FYI:

This is what a rigger-proof victory looks like.

This photo was included in the video that Dan just posted

👀

This is a real commercial for Canada's top children's hospital featuring numerous kids having heart attacks and the hospital's "amazing" ability to predict who might get them.

https://twitter.com/MidwesternDoc/status/1725759148808344018?t=F4pzjTthi8WI_rFSnE_WFQ&s=19

$33,739,384,216,244
https://usdebtclock.org/

A wild Gary Stevens appears.

Join @Truthcast

Good Morning!❤️❤️☕️☕️☕️☕️🥰🥰💐🇺🇸🙏

“The Tides Have Turned”

Jew calls for Death of Donald Trump

Conservatives trying to spin as if it isn't what it is... i thought they supported 45. Hhmmm

Snoop click baited us! 🤣

“I’m going smokeless.”

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/11/supreme-court-rejects-derek-chauvins-appeal-reconsider-conviction/

A comment regarding the Chauvin appeal.

Disclaimer: I am NOT a lawyer. Not one little bit.

Chauvin’s appeal pertained to issues associated with a fair trial, i.e., whether pre-trial media coverage and a failure to sequester the jury sufficiently tainted the trial to justify review by SCOTUS.

SCOTUS declined.

People started losing their minds.

This should not have surprised anyone.

There are ample opportunities for SCOTUS to address these issues via other less polarising cases. Further, taking the case would have put SCOTUS front and centre in the limelight with a case that holds the potential to set alight civil unrest right in the middle of arguably the most important federal election in generations.

So, SCOTUS said NOPE.

To me, the core of the Chauvin issue is not associated with trial procedures (although there are plenty of those). The core issue is the overwhelming array of new evidence, i.e., evidence not presented at trial, that points to Chauvin’s innocence.

Now, I seem to recall that a lot of this info was available to an observant public very early in the drama, but this was not presented to the jury, and it has developed quite a bit in the time since then.

SCOTUS is not the venue to present new exculpatory evidence. That comes in the form of motions for a new trial or for executive clemency or pardon. I note that a denial of a new trial in the face of substantial evidence of innocence is itself subject to an appeal (but that is a seperate issue to the matter that was before SCOTUS).

So, Chauvin and his lawyers have a lot of work ahead of themselves.