but himself.
It's weird how even the lowest of low-info can be trained to believe that because the felon Ronald McDonald was convicted for his felonies, that it's an attack on....checks notes...."the people in this country".
I mean he's kinda right, but he just doesn't realize he's on the side threatening America.
Oh, here we just call it a "tuberville response", the "stupid" is implied.