Breaking 1-06-21: MAGA terrorist attack on Capitol

In regards to this weird interview:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...nvestigation-foreperson-comments/11322998002/

...

I'm highly skeptical that this lady did not vote in 16 and 20, and had never heard to any of this prior. My spidey senses are tingling that she's trying to throw the case without throwing it, or giving those who will be charged a way to claim a mistrial, or get the jury moved out of this district at the very least.

This is why I've always said that it's HIGHLY unlikely that Trump could ever be found guilty in a courtroom in the US. There's just no way that you'll find 12 truly unbiased jurors for Donald Trump. However YOU WILL find more than 12 jurors who will lie about what they know or don't know about Trump related stories in order to get on that jury in order to influence indictments, trials, and sentences.

 

I didn't see it in the article, did she say she hadn't voted? Anyway, it could be that she was worried that the DA would shrink from prosecution and would bury the recommendations of the special grand jury, so she needed to give a more clear signal to the public that they did indeed recommend indictments for Trump. Now if the DA does not indict, there will be heat on them from the press for why not.

 

I saw one of her interviews and the impression I got is she less trying to throw the case as she’s seeking attention. She seemed very giggly and was playing coy like a teenager trying to stir up gossip.

 

Could be, but a Democrat turning down an indictment in this case wouldn’t be something I would think the jury wouldnt be worried about even though it’s not really their job to worry about it.

There have been cases in NY though with prosecutors resigning in protest from a Democrat also turning down the opportunity to prosecute Trump so I guess there is some precedent.

I just find this and the way she answered to be a bit troubling. So many gestures and a wink and a nod at the camera. If Trump is indicted I don’t see how he doesn’t use it to make a case that the prosecution process was tainted etc etc… which they are going to do anyways but at least now they
have something to lean into.

 

in addition, the tenacious Jack Smith has just issued a grand jury subpoena for
Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner
​

 

Somebody call the wahmbulance...

 

LOL.... the projection by the random twitter bro is astounding!

 

Don't know what the special grand jury experience is like, but I know after every regulat jury duty I've served, I've left feeling used and abused by the court system with no confidence they've done any real justice.

Anyway, I know some will say it indicates the process was biased. For my part, I don't see how someone spending months looking at the evidence and then saying at the end of that process that the perp should be indicted shows bias. Shows me she was convinced by the evidence. Also some might say the DA got maneuvered into bringing an indictment she would otherwise not have brought. But if her case is weak, we'll see it in the end.

Love how the system can be so impartial while it facilitates the school-to-prison pipeline for black people, but it's now flawed when seditionists are tried. If these grand juries are tainted, the regular juries are too because prosecutors keep putting up Ws.

 

I've been called for Jury duty like 8 times probably and have never served. I guess I am speaking ignorantly about the sanctity of the jury experience I'll admit.

I do however just think that the system isn't really built to prosecute someone like Donald Trump. Same could probably be said about Barrack Obama too so I do want to be fair. I don't think even the most Right Wing leaning prosecutor would want to touch prosecuting Barrack Obama because they have to know that it'll be impossible to have an impartial jury.

That being said there's probably no perfect system of justice out there, and ours is about as just as it gets. Back in the late 1800's yeah... you could find 12 people who have no connection or knowledge over anyone. Nowadays that system seems pretty easy to hijack if you want to.

 

Given how cautious prosecutors have been towards Trump, including this one, I have a hard time seeing her being manipulated by the Jury foreperson into indicting Trump.

Yes it’s been interesting seeing the party of “law and order” that has complained about the “coddling of criminals” start sounding like the ACLU.

 

Well this is pretty telling...

At least one person who resisted answering questions became much more cooperative when prosecutors offered him immunity in front of the jurors, Kohrs said. Other witnesses came in with immunity deals already in place.

https://apnews.com/article/politics...rump-georgia-266e28c4e47e54731b233e0f770f6729

 

People like this are ideal for this type of extended jury duty because they have a lot of free time. There is no way she is holding down a full time job.

 

LOL. So they give you internet access in prison.

 

FBI admitting in open court they were reading attorney-client emails of Jan 6 defendants

 

Pretty cherry picked there. Where is the question "How was this email obtained?" I'm not saying there is no 6th Amendment violation, but what is the answer to this question?

 

Not all communication between attorneys and clients are automatically privileged. I don't know what's going on with the snippets of testimony shown there, and there may be genuine attorney-client privilege considerations, but the tweets seem to rely on a layman's assumption that of course they would be privileged and that it's somehow obvious that the FBI engaged in some malfeasance. I'd say it's not obvious and in any case the court system can handle those issues. We don't need onlookers jumping straight to conspiracy theories about how our justice system is corrupt based on some decontextualized snippets of testimony. At least read the entire transcript before going there.

 

Mike Pence needs to speak more forcefully. He's in a state of denial if the thinks that not speaking out more against Trump will somehow get him the nomination. History is not going to hold Pence in a very good light. Even though he did ultimately due the right thing on Jan. 6. His cravenness and unwillingness to actually do more to address the threat to both the Constitution and his own life that day isn't helping his standing.


Pence says Trump was 'wrong' about Jan. 6 and that history will hold him accountable

Donald Trump was "wrong" on Jan. 6, 2021, and history will hold him accountable for it.

That was the message former Vice President Mike Pence delivered at a Washington, D.C., dinner on Saturday night, in what amounted to his most forceful rebuke to date of the former president.

Pence laid into Trump for his efforts to pressure him into blocking the certification of the 2020 election results on Jan. 6, when he told supporters near the White House that he hoped Pence would "do the right thing." Protesters who later marched to the Capitol turned violent and stormed the building where the vote count was being certified. Some chanted "Hang Mike Pence."

"His reckless words endangered my family and everyone at the Capitol that day," Pence said.

In the lead up to the violence, Trump and other election deniers called on Pence to reject key states and refuse Biden the electoral votes he needed to clinch the victory, but Pence refused.

"I know history will hold Donald Trump accountable," Pence said.

The former vice president delivered his remarks at the Gridiron Dinner, an annual white-tie event thrown by journalists in the nation's capital. His comments came amid speculation that Pence is weighing a 2024 presidential bid, a move that would pit him in direct competition with Trump, who announced his own run in November.

Pence has condemned the violence on Jan. 6 but had previously not been so critical of Trump, saying instead in the past that he and Trump may never see "eye to eye" about what happened that day.

The former vice president has been subpoenaed by a federal grand jury seeking his testimony regarding the events of Jan. 6, but Pence has asked a federal judge to block it, CNN reported.