Has he - here is the legal definition:
I have highlighted the key part, where despite all the back-and-forth on this, you have yet to provide proof if it.Bribery is defined generally as corrupt solicitation, acceptance, or transfer of value in exchange for official action.
Proof of bribery requires demonstrating a “quid pro quo” relationship in which the recipient directly alters behavior in exchange for the gift.
Now - I want to put something to you on this - If, in 30 years, Clarence has not ruled against the Constitution (as it was written) - and a lot of his decisions have been to undo previous decisions and rulings:
What does that tell you about the previous Supreme Courts
No, it sounds like every inner-party of every attempt at Communism throughout history.
So - it sounds like Peak Marxism to me. Because they did what every other Marxist did, ever.
(Funny that...)
Not at all, there is a very long and well established legal tradition of trying people in different locations if an unbiased Jury could not be sought.
Discussed here
The moment they had to reclassify a misdemenor with an expired statute of limitations to a Felony (via the way of in pursuit of a crime) but the jury was not unanimous on what the supposed Crime that it was in pursuit of was - Yes, it was a Kangaroo Court:
I am certain he is guilty, Your honor, I do not know of what, but I am certain he is guilty of it.
Bookmarks