10 Dec 23
@mott-the-hoople saidAnd we actually wonder how you were so dumb as to be duped by the biggest liar in the known world, Donald Trump. Okay, I get it now, you're just criminally insane.
LMFAO…no its not debatable…it’s factually wrong.
only queers and sexual perverts want it to be
10 Dec 23
@metal-brain saidThe lawyers will get a chance to question the prospective jurors and challenge them for cause and remove a certain number even without cause.
Will the jury be comprised of both republicans and democrats in roughly equal numbers? If not it will not be a fair jury trial. That is the advantage of greater numbers deciding based on the facts presented.
There is no requirement in the US for juries in criminal trials to be evenly divided by political affiliation; again is this something you are proposing for all such trials or just want to give Donald Trump special treatment?
10 Dec 23
@metal-brain saidAsk a Republican, and they will tell you that it won't be fair unless there are 12 Republicans on the jury.
Will the jury be comprised of both republicans and democrats in roughly equal numbers? If not it will not be a fair jury trial. That is the advantage of greater numbers deciding based on the facts presented.
10 Dec 23
@no1marauder saidIt doesn't matter. Even if convicted the American voters will decide if he will be POTUS again. It will be interesting to see how that evolves if it happens. I would prefer Vivek as POTUS. Trump likes to steal oil...and brag about it.
The lawyers will get a chance to question the prospective jurors and challenge them for cause and remove a certain number even without cause.
There is no requirement in the US for juries in criminal trials to be evenly divided by political affiliation; again is this something you are proposing for all such trials or just want to give Donald Trump special treatment?
10 Dec 23
@metal-brain saidBecause the average voter is notoriously uninformed.
And the voters should not be able to decide that for what reason?
Trump voters even more so.
10 Dec 23
@metal-brain saidVivek is a mini-Trump.
It doesn't matter. Even if convicted the American voters will decide if he will be POTUS again. It will be interesting to see how that evolves if it happens. I would prefer Vivek as POTUS. Trump likes to steal oil...and brag about it.
10 Dec 23
@metal-brain saidHave you ever actually talked to someone on a jury right after a trial?
I don't think so. Merely half republicans or less would result in a hung jury.
They will be happy with that.
I have; almost all of that take their duty very seriously, listen carefully to the evidence and don't let preconceived notions dictate their verdict. Expecting everyone on a jury to be partisan hacks is offensive and unrealistic.
10 Dec 23
@averagejoe1 saidYou already are just like Trump.
Is Mott a lawyer? How about Sue? how do you know who the lawyers are? Interesting.
I use and read links when appropriate, though I know the debate world quite well, have judged them, and computers and links on stage i feel a bit slimy about. I like to be more like Trump, on his feet, like when he answers questions for an hour standing in front of the helicopter ...[text shortened]... ds, I am only batting about 96% right now. No one is perfect. Like you. I forget your last mistake.
You rant and rave and make baseless allegation after baseless allegation with absolutely zero basis in fact. You assume all kinds of BS to be true, just because you say it. You bring up the most ridiculous, inane talking points. No one gives a big fat F about Hunter Biden.
Just sit down. Please.
On second thought, maybe you should keep talking. People will be so sick of your nonsense by next November that you'll be lucky if half the Republicans running in the House are re-elected. The MAGA people are just about done. People are sick of them blocking progress in Washington. So keep talking, Joe, keep talking (crap).
10 Dec 23
@metal-brain saidI'd be happy if everyone on the jury had an IQ over 100.
@Suzianne
You would not be happy unless all the jurors are democrats because it would result in a hung jury if any of them are republicans unless they are Liz Cheney/Romney like republicans.
It's the fools who fall for Trump's lies.
10 Dec 23
1 edit
@vivify saidIf the evidence is irrefutable but say the congress was also politically aligned with the stealer of the election I’d say that is precisely when well armed and disciplined militia would be acting within their constitutional rights to rise up and depose the usurper of the will of the people. But there must be some sort of legal process to declare the election stolen and I don’t know how that would happen if the out going / fraudulent regime has all the legislative and federal judicial levers under its control
Jan 6th's infamy is rooted in right-wingers siding in a lie about a stolen election.
A lie that has no evidence, that's been debunked, dismissed by over 60 courts including a conservative SCOTUS. An obvious lie that cost Fox News almost $1 Billion in a law suit. Lies like from Trump lawyer Sidney Powell who admitted in court "no reasonable person" should believe. A lie ...[text shortened]... s also not an option.
If Jan 6th were for legitimate reasons would insurrection still be wrong?
What your probably going to get is a protracted civil war
@metal-brain saidNo, he was not. Stop lying.
You stop lying.
He was charged, convicted and executed for insurrection against the Roman Empire.
Insurrection is violent, in most cases. Jesus was not violent. In fact, when he was arrested, Peter drew his sword and Jesus told him to put it away.
He was charged with sedition and treason against the Roman Empire.
The Jews wanted him charged with blasphemy, but there was no such charge in Roman law.
There was no reason to charge him with insurrection. That's ludicrous and false.
@suzianne saidMaybe it was sedition. Does it matter though?
No, he was not. Stop lying.
Insurrection is violent, in most cases. Jesus was not violent. In fact, when he was arrested, Peter drew his sword and Jesus told him to put it away.
He was charged with sedition and treason against the Roman Empire.
The Jews wanted him charged with blasphemy, but there was no such charge in Roman law.
There was no reason to charge him with insurrection. That's ludicrous and false.
Many of the Jan. 6 protesters were convicted of seditious conspiracy, not insurrection. Chansley was not violent. Didn't he get several years in prison for mere trespassing? And didn't anyone who trespassed into the Capitol Building get charged with seditious conspiracy?
No protesters were charged with insurrection so the very word insurrection is irrelevant in this context. You are using the wrong word. There was no insurrection that day. Even the FBI said that.
