@Jane4UsGirls@TheRickWilson OJ was acquitted and I'm pretty sure nobody on his jury had ever rushed for over 2,000 yards in a single NFL season.
See how dumb you sound.
@TooMuchMe I literally just walked in the door from Ace. It's the closest hardware store to my house and the staff will help you find anything, down to figuring out which ten cent bolt you should purchase for your project.
Home Depot is usually a waste of time for the money saved.
@CommishSmith Do you mind explaining why its not an illegal contribution? It was written off as a $420,000 business expense by a corporation. So you must be arguing that it wasn't campaign related.
@BarbMcQuade As someone who has stayed up late into the night hand entering $3.72 expenses into a half-functional campaign finance site to ensure that my candidates' public reports were filed timely, it really angers me when people say it's no big deal to hide a $130,000 campaign expense.
@GSchvey That's probably because the right-wing grifterrati know that people who donate to DJT are excellent marks so they pay for ad placement. In contrast, Trump is probably so cheap he is relying on organic search results.
@Michael75890076 @ChaoticOsprey69 @Out5p0ken@JonathanTurley If Richardson had resolved or clarified a question about constitutional rights, it would absolutely apply to NY state law. But it resolved a question about the wording of a statute.
I posted it because it states quite clearly that jury unanimity is not required as to means.
@Michael75890076 @ChaoticOsprey69 @Out5p0ken@JonathanTurley "For starters, this isn't a 21 U. S. C. § 848 case."
That's just a straight up lie.
"...lead us to conclude that the STATUTE requires unanimity..."
Not the constitution nor any precedent...the statute.
@Michael75890076 @ChaoticOsprey69 @Out5p0ken@JonathanTurley That ruling was specifically about the wording 21 U. S. C. § 848. But the key paragraph about the general principal of unanimity sets up the question and says quite clearly that the jury need not be unanimous as to means.
@Michael75890076 @ChaoticOsprey69 @Out5p0ken@JonathanTurley "Interesting you only included part of the Richardson ruling."
You realize you are on the Internet, right?
And he absolutely was told what the underlying crimes were. They were in the jury instructions.