DOJ Requests Protective Order After Trump Threat Online

[forkup]

I’m not addressing the indictment because that’s isn’t relevant to my position on the bias the left has in certain venues. It doesn’t matter what the indictment says, a left leaning jury is going to convict , no matter what.

Yes, I understand that there will be vetting of the witnesses, but how that selection plays out, especially in a place like DC, could be an issue.

Let’s put it like this, if what you read in these forums is representative of what a jury would be like, it’s going to be a guaranteed conviction.

This forum has a lot more MAGA people on here then it does left wing people. If you get the sense that he will be convicted by being on here, has it occurred to you that's because the indictments are that devastating?

You still haven't answered my question btw. Did you read the indictments? At this point, and going by your refusal to address the charges in favor of wanting to talk about bias, I don't think so. By the way, if you want to claim someone is biased and not objective actually addressing the thing they are supposed to be biased about isn't just relevant but essential.

I can claim Canon is biased but the charge doesn't have teeth until I can point to a specific act.

"If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the facts, and the law are against you pound the table and yell like hell."

Carl Sandburg.

That's what you're doing now. The fact that you're flat out saying the facts are irrelevant is extremely telling.

 

[Lakhota]

What hath Trump wrought?



WASHINGTONPRESS.COM

PROTECTING CHUTKAN: Trump's threats force Federal Marshalls to increase judge's security

 

[ThisIsMe]

This forum has a lot more MAGA people on here then it does left wing people. If you get the sense that he will be convicted by being on here, has it occurred to you that's because the indictments are that devastating?

You still haven't answered my question btw. Did you read the indictments? At this point, and going by your refusal to address the charges in favor of wanting to talk about bias, I don't think so. By the way, if you want to claim someone is biased and not objective actually addressing the thing they are supposed to be biased about isn't just relevant but essential.

I can claim Canon is biased but the charge doesn't have teeth until I can point to a specific act.

"If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the facts, and the law are against you pound the table and yell like hell."

Carl Sandburg.

That's what you're doing now. The fact that you're flat out saying the facts are irrelevant is extremely telling.

This forum has a lot more MAGA people on here then it does left wing people. If you get the sense that he will be convicted by being on here, has it occurred to you that's because the indictments are that devastating?

I’m not sure about that. As far as active posters go, it would seem there are more left wingers here, or at least a very close split.

No, I haven’t yet read the indictment, but that’s irrelevant to my comments here. My point isn’t about what he is accused of, it’s about bias and hate creating a situation that, in a liberal venue, such as DC or New York, he won’t get a fair trial.

"If the facts are against you, argue the law. If the facts, and the law are against you pound the table and yell like hell."

This doesn’t address anything in my comments because I’m not arguing anything about the case itself.

 

[forkup]

I’m not sure about that. As far as active posters go, it would seem there are more left wingers here, or at least a very close split.

No, I haven’t yet read the indictment, but that’s irrelevant to my comments here. My point isn’t about what he is accused of, it’s about bias and hate creating a situation that, in a liberal venue, such as DC or New York, he won’t get a fair trial.



This doesn’t address anything in my comments because I’m not arguing anything about the case itself.

Of course, it is relevant. At the moment you are flat out saying you won't trust a verdict coming out a place you feel is biased against Trump. You are doing so though, while at the same time being unwilling to judge the merit of the case yourself. So, what's your mechanism to differentiate between bias and objectivity?

The way I see it you haven't one. What you are left with is simply an accusation based on a preconceived notion.

You are making a statement about something and refusing to set up a mechanism to test its veracity. In fact, you don't even recognize that actually testing a hypothesis is relevant.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Of course, it is relevant. At the moment you are flat out saying you won't trust a verdict coming out a place you feel is biased against Trump. You are doing so though, while at the same time being unwilling to judge the merit of the case yourself. So, what's your mechanism to differentiate between bias and objectivity?

The way I see it you haven't one. What you are left with is simply an accusation based on a preconceived notion.

You are making a statement about something and refusing to set up a mechanism to test its veracity. In fact, you don't even recognize that actually testing a hypothesis is relevant.

It’s not relevant because the charges are not central to my point. What I’m trying to say is, it doesn’t matter what he was charged with, a jury that skews left is going to try and find him guilty, no matter what evidence is brought up. That’s why I said if these forums are any representation of a jury in a liberal venue, trump has no chance at a fair trial. Just like pretty much all liberals here in these forums already “know” he’s guilty, before the trial has even started, just like the left in congress were talking impeachment almost immediately after he announced his campaign, just like there’s already talk of impeaching him again, should he win in ‘24, it will be hard to find a jury that isn’t biased against trump, in a heavily democrat populated area. Just like I knew, and even wrote posts here, about that there was zero chance the J6 committee didn’t end with a indictment referral, there’s going to be a slim chance if the venue is in a liberal city, with a majority liberal jury, and a liberal judge, that trump will ever be found innocent, regardless of what evidence is brought up.

Also, what good would it do to “argue the merits” of his indictment here on USMB? This place isn’t for solving problems, finding common ground, or even rational debate. This forums is here so people can just come and argue, ridicule, and insult other people. So, I could give my opinions on the indictment, but what’s the point?

 

[Lakhota]

Trump is under criminal indictments. He is out on bail; therefore, he does not have the same rights as people not under criminal indictments and not out on bail. Thus, he should be much more careful about what he says and does.

 

[forkup]

It’s not relevant because the charges are not central to my point. What I’m trying to say is, it doesn’t matter what he was charged with, a jury that skews left is going to try and find him guilty, no matter what evidence is brought up. That’s why I said if these forums are any representation of a jury in a liberal venue, trump has no chance at a fair trial. Just like pretty much all liberals here in these forums already “know” he’s guilty, before the trial has even started, just like the left in congress were talking impeachment almost immediately after he announced his campaign, just like there’s already talk of impeaching him again, should he win in ‘24, it will be hard to find a jury that isn’t biased against trump, in a heavily democrat populated area. Just like I knew, and even wrote posts here, about that there was zero chance the J6 committee didn’t end with a indictment referral, there’s going to be a slim chance if the venue is in a liberal city, with a majority liberal jury, and a liberal judge, that trump will ever be found innocent, regardless of what evidence is brought up.

Also, what good would it do to “argue the merits” of his indictment here on USMB? This place isn’t for solving problems, finding common ground, or even rational debate. This forums is here so people can just come and argue, ridicule, and insult other people. So, I could give my opinions on the indictment, but what’s the point?

You are simply making excuses. At the moment you are in a rational debate. I haven't insulted or ridiculed you. I'm simply asking you to defend your position by examining the facts.

The problem simply is that you are aware or fear that you won't be able to. Why else would you claim bias, and then make that position unfalsifiable?

It's not so much that this forum doesn't allow for rational debate. It's that you fear that in a rational debate you simply would come up short.

The only thing I can say to help with that fear is that speaking from personal experience there's much self-respect to be gained from simply facing the facts as they are instead of how you feel they should be.

It is bruising to the ego. Believe me, I know, but it's also courageous.

 

[forkup]

It’s not relevant because the charges are not central to my point. What I’m trying to say is, it doesn’t matter what he was charged with, a jury that skews left is going to try and find him guilty, no matter what evidence is brought up. That’s why I said if these forums are any representation of a jury in a liberal venue, trump has no chance at a fair trial. Just like pretty much all liberals here in these forums already “know” he’s guilty, before the trial has even started, just like the left in congress were talking impeachment almost immediately after he announced his campaign, just like there’s already talk of impeaching him again, should he win in ‘24, it will be hard to find a jury that isn’t biased against trump, in a heavily democrat populated area. Just like I knew, and even wrote posts here, about that there was zero chance the J6 committee didn’t end with a indictment referral, there’s going to be a slim chance if the venue is in a liberal city, with a majority liberal jury, and a liberal judge, that trump will ever be found innocent, regardless of what evidence is brought up.

Also, what good would it do to “argue the merits” of his indictment here on USMB? This place isn’t for solving problems, finding common ground, or even rational debate. This forums is here so people can just come and argue, ridicule, and insult other people. So, I could give my opinions on the indictment, but what’s the point?

By the way the Jan 6th committee ended up in a criminal referral because Trump did stuff that was criminal. A lot of it ended up on the indictment.

You are simply doing the same thing in that case as you are doing now. Assert bias as the reason for something while at the same time refusing to acknowledge evidence that was presented. Setting yourself up into a position that's unfalsifiable.

I watched the hearings. All but 2 of the people called to testify were (ex-)Republicans who voted for Trump. Most said they would do so again. They went from simply public officials, all the way to Ivanka Trump. There were also quite a few who resisted testifying altogether.

If the people you work with and your family all tell the same story when put under oath, and the conclusion is you committed a crime, then calling the process unfair becomes kind of silly.

The basic facts established in the Jan 6th committee or the 2 indictments aren't really being contested. Not even by his lawyers. Who as I'm saying are doing a whole lot of talking. The best they are seemingly capable off is finding (incredulous)justifications for why those basic fact are somehow not criminal. Some they're aren't even willing to talk about at all.

That should tell you all you need to know about the the truth of the charges regardless of any claim of bias.

 

[dudmuck]

 

[ThisIsMe]

You are simply making excuses. At the moment you are in a rational debate. I haven't insulted or ridiculed you. I'm simply asking you to defend your position by examining the facts.

The problem simply is that you are aware or fear that you won't be able to. Why else would you claim bias, and then make that position unfalsifiable?

It's not so much that this forum doesn't allow for rational debate. It's that you fear that in a rational debate you simply would come up short.

The only thing I can say to help with that fear is that speaking from personal experience there's much self-respect to be gained from simply facing the facts as they are instead of how you feel they should be.

It is bruising to the ego. Believe me, I know, but it's also courageous.

I think you’re reading way too much into the situation. I’m not afraid of debating anything, as I’ve said, the indictments are not relevant to MY argument here. The charges levied against him don’t change that. He could be charged with larceny and conspiracy to commit bank fraud, or he could be charged with eating chocolate cake in Tuesday wearing mismatched socks…either way my point of bias and him getting a fair trial in certain venues doesn’t change at all.

 

[SeaMajor7]

I think you’re reading way too much into the situation. I’m not afraid of debating anything, as I’ve said, the indictments are not relevant to MY argument here. The charges levied against him don’t change that. He could be charged with larceny and conspiracy to commit bank fraud, or he could be charged with eating chocolate cake in Tuesday wearing mismatched socks…either way my point of bias and him getting a fair trial in certain venues doesn’t change at all.

Emphasis mine; THAT has been the case throughout the WHOLE Trump era!!!

 

[ThisIsMe]

By the way the Jan 6th committee ended up in a criminal referral because Trump did stuff that was criminal. A lot of it ended up on the indictment.

You are simply doing the same thing in that case as you are doing now. Assert bias as the reason for something while at the same time refusing to acknowledge evidence that was presented. Setting yourself up into a position that's unfalsifiable.

I watched the hearings. All but 2 of the people called to testify were (ex-)Republicans who voted for Trump. Most said they would do so again. They went from simply public officials, all the way to Ivanka Trump. There were also quite a few who resisted testifying altogether.

If the people you work with and your family all tell the same story when put under oath, and the conclusion is you committed a crime, then calling the process unfair becomes kind of silly.

The basic facts established in the Jan 6th committee or the 2 indictments aren't really being contested. Not even by his lawyers. Who as I'm saying are doing a whole lot of talking. The best they are seemingly capable off is finding (incredulous)justifications for why those basic fact are somehow not criminal. Some they're aren't even willing to talk about at all.

That should tell you all you need to know about the the truth of the charges regardless of any claim of bias.

The committe was a sham, they all started from the outset with the mindset to convict trump. They weren’t looking for the truth, they were looking for a conviction. Let’s put it like this, if they had stumbled upon any evidence that would completely exonerate trump, we would have never known about it because they would have buried it. Really…who’s to say they didn’t come across that information?

The fact is, everyone on that committed has already twice voted to impeach trump and I think everyone in that committee had previously stated they didn’t think trump should be president.

I’ve always asked this question and nobody seems to ever answer, if they had the evidence required to impeach trump for J6, then why have the investigation AFTER? One would be lead to believe that the 2nd impeachment was done with zero information, they just did it because of time. They wanted to get that second impeachment done before he left office. That’s why they literally only had like 2 hours of debate before holding the impeachment vote.

And when you say that there were all republicans that testified, while that may be true, there wasn’t anyone friendly to trump who testified. Pretty much everyone who testified was someone who had been fired from trumps cabinet, if i recall.

In other words, if there had actually been an kind of balance on that committee, someone who wasn’t against trump, there might have been other witnesses called who would have given different testimony.

I always thought it was funny that we had an investigation by a group of people who’s agenda it was to sink trump…yeah, that’s going to be an honest investigation….

And lastly, if my reading is correct, congress does not have the authority to conduct criminal investigations. If my reading is correct, the only authority that congress has to conduct investigations is supposed to be in relation to creating legislation. So, where are the new laws that have been passed because of the 2 years of investigation they completed? Also, the committee, if they handed over all the findings and materials from their own investigation to the DOJ to help with their investigation…..isn’t that the same things as congress helping DOJ with their investigation? Is that allowed? Wouldn’t that be the same thing as congress investigating their political opponent? I mean, I always do the reverse test….if this had been a partisan Republican committee investigating Biden, the democrats would feel exactly the same as what I just laid out.

 

[forkup]

I think you’re reading way too much into the situation. I’m not afraid of debating anything, as I’ve said, the indictments are not relevant to MY argument here. The charges levied against him don’t change that. He could be charged with larceny and conspiracy to commit bank fraud, or he could be charged with eating chocolate cake in Tuesday wearing mismatched socks…either way my point of bias and him getting a fair trial in certain venues doesn’t change at all.

The argument that bias prevents a fair trial is faulty to begin with. Something I believe you would get in any other context.

Would you expect the argument from someone accused of murdering someone that he can't get a fair trial because the public is biased against murder? Would you accept that argument for burglary, sexual assault, financial crimes, "eating chocolate cake"?I'd like to believe that you would recognize that the only skill a juror or a judge needs is that they let go of their bias and look at the facts.

In this case though not only do you not recognize it. You are stating that you would reject any verdict coming out in Washington, because of perceived bias. This without even looking at the facts. You don't think that is telling me something about you and your bias?

 

[ThisIsMe]

The argument that bias prevents a fair trial is faulty to begin with. Something I believe you would get in any other context.

Would you expect the argument from someone accused of murdering someone that he can't get a fair trial because the public is biased against murder? Would you accept that argument for burglary, sexual assault, financial crimes, "eating chocolate cake"?I'd like to believe that you would recognize that the only skill a juror or a judge needs is that they let go of their bias and look at the facts.

In this case though not only do you not recognize it. You are stating that you would reject any verdict coming out in Washington, because of perceived bias. This without even looking at the facts. You don't think that is telling me something about you and your bias?

Would you expect the argument from someone accused of murdering someone that he can't get a fair trial because the public is biased against murder?

No, because we’re not talking about biased against any crimes trump may have committed, the bias is against trump himself.

because of perceived bias.

It’s not “perceived”, we all know DC is a very liberal city, and we know that liberals don’t like trump and want to see him disqualified from running as president, so, it’s ACTUAL bias.

 

[forkup]

No, because we’re not talking about biased against any crimes trump may have committed, the bias is against trump himself.




It’s not “perceived”, we all know DC is a very liberal city, and we know that liberals don’t like trump and want to see him disqualified from running as president, so, it’s ACTUAL bias.

Most people dislike Mark Zuckerberg the person. Would you therefore not accept any verdict in a court for any crime he would be indicted for?

If I get charged with a crime and a act like an obnoxious dick in court would that disqualify the jury on the basis they are biased against me?

By the way the jury consists of 12 people. Washington voted overwhelmingly but not completely for Biden. In fact, chances are decent that the jury will have at least one Trump voter in it. It takes only one to hang the jury. Would that entitle me to reject a hung jury?

And of course it perceived, no jury has been convened.

 

[forkup]

The committe was a sham, they all started from the outset with the mindset to convict trump. They weren’t looking for the truth, they were looking for a conviction. Let’s put it like this, if they had stumbled upon any evidence that would completely exonerate trump, we would have never known about it because they would have buried it. Really…who’s to say they didn’t come across that information?

The fact is, everyone on that committed has already twice voted to impeach trump and I think everyone in that committee had previously stated they didn’t think trump should be president.

I’ve always asked this question and nobody seems to ever answer, if they had the evidence required to impeach trump for J6, then why have the investigation AFTER? One would be lead to believe that the 2nd impeachment was done with zero information, they just did it because of time. They wanted to get that second impeachment done before he left office. That’s why they literally only had like 2 hours of debate before holding the impeachment vote.

And when you say that there were all republicans that testified, while that may be true, there wasn’t anyone friendly to trump who testified. Pretty much everyone who testified was someone who had been fired from trumps cabinet, if i recall.

In other words, if there had actually been an kind of balance on that committee, someone who wasn’t against trump, there might have been other witnesses called who would have given different testimony.

I always thought it was funny that we had an investigation by a group of people who’s agenda it was to sink trump…yeah, that’s going to be an honest investigation….

And lastly, if my reading is correct, congress does not have the authority to conduct criminal investigations. If my reading is correct, the only authority that congress has to conduct investigations is supposed to be in relation to creating legislation. So, where are the new laws that have been passed because of the 2 years of investigation they completed? Also, the committee, if they handed over all the findings and materials from their own investigation to the DOJ to help with their investigation…..isn’t that the same things as congress helping DOJ with their investigation? Is that allowed? Wouldn’t that be the same thing as congress investigating their political opponent? I mean, I always do the reverse test….if this had been a partisan Republican committee investigating Biden, the democrats would feel exactly the same as what I just laid out.

They had the investigation after the impeachment because an investigation takes time. Hundreds of witnesses. Leads to follow. Actual court battles to get people to honor subpoenas etc etc. It takes time. That doesn't mean you can't have an impeachment. You don't need all the facts for that.

In this case it was clear from the beginning that Trump wanted the certification stopped. For that he called a mob to Washington and send them to the Capitol making him at the very least morally responsible for what occurred.

This is not just my words by the words of both McCarthy and McConnell. That is if not criminal then at least impeachable. And doesn't require a full investigation to conclude.

And you recall wrong. Both Cheney and Kinzinger voted against the first impeachment. The committee had Guilliani testify he pleaded the fifth repeatedly, Eastman the Same, Ivanka Trump, Stephen Miller currently in Trump's reelection campaign, Rusty Bowers said he would vote for Trump again. Hutchinson served until Trump's last day. So no they weren't all Trump haters.

By the way I find it interesting that you seem to assert that if one isn't loyal to Trump and quits over something, like for instance Bill Barr, that fact makes him biased and therefore unreliable, does that work for everybody?

Would you for instance reject a testimony from a secretary that accuses her boss off sexual assault and got fired as a result of it? Would that make her a "biased" and unreliable witness?

 

[ThisIsMe]

Most people dislike Mark Zuckerberg the person. Would you therefore not accept any verdict in a court for any crime he would be indicted for?

If I get charged with a crime and a act like an obnoxious dick in court would that disqualify the jury on the basis they are biased against me?

By the way the jury consists of 12 people. Washington voted overwhelmingly but not completely for Biden. In fact, chances are decent that the jury will have at least one Trump voter in it. It takes only one to hang the jury. Would that entitle me to reject a hung jury?

And of course it perceived, no jury has been convened.

Most people dislike Mark Zuckerberg the person. Would you therefore not accept any verdict in a court for any crime he would be indicted for?

You’re over simplifying it. It’s not that “people dislike” trump. It goes way beyond that. We’re talking about a visceral hatred of trump and everything about him. We’re talking about people who belong to an ideology that have been bent on preventing trump from running for president and who have even wished personal demise on him. People who revel in the hope that trump will fail and be in ruin.

I’m sure there are trump voters in DC, no doubt, but during the jury selection process, can you be sure you’d get any will make it onto the jury? Would you want them in the jury if you thought they were an automatic vote against guilt? Will the liberal judge in the case try and help to reject any potential juror that might even seem to be pro trump? Will any jurors lie about their position to have a better chance to get in the court? Yeah yeah, I know, lying to get on a jury can land you in contempt, but does that really mean anything if the judge in the case is anti trump as well?

If Biden were to be indicted in a heavily Republican place like Wyoming, or a heavily trump supporting area like West Virginia, and the case is going before a venue we’re the judge and like 90% of the city are trump supporters, you think the left wouldn’t question that?

 

[forkup]

You’re over simplifying it. It’s not that “people dislike” trump. It goes way beyond that. We’re talking about a visceral hatred of trump and everything about him. We’re talking about people who belong to an ideology that have been bent on preventing trump from running for president and who have even wished personal demise on him. People who revel in the hope that trump will fail and be in ruin.

I’m sure there are trump voters in DC, no doubt, but during the jury selection process, can you be sure you’d get any will make it onto the jury? Would you want them in the jury if you thought they were an automatic vote against guilt? Will the liberal judge in the case try and help to reject any potential juror that might even seem to be pro trump? Will any jurors lie about their position to have a better chance to get in the court? Yeah yeah, I know, lying to get on a jury can land you in contempt, but does that really mean anything if the judge in the case is anti trump as well?

If Biden were to be indicted in a heavily Republican place like Wyoming, or a heavily trump supporting area like West Virginia, and the case is going before a venue we’re the judge and like 90% of the city are trump supporters, you think the left wouldn’t question that?

You keep arguing against "the left" instead of arguing against me. I wish you would stop doing that. First of all, I can't speak for all "the left", secondly you keep on begging the question as to how they would react.

What level of personal bias do you think is acceptable then? How do you measure it applied to an entire population? By the way. The courts have an entire process precisely designed to weed those that have a "visceral hatred." Not just that, it's not just the judge who is involved in it but also the defense. It's also something that if not done properly can form grounds for an appeal.

And no, I don't want any juror on the court that automatically votes either way. But the idea that the possibility somehow invalidates the verdict is preposterous. Both from a legal and rational standpoint.

Neither is it hypothetical. The Carroll case had a juror that only got his information according to questioning from a MAGA blogger. Not only was he allowed on the court, but he voted guilty with the rest of the jurors.

In Florida the jury pool will be mostly Trump supporters going purely by odds. Canon is someone I can claim bias for with good reason and as I already said I will accept that verdict. I'm left and I accept the verdict of a jury of someone's peers regardless of bias. Just to really nail you down. If that jury decides Trump is guilty you would accept that verdict, right?

 

[ThisIsMe]

They had the investigation after the impeachment because an investigation takes time. Hundreds of witnesses. Leads to follow. Actual court battles to get people to honor subpoenas etc etc. It takes time. That doesn't mean you can't have an impeachment. You don't need all the facts for that.

In this case it was clear from the beginning that Trump wanted the certification stopped. For that he called a mob to Washington and send them to the Capitol making him at the very least morally responsible for what occurred.

This is not just my words by the words of both McCarthy and McConnell. That is if not criminal then at least impeachable. And doesn't require a full investigation to conclude.

And you recall wrong. Both Cheney and Kinzinger voted against the first impeachment. The committee had Guilliani testify he pleaded the fifth repeatedly, Eastman the Same, Ivanka Trump, Stephen Miller currently in Trump's reelection campaign, Rusty Bowers said he would vote for Trump again. Hutchinson served until Trump's last day. So no they weren't all Trump haters.

By the way I find it interesting that you seem to assert that if one isn't loyal to Trump and quits over something, like for instance Bill Barr, that fact makes him biased and therefore unreliable, does that work for everybody?

Would you for instance reject a testimony from a secretary that accuses her boss off sexual assault and got fired as a result of it? Would that make her a "biased" and unreliable witness?

They had the investigation after the impeachment because an investigation takes time. Hundreds of witnesses. Leads to follow. Actual court battles to get people to honor subpoenas etc etc. It takes time. That doesn't mean you can't have an impeachment. You don't need all the facts for that.

Really? You don’t need all the facts before you impeach and attempt to remove a president? Yes, it takes time, and that’s why they couldn’t wait. They had to because of expediency. I mean, in every other case, you’re supposed to have the facts in hand before you take action.

I guess you support the impeachment of Biden now, and then the right can then investigate later?

In this case it was clear from the beginning that Trump wanted the certification stopped. For that he called a mob to Washington and send them to the Capitol making him at the very least morally responsible for what occurred.

Everything is clearer in hindsight, but you have to go on what they knew THEN, which was nothing. They hadn’t done an iota of investigation, they knew of the Eastman memo and a riot. They didn’t know anything else. That’s pretty thin, and even more suspicious when you have nearly everyone on the going after trump from the get go.

This wouldn’t work if the situation were reversed.

Also, the left continues to claim that trump “pointed the mob” at the capital to go storm it. There was no evidence for that then, and there isn’t any now. Yes, trump used rhetoric in his speeches, just like EVERY other politician does. That doesn’t mean that his intention was to get people to go riot. He never told them to go break windows and enter the capitol, he specifically said “go peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard”, a statement that was conveniently never even uttered during the entire J6 hearings , and even left out in every video they played.

And you recall wrong. Both Cheney and Kinzinger voted against the first impeachment. The committee had Guilliani testify he pleaded the fifth repeatedly, Eastman the Same, Ivanka Trump, Stephen Miller currently in Trump's reelection campaign, Rusty Bowers said he would vote for Trump again. Hutchinson served until Trump's last day. So no they weren't all Trump haters.

My bad, ok Cheney and kinsinger only voted 1 time , but kinsinger, after the second impeachment said he regretted not voting to impeach on the first one, based on everything that happened, and Cheney made it clear that she would do everything in her power to prevent trump from getting re elected. Suffice to say, there were no pro trump people on the J6 committee.

By the way I find it interesting that you seem to assert that if one isn't loyal to Trump and quits over something, like for instance Bill Barr, that fact makes him biased and therefore unreliable, does that work for everybody?

No, I’m not saying that, I’m saying that, during the course of the J6 investigation, and the hearings, it seems that there was not a single bit of evidence, nor any testimony that was favorable to trump. I never heard anyone brought in to testify on behalf of trump, doesn’t that seem odd? Are you suggesting that there wasn’t anyone they could have subpoenaed that could have refuted anything that was being said? There seemed to be no alternative viewpoints, everything was in the tone of “orange man bad”. Is that coincidence, or selective subpoena-ing?

Would you for instance reject a testimony from a secretary that accuses her boss off sexual assault and got fired as a result of it? Would that make her a "biased" and unreliable witness?

Was there an investigation? We’re there witnesses? Was the jury already known to have bias againsnt the boss? Or the secretary? These are scenarios that are not pertinent to what is going on here.

Look, if trump committed a crime, and there wasn’t already an army of people gunning for him, and he was convicted, that would be fine, but, unfortunately, we do have an army of people gunning for him, and have been since he came down the escalator, so that complicated things. Remember also, this is, at least I feel, all political. Nobody really seemed to care about trumps past life, his taxes, who’s “pussy he grabbed”, or what his real estate business looked like, until he became political. Everything was hunky dory when he was donating money to the Clinton’s, and everyone loved him…then he decided to run for president, and at that point, the democrats labeled him as public enemy #1.

So, yeah, I’m not confident he will get a fair trial in a liberal haven like DC, just like most dems wouldn’t think he would get a fair trial if the venue was moved to a conservative venue with a conservative judge. They’d throw a fit over it…in fact, they already have been throwing a fit over the possibility of them requesting a change of venue.

 

[ThisIsMe]

You keep arguing against "the left" instead of arguing against me. I wish you would stop doing that. First of all, I can't speak for all "the left", secondly you keep on begging the question as to how they would react.

What level of personal bias do you think is acceptable then? How do you measure it applied to an entire population? By the way. The courts have an entire process precisely designed to weed those that have a "visceral hatred." Not just that, it's not just the judge who is involved in it but also the defense. It's also something that if not done properly can form grounds for an appeal.

And no, I don't want any juror on the court that automatically votes either way. But the idea that the possibility somehow invalidates the verdict is preposterous. Both from a legal and rational standpoint.

Neither is it hypothetical. The Carroll case had a juror that only got his information according to questioning from a MAGA blogger. Not only was he allowed on the court, but he voted guilty with the rest of the jurors.

In Florida the jury pool will be mostly Trump supporters going purely by odds. Canon is someone I can claim bias for with good reason and as I already said I will accept that verdict. I'm left and I accept the verdict of a jury of someone's peers regardless of bias. Just to really nail you down. If that jury decides Trump is guilty you would accept that verdict, right?

You keep arguing against "the left" instead of arguing against me. I wish you would stop doing that. First of all, I can't speak for all "the left", secondly you keep on begging the question as to how they would react.

Because you are just one person, and maybe YOUR feelings are not an issue, but “the left”, are certainly the issue here. I can’t argue about how you personally feel, obviously, but I know how the left thinks and what they want. I’ve had plenty of time over the years to listen to both left and right wing talk radio, and read the forums here, to know exactly the kind of hatred the left has for trump. That’s why I use the term “the left”

What level of personal bias do you think is acceptable then? How do you measure it applied to an entire population? By the way. The courts have an entire process precisely designed to weed those that have a "visceral hatred." Not just that, it's not just the judge who is involved in it but also the defense. It's also something that if not done properly can form grounds for an appeal.

Preferably, no bias, but I know that’s not possible, but, when you have so many people out to harm someone, and with so much press being focused solely on trump and trying to bring him down, it’s not unreasonable to be concerned about these things. Again, if these trials are held in a conservative stronghold, are you going to be as easy going about this (more about that in a minute)

In Florida the jury pool will be mostly Trump supporters going purely by odds. Canon is someone I can claim bias for with good reason and as I already said I will accept that verdict. I'm left and I accept the verdict of a jury of someone's peers regardless of bias

Ok, so I don’t know your personal level of hatred for trump. Again, you’re not representative of the left as a whole. Im sure there are lefty’s that don’t care, or are not interested in seeing a former president prosecuted, but by and large, the left has been very vocal of their ire for trump.

Also, you have an advantage here, and that there are a friggen million indictments against trump (just saying that sarcastically), so, losing one or two probably isn’t a big deal, most lefty’s think that “it only takes one”, and that’s what they are banking on. Just like was mentioned earlier, that “the indictments were carefully crafted to ensure the highest possibility of conviction”.

If the Florida case was the only indictment he was facing, would you be so accepting of the verdict that came out of it, knowing there’s a good chance trump might be found innocent in a red state, with a right leaning judge, and could go on to potentially be president again? I can assure you, the vocal majority of the left would not.

Just to really nail you down. If that jury decides Trump is guilty you would accept that verdict, right?

Everything being equal, no jury tampering, and no funny business, no “lawyer shenanigans”, then yes, if both sides preset their case, and a fair and impartial judge and jury find him guilty, then yes, I’d accept that. It’s how the law works.

Now, if he is found innocent, come back here and watch all the left complaints about “it was a rigged jury” and “judge cannon put her own weight in the case”. You know that will happen.