You should get the real facts before spreading this propaganda again. Your post is full of demonstrably false assumptions.
If he was doing this type of **** he wouldn’t be “your guy” to begin with which brings us back to square one.
He was already interfering with the DOJ before acquittal or even formal impeachment. That was what was placing Barr in place. He might not leave the White House without a fight but many have been saying that for years. At worst impeachment hasn't changed anything substantively. He already had authoritative counter Constitutional tendencies that he was acting on before the impeachment, why he was impeached in the first place, and he's doing so now. The difference is that now we have a historical record that senators like Collins, Gardner, McSally and Tillis will have to deal with.
Screw the historical record. You still believe our democracy is functioning. It is not. The Republican senate have placed Trump above the law. There is no going back. Even if Trump loses in Nov, he will declare victory and remain in power.
So what is your solution then? Do nothing? Again this type of cynicism is enabling. All it is complaining while advocating for nothing..
So... trump has attacked the prosecution team, the judge... and now the jury, all in the effort to protect his personal friend and campaign adviser who was convicted of seven different felonies. Amazing to watch a sitting president attempt to disable the entirety of America's judicial system, all in an effort to reduce the checks on his own corruption.
At this point, if you vote for Trump you're either an idiot or a bad person. You can be against Democrats and still not vote for Trump.
Don't know in these specific types of trials, but in criminal trials I have been in the jury pool, both prosecution and defense teams evaluate and even question the potential jurors, and eliminate some for various reasons. Why didn't the defense team challenge this juror before the trial? Oh I know, trump is simply making s**t up, and soon will be tweeting more about the juror in question. But yea, how anyone can defend what he is doing is really beyond me.
He was convicted unanimously on all charges. It'd still be the defense's own fault for letting a biased juror through jury selection, but I'm supposed to believe 12 people voted to convict 7 times each for an innocent man when they are told by the court that the burden of proof is beyond reasonable doubt? Please.
Hannity, I didn't think you'd need a username here when you get paid for such a high-profile gig to disseminate your brain-dead bu*****t.
More fallout... I believe her nomination was pulled (the day before her hearings were supposed to start) was completely done to avoid her having to testify about the Stone controversy.
Apparently the foreperson outed herself: https://www.foxnews.com/us/roger-st...-new-questions-about-his-trial-and-conviction Not that her views of Donald Trump are very germane to a trial of Roger Stone. The lawyers might ask, "do you think your feelings about Trump would prevent you from making a fair decision in this case?" and you say no. Unless you just wanted to get out of jury duty.
Trump's strategy to deal with scandals is to simply have a new one every day so the American people get scandal-fatigue and don't care anymore. It's working perfectly.
