Let's say that some new evidence comes out that exonerates the person. You can indeed reverse the "no longer hold office" punishment. You can't bring someone back from the dead.

If you actually watched the trial and reviewed the publicly available evidence, and still think the jury made the wrong decision, then I agree, you have a right to that opinion.

However, if you only believed he is guilty because your favorite media figures told you this, then I would say you don't actually believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

Why would you think this is even relevant? He lived close to the border, and stayed within the same metro area.

> attend a protest with a gun he didn't personally own

This was not illegal.

> If that was self defense, so was this case

So were the judge and jury just corrupt? Did you watch the videos of him being threatened and attacked, including by someone (Grosskreutz), who also had a gun?

Yes, we can say this. The IRS classifies capital gains as unearned income.

How can it be "uniquely bad" if it's "along with other drugs"?

This is very surprising to me, I thought they were kind of pro Ukraine biased.

I asked an AI and it came back with this:

> The New York Times' coverage of the war is overwhelmingly pro-Ukraine in its framing, tone, and attribution of responsibility, though critics argue this manifests as omission of context regarding NATO expansion and US intelligence involvement rather than direct support for Russia.