(05-29-2024 02:55 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-29-2024 01:57 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Tom has had a busy few days. After getting his ass handed to him on trying to be a crowd size expert and the expert on Bronx demographics, now he's gonna tell us how he's basically Alan Dershowitz on the law.

Aww...someone is still chapped they got fooled by a time stamp on the evening news.

How's Blinken doing BTW? Did he find work after he resigned?

Blinkin will be indicted immediately upon Trump taking office. For the “51 intelligence officials” letter that was a clear a violation of the law according to democrats. Hillary next. Then mush brains.

Exactly this is not hard to understand why this isn’t justice. Since the prosecution hasn’t defined the specific underlined felony that was committed the judge is offering the jury a buffet of choices

On count 1:

4 say guilty because he did X

4 others say guilty because he didn’t do X but did Y

4 more will say he’s guilty but he did neither X or Y but did Z


Judge: I’ll count that ,even though you disagree on the specific crime that was committed, as a unanimous vote against the defendant

(05-29-2024 03:13 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(05-29-2024 02:55 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-29-2024 01:57 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Tom has had a busy few days. After getting his ass handed to him on trying to be a crowd size expert and the expert on Bronx demographics, now he's gonna tell us how he's basically Alan Dershowitz on the law.

Aww...someone is still chapped they got fooled by a time stamp on the evening news.

How's Blinken doing BTW? Did he find work after he resigned?

Blinkin will be indicted immediately upon Trump taking office. For the “51 intelligence officials” letter that was a clear a violation of the law according to democrats. Hillary next. Then mush brains.

I hope he arrests every ******** involved with this crap, all the way to the top.

Then the trial can be done the exact same way his is being done. Watch them squirm.

(05-29-2024 03:19 PM)copycat Wrote:  

(05-29-2024 03:13 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(05-29-2024 02:55 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-29-2024 01:57 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Tom has had a busy few days. After getting his ass handed to him on trying to be a crowd size expert and the expert on Bronx demographics, now he's gonna tell us how he's basically Alan Dershowitz on the law.

Aww...someone is still chapped they got fooled by a time stamp on the evening news.

How's Blinken doing BTW? Did he find work after he resigned?

Blinkin will be indicted immediately upon Trump taking office. For the “51 intelligence officials” letter that was a clear a violation of the law according to democrats. Hillary next. Then mush brains.

I hope he arrests every ******** involved with this crap, all the way to the top.

Then the trial can be done the exact same way his is being done. Watch them squirm.

While I was just poking at TB for his idiocy, I do not think anyone will be arrested. They own the jurisdiction where any trial would be. This country is truly very close to real violence. And it’s a shame.

(05-29-2024 03:22 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(05-29-2024 03:19 PM)copycat Wrote:  

(05-29-2024 03:13 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(05-29-2024 02:55 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-29-2024 01:57 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Tom has had a busy few days. After getting his ass handed to him on trying to be a crowd size expert and the expert on Bronx demographics, now he's gonna tell us how he's basically Alan Dershowitz on the law.

Aww...someone is still chapped they got fooled by a time stamp on the evening news.

How's Blinken doing BTW? Did he find work after he resigned?

Blinkin will be indicted immediately upon Trump taking office. For the “51 intelligence officials” letter that was a clear a violation of the law according to democrats. Hillary next. Then mush brains.

I hope he arrests every ******** involved with this crap, all the way to the top.

Then the trial can be done the exact same way his is being done. Watch them squirm.

While I was just poking at TB for his idiocy, I do not think anyone will be arrested. They own the jurisdiction where any trial would be. This country is truly very close to real violence. And it’s a shame.

You aren't wrong, but if the same judge can be assigned for multiple cases involving Trump and his allies "randomly" then it can be done in DC too with the right setup. I'm hoping Trump has taken notes on how to get that done for next year.

Find some crimes for the Soros family too, try them in a right-leaning area.

(05-29-2024 03:13 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(05-29-2024 02:55 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-29-2024 01:57 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Tom has had a busy few days. After getting his ass handed to him on trying to be a crowd size expert and the expert on Bronx demographics, now he's gonna tell us how he's basically Alan Dershowitz on the law.

Aww...someone is still chapped they got fooled by a time stamp on the evening news.

How's Blinken doing BTW? Did he find work after he resigned?

Blinkin will be indicted immediately upon Trump taking office. For the “51 intelligence officials” letter that was a clear a violation of the law according to democrats. Hillary next. Then mush brains.

My sweet summer child.

I'll take "Things that are unconstitutional for a judge to do" for $15,000, Mr. Ken Jennings. (You know, since he took over for the late, great Alex Trebek.)

(05-29-2024 03:13 PM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  Exactly this is not hard to understand why this isn’t justice. Since the prosecution hasn’t defined the specific underlined felony that was committed the judge is offering the jury a buffet of choices

On count 1:

4 say guilty because he did X

4 others say guilty because he didn’t do X but did Y

4 more will say he’s guilty but he did neither X or Y but did Z


Judge: I’ll count that ,even though you disagree on the specific crime that was committed, as a unanimous vote against the defendant

None of which Trump has been indicted for much less convicted. I can only assume the jury members can make up their own underlying crime if they would like.

(05-29-2024 01:20 PM)Chappy Wrote:  

(05-29-2024 01:16 PM)b2b Wrote:  Is this even legal?

This judge is that kid in your neighborhood that always changed the rules of whatever game you were playing if he wasn't winning.

sounds like he's putting the 2 democratic lawyers (how else would the DA allow attorneys on the jury?) that somehow got on the jury with 2 heavy democrats on the charge with the best shot.

It does sound illegal.

I have to believe if the NY Supreme Court won't hear an expedited review the US SCOTUS will. This case is so flawed it's hard to imagine an objective jury would think he's guilty of any of the charges brought.

(05-29-2024 04:22 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(05-29-2024 03:13 PM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  Exactly this is not hard to understand why this isn’t justice. Since the prosecution hasn’t defined the specific underlined felony that was committed the judge is offering the jury a buffet of choices

On count 1:

4 say guilty because he did X

4 others say guilty because he didn’t do X but did Y

4 more will say he’s guilty but he did neither X or Y but did Z


Judge: I’ll count that ,even though you disagree on the specific crime that was committed, as a unanimous vote against the defendant

None of which Trump has been indicted for much less convicted. I can only assume the jury members can make up their own underlying crime if they would like.

count 1: “Guilty because he beat Hillary”

count 2: “Guilty because he tweeted mean things”

count 3: “January 6 a day that will live in infamy”

…….etc

(05-29-2024 04:26 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-29-2024 01:20 PM)Chappy Wrote:  

(05-29-2024 01:16 PM)b2b Wrote:  Is this even legal?

This judge is that kid in your neighborhood that always changed the rules of whatever game you were playing if he wasn't winning.

sounds like he's putting the 2 democratic lawyers (how else would the DA allow attorneys on the jury?) that somehow got on the jury with 2 heavy democrats on the charge with the best shot.

It does sound illegal.

It sounds illegal because it is illegal.

(05-29-2024 03:19 PM)copycat Wrote:  

(05-29-2024 03:13 PM)Was SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(05-29-2024 02:55 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-29-2024 01:57 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Tom has had a busy few days. After getting his ass handed to him on trying to be a crowd size expert and the expert on Bronx demographics, now he's gonna tell us how he's basically Alan Dershowitz on the law.

Aww...someone is still chapped they got fooled by a time stamp on the evening news.

How's Blinken doing BTW? Did he find work after he resigned?

Blinkin will be indicted immediately upon Trump taking office. For the “51 intelligence officials” letter that was a clear a violation of the law according to democrats. Hillary next. Then mush brains.

I hope he arrests every ******** involved with this crap, all the way to the top.

Then the trial can be done the exact same way his is being done. Watch them squirm.

I can’t wait for the Revenge Tour starting in 2025. I want him to hit every democrat he can with everything possible and even some that is made up. I want the left wing rage and meltdown to cause widespread chaos so we can just sit back and shoot fish in a barrel.

(05-29-2024 03:13 PM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  Exactly this is not hard to understand why this isn’t justice. Since the prosecution hasn’t defined the specific underlined felony that was committed the judge is offering the jury a buffet of choices

On count 1:

4 say guilty because he did X

4 others say guilty because he didn’t do X but did Y

4 more will say he’s guilty but he did neither X or Y but did Z


Judge: I’ll count that ,even though you disagree on the specific crime that was committed, as a unanimous vote against the defendant

Exactly. In American Justice---an 8-4 vote to acquit on each of those individual charges would have meant NOT ONE of those charges would have been proven to the point of winning a unanimous guilty verdict---meaning the defendant would remain free and considered NOT GUILTY of any of those specific charges by the American Justice system. Thus, with no agreement on the predicate "crime" there is nothing left to do because there is no basis for a felony charge---and without the "up charging" to a felony crime, the NY State statue of limitations has run on the misdemeanor state charge Trump is currently facing--meaning his guilt or innocence would be irrelevant at that point. Anyone arguing otherwise is simply being disingenuous.

(05-29-2024 05:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-29-2024 03:13 PM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  Exactly this is not hard to understand why this isn’t justice. Since the prosecution hasn’t defined the specific underlined felony that was committed the judge is offering the jury a buffet of choices

On count 1:

4 say guilty because he did X

4 others say guilty because he didn’t do X but did Y

4 more will say he’s guilty but he did neither X or Y but did Z


Judge: I’ll count that ,even though you disagree on the specific crime that was committed, as a unanimous vote against the defendant

Exactly. In American Justice---an 8-4 vote to acquit on each of those individual charges would have meant NOT ONE of those charges would have been proven to the point of winning a unanimous guilty verdict---meaning the defendant would remain free and considered NOT GUILTY of any of those specific charges by the American Justice system. Thus, with no agreement on the predicate "crime" there is nothing left to do because there is no basis for a felony charge---and without the "up charging" to a felony crime, the NY State statue of limitations has run on the misdemeanor state charge Trump is currently facing--meaning his guilt or innocence would be irrelevant at that point. Anyone arguing otherwise is simply being disingenuous.

This is a miscarriage of justice - a show trial. The jury instructions is 50 pages long but they can’t read it in deliberations for themselves but ca only ask for it to be read to them. Give me a break!

(05-29-2024 05:42 PM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  

(05-29-2024 05:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-29-2024 03:13 PM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  Exactly this is not hard to understand why this isn’t justice. Since the prosecution hasn’t defined the specific underlined felony that was committed the judge is offering the jury a buffet of choices

On count 1:

4 say guilty because he did X

4 others say guilty because he didn’t do X but did Y

4 more will say he’s guilty but he did neither X or Y but did Z


Judge: I’ll count that ,even though you disagree on the specific crime that was committed, as a unanimous vote against the defendant

Exactly. In American Justice---an 8-4 vote to acquit on each of those individual charges would have meant NOT ONE of those charges would have been proven to the point of winning a unanimous guilty verdict---meaning the defendant would remain free and considered NOT GUILTY of any of those specific charges by the American Justice system. Thus, with no agreement on the predicate "crime" there is nothing left to do because there is no basis for a felony charge---and without the "up charging" to a felony crime, the NY State statue of limitations has run on the misdemeanor state charge Trump is currently facing--meaning his guilt or innocence would be irrelevant at that point. Anyone arguing otherwise is simply being disingenuous.

This is a miscarriage of justice - a show trial. The jury instructions is 50 pages long but they can’t read it in deliberations for themselves but ca only ask for it to be read to them. Give me a break!

Yup. The whole thing is ridiculous. Even CNN anchor Fareed Zakaria---who is the farthest thing from a Trump fan you can find---has said its clear to him that these charges are completely politically motivated and would have never been made against anyone not named Donald Trump. If its that obvious to a left winger like Zakaria---you can bet its obvious to the vast majority of the American people. I still (perhaps foolishly) believe that in the end---most Americans will see through this farce and vote accordingly.

(05-29-2024 05:42 PM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  

(05-29-2024 05:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-29-2024 03:13 PM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  Exactly this is not hard to understand why this isn’t justice. Since the prosecution hasn’t defined the specific underlined felony that was committed the judge is offering the jury a buffet of choices

On count 1:

4 say guilty because he did X

4 others say guilty because he didn’t do X but did Y

4 more will say he’s guilty but he did neither X or Y but did Z


Judge: I’ll count that ,even though you disagree on the specific crime that was committed, as a unanimous vote against the defendant

Exactly. In American Justice---an 8-4 vote to acquit on each of those individual charges would have meant NOT ONE of those charges would have been proven to the point of winning a unanimous guilty verdict---meaning the defendant would remain free and considered NOT GUILTY of any of those specific charges by the American Justice system. Thus, with no agreement on the predicate "crime" there is nothing left to do because there is no basis for a felony charge---and without the "up charging" to a felony crime, the NY State statue of limitations has run on the misdemeanor state charge Trump is currently facing--meaning his guilt or innocence would be irrelevant at that point. Anyone arguing otherwise is simply being disingenuous.

This is a miscarriage of justice - a show trial. The jury instructions is 50 pages long but they can’t read it in deliberations for themselves but ca only ask for it to be read to them. Give me a break!

You can always ask for the instructions and its rare for it not to be given to you. And its never 50 pages long.

I've been on 7 juries.

(05-29-2024 05:50 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(05-29-2024 05:42 PM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  

(05-29-2024 05:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-29-2024 03:13 PM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  Exactly this is not hard to understand why this isn’t justice. Since the prosecution hasn’t defined the specific underlined felony that was committed the judge is offering the jury a buffet of choices

On count 1:

4 say guilty because he did X

4 others say guilty because he didn’t do X but did Y

4 more will say he’s guilty but he did neither X or Y but did Z


Judge: I’ll count that ,even though you disagree on the specific crime that was committed, as a unanimous vote against the defendant

Exactly. In American Justice---an 8-4 vote to acquit on each of those individual charges would have meant NOT ONE of those charges would have been proven to the point of winning a unanimous guilty verdict---meaning the defendant would remain free and considered NOT GUILTY of any of those specific charges by the American Justice system. Thus, with no agreement on the predicate "crime" there is nothing left to do because there is no basis for a felony charge---and without the "up charging" to a felony crime, the NY State statue of limitations has run on the misdemeanor state charge Trump is currently facing--meaning his guilt or innocence would be irrelevant at that point. Anyone arguing otherwise is simply being disingenuous.

This is a miscarriage of justice - a show trial. The jury instructions is 50 pages long but they can’t read it in deliberations for themselves but ca only ask for it to be read to them. Give me a break!

You can always ask for the instructions and its rare for it not to be given to you. And its never 50 pages long.

I've been on 7 juries.

That’s not what the judge said or did

(05-29-2024 05:42 PM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  

(05-29-2024 05:31 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-29-2024 03:13 PM)BigTigerMike Wrote:  Exactly this is not hard to understand why this isn’t justice. Since the prosecution hasn’t defined the specific underlined felony that was committed the judge is offering the jury a buffet of choices

On count 1:

4 say guilty because he did X

4 others say guilty because he didn’t do X but did Y

4 more will say he’s guilty but he did neither X or Y but did Z


Judge: I’ll count that ,even though you disagree on the specific crime that was committed, as a unanimous vote against the defendant

Exactly. In American Justice---an 8-4 vote to acquit on each of those individual charges would have meant NOT ONE of those charges would have been proven to the point of winning a unanimous guilty verdict---meaning the defendant would remain free and considered NOT GUILTY of any of those specific charges by the American Justice system. Thus, with no agreement on the predicate "crime" there is nothing left to do because there is no basis for a felony charge---and without the "up charging" to a felony crime, the NY State statue of limitations has run on the misdemeanor state charge Trump is currently facing--meaning his guilt or innocence would be irrelevant at that point. Anyone arguing otherwise is simply being disingenuous.

This is a miscarriage of justice - a show trial. The jury instructions is 50 pages long but they can’t read it in deliberations for themselves but ca only ask for it to be read to them. Give me a break!

I was on a Jury last week in a criminal case. Our instructions for the case was 27 pages. Each person on the Jury received their own copy of the instructions and we got to take them home after we entered a verdict.