Is it just me, or does this transcript sound like a conversation between three Kamala’s? If I understand correctly, they charged Peters with one crime but convicted her for a different misdemeanor crime? She was “convicted” of one charge but sentenced for a different one? Sounds a lot like Bragg’s case. The left, when they have the judges in their pockets, play very fast and loose with the law. The fact is, I think, that if they screwed up the “language”, the case should be thrown out or, at the very least, re-tried.
This is why I love it when a leftist’s argument falls back on something a court somewhere decided. In all probability, such a decision is totally worthless and more than likely proves the exact opposite.
Spurwing Plover
22 days ago
Someone needs to answer for all this and no excuses
Tango268
21 days ago
The takeaway is the left will shoehorn anything into a conviction, while the other side refuses to prosecute open sedition, fraud, incitement, sex crimes, and espionage.
Chieftain
21 days ago
The Constitution is very clear that We the People have the RIGHT to face our accusers and to be presented with all charges BEFORE trial. By inference, having the right to trial by a jury of our peers includes being tried for charges with which we have been presented, and which SAME charges have also been presented to the jury. This trial was a political hatchet job from the very start.
Spurwing Plover
21 days ago
The Dem-O-Rats would want to send you to prison for armed self defense just look at how they tried to convict Kyle Rittenhouse for what was a clear case of Armed Self Defense but the Jury did the right thing
They didnt try, they succeeded.
Is it just me, or does this transcript sound like a conversation between three Kamala’s? If I understand correctly, they charged Peters with one crime but convicted her for a different misdemeanor crime? She was “convicted” of one charge but sentenced for a different one? Sounds a lot like Bragg’s case. The left, when they have the judges in their pockets, play very fast and loose with the law. The fact is, I think, that if they screwed up the “language”, the case should be thrown out or, at the very least, re-tried.
This is why I love it when a leftist’s argument falls back on something a court somewhere decided. In all probability, such a decision is totally worthless and more than likely proves the exact opposite.
Someone needs to answer for all this and no excuses
The takeaway is the left will shoehorn anything into a conviction, while the other side refuses to prosecute open sedition, fraud, incitement, sex crimes, and espionage.
The Constitution is very clear that We the People have the RIGHT to face our accusers and to be presented with all charges BEFORE trial. By inference, having the right to trial by a jury of our peers includes being tried for charges with which we have been presented, and which SAME charges have also been presented to the jury. This trial was a political hatchet job from the very start.
The Dem-O-Rats would want to send you to prison for armed self defense just look at how they tried to convict Kyle Rittenhouse for what was a clear case of Armed Self Defense but the Jury did the right thing