In Politically Charged Cases

[Lisa558]

How many times must I post the words of the presiding judge?




Not only WERE there Fake Electors, Grifty threw them under the bus.


Ask me why.

You didn’t read the article. There were no fake electors.

Once you read it and can debate with some minimal knowledge, you’ll be worthy of my efforts. Until then, you’re just another uninformed Democrat falling for yet another hoax.

 

[The5thHorseman]

What a brilliant reply. You didn’t even read an example of why the charge is false and an outright lie.

The indictments don’t mean he did anything wrong - they mean the Dems will use the power of the DOJ to stop Trump from running.

YOU are an example of the stupid, gullible person the weaponized DOJ is counting on.

Never, ever, presume to talk to me about "ignorance". The DoJ has nothing to do with the case in Georgia.

Byron York is not an attorney. He is a partisan hack of long standing.

Here are the facts...

5. On Dec. 6, Trump falsely assured the chairman of the Republican National Committee (Ronna McDaniel) that slates of alternate electors would not be used unless Trump prevailed in litigation in the relevant states (¶ 56).

6. In mid-December, Trump’s co-conspirators or agents falsely assured Pennsylvania alternate electors that their certificates and votes wouldn’t be used unless Trump prevailed in litigation in that state (¶ 61).

Why I Doubt Trump’s ‘Sincere Belief’ Defense Will Fly Before a Jury


He tossed them under the bus.

 

[konradv]

I don't think it applies to a grand jury...

Oops!

 

[Dante Reawakened]

Okay, so then lets move the trial to a Trump-friendly county in Texas. Good for you?

It's not up to either of us. He has a trail scheduled in a right friendly part of Florida. Never heard me demand it be moved. Even has a Trump appointed judge who has been overruled by her allies on the bench down their -- overruled on shit pertaining to Trump

So you see dear member, it's not fairness you seek.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

Never, ever, presume to talk to me about "ignorance". The DoJ has nothing to do with the case in Georgia.

Byron York is not an attorney. He is a partisan hack of long standing.

Here are the facts...

5. On Dec. 6, Trump falsely assured the chairman of the Republican National Committee (Ronna McDaniel) that slates of alternate electors would not be used unless Trump prevailed in litigation in the relevant states (¶ 56).

6. In mid-December, Trump’s co-conspirators or agents falsely assured Pennsylvania alternate electors that their certificates and votes wouldn’t be used unless Trump prevailed in litigation in that state (¶ 61).

Why I Doubt Trump’s ‘Sincere Belief’ Defense Will Fly Before a Jury


He tossed them under the bus.

Byron York is not an attorney. He is a partisan hack of long standing.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

Nonsense, it didn't matter what he did or didn't do, his only crimes remain...

Crimes? read the indictments

 

[SavannahMann]

You want to investigate jurors?

Lawyers always do. Often some in-depth examination of potential jurors. At the least, they move to exclude jurors who look or sound in a way that they would prefer not to have on the Jury.

I myself was excluded. The question, could you follow the instructions of the Judge. My reply, I don’t know, what are the instructions? When asked to clarify my answer, I explained that I was familiar with the teachings of St. Augustine and the principle of Just Laws, and the unwritten but vitally important duty of the Jury to determine if a law is unjust, or unjustly applied. I would not agree to turn off my brain and become a robot who says if A happened you must find B.

Judging from what I saw, the Defense loved the idea of me being on the Jury, the Prosecution didn’t even ask, the Judge excused me on the spot. I went home, and wasn’t called again during the time period. I haven’t gotten a summons since.

However, both the prosecution and the defense get a certain number of strikes, and an unlimited number of objections. They don’t want experts on the jury. If you have a lot of experience shooting, they don’t want you on the jury if firearms are an integral part of the testimony. You might believe that the Prosecution or Defense is wrong, and you might be wrong, yourself. You might taint the jury pool with an old wives tale about firearms. The good Lord knows that there are more superstitious beliefs about firearms than there are universally acknowledged truths.

 

[surada]

Lawyers always do. Often some in-depth examination of potential jurors. At the least, they move to exclude jurors who look or sound in a way that they would prefer not to have on the Jury.

I myself was excluded. The question, could you follow the instructions of the Judge. My reply, I don’t know, what are the instructions? When asked to clarify my answer, I explained that I was familiar with the teachings of St. Augustine and the principle of Just Laws, and the unwritten but vitally important duty of the Jury to determine if a law is unjust, or unjustly applied. I would not agree to turn off my brain and become a robot who says if A happened you must find B.

Judging from what I saw, the Defense loved the idea of me being on the Jury, the Prosecution didn’t even ask, the Judge excused me on the spot. I went home, and wasn’t called again during the time period. I haven’t gotten a summons since.

However, both the prosecution and the defense get a certain number of strikes, and an unlimited number of objections. They don’t want experts on the jury. If you have a lot of experience shooting, they don’t want you on the jury if firearms are an integral part of the testimony. You might believe that the Prosecution or Defense is wrong, and you might be wrong, yourself. You might taint the jury pool with an old wives tale about firearms. The good Lord knows that there are more superstitious beliefs about firearms than there are universally acknowledged truths.

I'm not talking about voir dire.

 

[SavannahMann]

You didn’t read the article. There were no fake electors.

Once you read it and can debate with some minimal knowledge, you’ll be worthy of my efforts. Until then, you’re just another uninformed Democrat falling for yet another hoax.

So who were the people who signed documentation stating they were dully appointed electors for the State of Georgia and that they were casting the electoral votes for Trump?

Who are Georgia’s alleged fake electors in the Donald Trump investigation?

Those electors have been central to Fulton DA Fani Willis’ investigation into whether Trump tried to overturn Georgia's 2020 presidential election.

www.atlantanewsfirst.com

Now, if there were no Fake Electors, why did half of them take Immunity Deals?

At least 8 fake electors have immunity in Ga. election probe

The prosecutor investigating possible illegal meddling in the 2020 election in Georgia has agreed to immunity deals with at least eight Republican fake electors who signed a certificate falsely stating that then-President Donald Trump had won the state. Defense attorney Kimberly Debrow revealed...

apnews.com

Because it seems silly to grant immunity to someone who didn’t do anything. A lot of paperwork for no reason don’t you think?

 

[leftwinger]

It's bullshit, is what it is, in regards to politically charged cases such as this. You ask a juror questions on paper. Then you ask them questions in person. They can lie. No one checks. Lawyers have a chance to disqualify if they want but no investigations are done to make sure the jurors answered questions truthfully.

The dirty rotten corrupted Judges are all 100% DEM commmee donors and backers. Seldom do I hear of any that are not corrupted…..to be fair…..to follow existing law.

 

[leftwinger]

The public deserves to know the facts about these cases and delaying the trial deprives us of vital information that we need to know before the election.

The fact you want this buried demonstrated you’re scared of the truth.

But the stupid clowns don’t want Election fraud facts to be exposed. Pound off you rotten piece of filthy human waste. Nobody has time or strength left to carry your kind when America is being destroyed. Get out you maggot. Feeding off the carcass of Americas best and brightest.

 

[leftwinger]

Any decent Judge would not allow these witch hunt cases to proceed. Bringing out some blue haired lunatic with a cat named vagina, paints tree trunks blue etc. to make up some 20 yr old story about rape in a changing room? Huh? Anyone ever tried on a pair of pants? Idiots. There is no lock, maybe a short door or curtain. No room for one+clothing+shoes piled up. Kiss off you dirty commee maggots and faggots.

 

[Kondor3]

is it fair the public knows details about the jurors? Jurors are supposed to be fair and unbiased but should they be investigated to make sure they aren't biased partisans, at least by the powers that be, even if it isn't made public? For the sake of argument, let's pick the Trump jurors. Should they be investigated to make sure they aren't politically biased and can make a fair, honest judgment? If one or more is a member of Truth Social shouldn't they be disqualified? If one or more has used social media to blast Trump, shouldn't they be disqualified? As far as I know, they just ask jurors questions and never follow up on the answers to those questions. We would want a fair trial with unbiased jurors, wouldn't we? We shouldn't rely on just their word that they could make an honest, fair, and unbiased decision. We should know that they can.

The Law merely calls for a jury of peers... a jury of fellow citizens...which is as complicated as any of this needs to - or is going to - get.

 

[Independent thinker]

The Law merely calls for a jury of peers... a jury of fellow citizens...which is as complicated as any of this needs to - or is going to - get.

In a case such as Trump, don't you think we should know if any jurors are either MAGA's or Trump haters?

 

[Kondor3]

In a case such as Trump, don't you think we should know if any jurors are either MAGA's or Trump haters?

Whatever for? All that is needed is to prompt jurors for an ability to dispassionately and objectively evaluate the actions of the accused and applicable law.

 

[Independent thinker]

Whatever for? All that is needed is to prompt jurors for an ability to dispassionately and objectively evaluate the actions of the accused and applicable law.

LOL. So, you're fine with MAGA heads on the jury?

 

[SavannahMann]

Any decent Judge would not allow these witch hunt cases to proceed. Bringing out some blue haired lunatic with a cat named vagina, paints tree trunks blue etc. to make up some 20 yr old story about rape in a changing room? Huh? Anyone ever tried on a pair of pants? Idiots. There is no lock, maybe a short door or curtain. No room for one+clothing+shoes piled up. Kiss off you dirty commee maggots and faggots.

So you are saying it doesn’t happen. It is impossible that sex happened in a changing room.

 

[Kondor3]

LOL. So, you're fine with MAGA heads on the jury?

I'm fine with loyal Americans of any party or political persuasion participating as jurors assuming that they will execute their office faithfully.

 

[Independent thinker]

I'm fine with loyal Americans of any party or political persuasion participating as jurors assuming that they will execute their office faithfully.

LOL. And what if a MAGAhead let's Trump off due to partisanship or a bunch of biased Trump haters vote to convict. That's not justice. It's a farce.

 

[Darkwind]

It's not up to either of us. He has a trail scheduled in a right friendly part of Florida. Never heard me demand it be moved. Even has a Trump appointed judge who has been overruled by her allies on the bench down their -- overruled on shit pertaining to Trump

So you see dear member, it's not fairness you seek.

Who appoints a judge means nothing, that is if you truly think that an untainted jury can be had, which it cannot.

The other three trials are anything BUT impartial, and, likely, the one in Florida isn't either.

It is absolutely fairness that I seek. You don't get to define what I think.