Catsnmeters
Gold Member
- Sep 19, 2022
- 13,490
- 5,220
- 208
Yes, my legitimate distrust of the legal system IS a valid legal defense of those who were convicted.
It's valid for your opinion but it is not legally valid.
Your distrust is subjective.
Legal judgements are based on facts.
To be convicted of a crime requires there to be criminal intent, not just a mistake. So the jury was likely badly instructed.
Everyone convicted of crimes that day had intent to do what they did.
Do you have an example otherwise?
I have been on half a dozen juries, and they were all terrible because the prosecutors lied and the naive jury believed them.
Your personal anecdotes and subsequent claims are irrelevant.
The prosecutors basically claimed that the jurors had to convict is the evidence was 51% in favor of guilt, and that was an outright lie.
The standard is overwhelming preponderance, beyond any reasonable doubt, which actually implies something like 98%.
We have one of the worst legal systems in the whole world, with the largest % imprisoned.
And it is obvious, since things like Dred Scott, Prohibition, the War on Drugs, etc., are all obviously illegal.
What does this have to do with the convicted seditious conspirators?
I am sorry you don't like our legal system.
Which country to you think has a better system and do you think they would absolve the seditious conspirators of their crimes?
And YES, if they actually believed there was voter fraud, then their actions not only were legal, but patriotic and to be celebrated.
No offense but that is an absurd contention.
Your logic would mean every crime would justified.
Your logic is so flawed I am starting to believe your motive is not reasonable discussion, but create, obfuscate, and mislead naive Americans to believe anyone who truly believes their crime is just, is not criminally liable?
How can that be real?
If you spent a month trying to determine if your bank was robbing you are not, and the bank and all banking officials refused to investigate, then YES, of course then you ARE obligated to rob the bank. It is the bank and the banking officials who have the legal obligation to prove to you otherwise. If they refuse, then they are part of the illegal conspiracy.
This is cartoon like.
And by the way, anyone who askes for a "yes" or "no" answer is an automatic liar because there actually is no question where that is appropriate. Only lawyers try to lie like that.
You were free to explain your answer.
All computers are easily hacked. To prove otherwise would require the manufacturer to reveal all internals, such as operating system code. Which was never done. So anyone claiming the voting machines can not be remotely rigged, is just a liar. The fact Dominion won the case is proof of how badly our court system is. Its like Dred Scott all over again.
Certainly what you say is correct.
Anyone saying little green men could not have climbed into voting machines and changed votes is a liar. It could have happened.
You need to prove it. Nobody has.
That is just regurgitated nonsense.And again you lie by claiming a "plethora of investigations", when that is clearly not true and there has never been a single investigation. There was never time for one. For example, no one ever followed the people dumping bags full of ballots into the drop boxes. And if they were elderly facilities, no one ever did a handwriting analysis to determine if the staff was filling in the ballots instead of the elderly. Basically nothing has ever been looked into at all, in any way. And voter fraud is likely much worse now than 2000, when is was absurdly bad already.
Stop flailing and try to be specific while providing links. I don't have time for Gish gallop.
Thanks.