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

Knowing that Trump has promised to abuse his pardon power, has done so before, probably will need to do so again at the end of his term, and that he has promised to abuse the DOJ to pursue partisan prosecutions against his political adversaries, Biden should go ahead and pardon everybody in his Administration pre-emptively, plus Hunter and other likely target. Sure, it's an abuse. But maybe by himself abusing the power now, we can get the ball rolling in SCOTUS on just how broad and absolute this pardon power really is. We can see how clever they can slice it to somehow justify Trump's use of it while disallowing Biden's.

The welcher is offended that even though his guy won the election, he still can't get the respect of his peers on the bbs.

 

I’m just giving you woke clowns an example of misogyny when xophia uses the word “cunt”. Your kind gaslit people especially black men who voted for Trump as misogynistic. It’s really does not matter what you woke little biiitches are whining and crying about. The truth of the matter is you got your asses handed to you so just sit down and shut up. You losers are irrelevant now. America has spoken loud and clear and nobody listens or believes in your bullshiit lies anymore.

So cry and whine a little harder. Lefties’ tears are the most comical tears ever.

 

Just because if you were on a jury, you would find Ds 100% guilty and Rs 100% innocent does not mean others would be as partisan.

 

One thing is for sure - they had really dumb lawyers if they let a partisan jury on, 90% or not.

 

Does it make you feel really good to get that out?

 

You clearly have no idea how jury selection works. You don't get an infinite number of strikes... and if you do strike a potential juror, odds are, the next one up is just as liberal. It's why the government argued against a change of venue -- they knew they had a biased jury ready to convict regardless of the absurdity of the charges.

The good news is that we have a +150 million person jury render a verdict on November 5th. And Trump won. What better sample size than a national election? Beats 12 liberal DC swamp dwellers in terms of finding the truth, that's for sure

GOOD DAY.

 

Maybe that's how law in Mexico works, but here in America, a defense lawyer can give unlimited rejections for cause - which includes potential bias on a jurer. So they can keep rejecting and rejecting and rejecting. I suggest before you apply for citizenship to this great nation, you investigate how things work here. Our election system is not a court of law by the way. You are deeply misinformed on the difference between law and voting.

BUEN DIA

 

Good luck with that one.
Defense attorney: Your honor, this juror is a registered Democrat that volunteered for the Warren campaign in 2020 and donated to Act Blue, I challenge for cause - bias against my client.
The Court: Sir, do you believe you can be fair in this case?
Juror: Yes, your honor, I think I can be fair.
The Court: Challenge for cause denied. Any other cause challenges?

 

Except that's not how it happened. Here's one case:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/january-6-cases-washington-dc-jury-bias-appeals-court/

So let's cut the bs. Basically, what I have noticed from many of you - you cry foul even when there is no evidence to support that. And even when you are presented evidence to the contrary, you will still cry foul and move the goalposts or some other kind of spin. Same pattern different day.

 

That doesn't disprove what I said, it is an affirmation of what I said. The court would hear the questions, the attorney would make their challenge for cause, and then the court would ask the juror if they could be fair, the juror would say they could, and the challenge for cause would be denied. You apparently don't understand the process of jury selection. I have picked dozens of juries. Challenges for cause are denied all the time. I have seen a juror say they didn't like the DA's office because her brother was railroaded, but she said she could be fair, so a challenge for cause was denied. Courts are only too happy to make you use your preemptory challenges unless the juror is telling them they cannot be fair. Even when a juror says they cannot be fair, the judge will try to rehabilitate them to get them to agree that, sure, they can set aside any bias they have and be fair after all.

 

My understanding is that shallow why juror instructions are very important for weeding out bias decisions, along with other aspects of due process.

To the point though do you as a prosecutor believe that the J6 defendants didnt get fair trials?

 

Your naivete is on full display. You actually believe a 90+% blue district would set aside partisan differences in a legal case against DONALD TRUMP -- the most famous politician in the world. Why do you think prosecutors fought for this venue? Why did Jack Smith use this location for his grand jury work on the classified documents case, before then moving things to the appropriate venue in Florida? Why do personal injury attorneys hunt for cases in deep blue counties? Because they know jury pools matter. You still haven't put that together -- but rest assured, literally everyone in the legal system has done so.

Honestly, at times I sit back and take pride in the fact that we have created a society that can ensure a reasonable quality of life for people this naive and gullible.

GOOD DAY

 

Jury instructions are important, and often not understood or followed. Jurors are human beings. They make decisions using their own process. We get ridiculous jury questions during deliberations (questions that would be answered by listening to/reading the jury instructions). We are told batshit insane things by jurors after the case is over (stuff like decisions based on speculation about facts that they just made up and were not based on any evidence presented at trial, despite being instructed over and over not to speculate and base their decision only on what is presented at trial).

As much as anyone gets a fair trial. Jurors are going to be biased. Jurors are going to bring their own perspective. The rioters knew where the Capitol was when they went in, so they should have known they would get a DC jury. There are just going to be very few changes of venue and you are stuck with the jury pool where you are at. It should have been an incentive to settle and something the attorneys talked about with their clients if they were any good. I would say the jury pool favored the prosecution, just like the jury pool in Alameda county or San Francisco county favors the defense in a lot of cases. It isn't illegally unfair, it's just the way it is.

 

PDitty is worth about 400 Million
You think he gets a pardon for 200 Million or will they want the full 400?

Rocket River

 

juries don't find people innocent, only not guilty

The DoJ is irredeemably corrupt. They have all sorts of weapons at their disposal (plea bargains, threats to prosecute family members, pre-trial imprisonment and/or solitary confinement, leaking to the press, gag orders on the defendant, preventing the defense from presenting evidence at trial) They have infinite time and resources and a 90+% conviction rate. They all intermarry and their kids go to the same schools, including the judges. Defendants of any type have almost no chance, unless they are a member of the tribe (see Michael Sussman and Kevin Clinesmith).

As a juror I would find it very difficult to convict anyone the DoJ prosecutes, D or R.

 

In my experience as a juror, when people get into the jury room they try really hard to really be impartial. There is something about the social dynamic in a jury room that you're trying to perform for the sake of the other jurors. Maybe if all 12 are biased, you can comfortably slide into a prejudicial decision, but in my experience it would be hard to do that if a fellow juror is challenging you with facts.

I do appreciate hearing your perspective as a prosecutor because I think jurors are likewise flummoxed and frustrated with the courts when they're trying to make a decision -- jury instructions are sometimes vague and sometimes seem illogical and the court is generally useless when jurors choose to send in questions. I do understand that the court has tried to carefully build this framework to get an impartial verdict out of a jury, so I know they have to do what they do. But, it's frustrating as hell as a juror and I usually hate all judges and lawyers for several months after jury service. Glad to see the feelings are mutual.

 

I think those "crazy" decisions work in favor of the defendant. Because if a juror believes something can be a 'reasonable' doubt, it leaves a lot of room for what a reasonable doubt is. I believe it is far more unlikely for crazy convictions based on crazy things like that. Obviously you have more experiences with juries than I do.

 

This is not a serious opinion.

This is a Fox News sound bite ... R talking point ... partisan dribble.

ETA:
Saying that the DoJ is irredeemably corrupt is an extraordinary credible claim ... which requires extraordinary proof.

If I say that the moon is made of cheese, I would need to show extraordinary proof before the claim is believable.

 

Again, they screened for partisans. Why is that so hard for you to understand? They had the chance to screen out any jury that had negative feelings towards MAGA, and they still lost.

Stop making excuses.

BUEN DIA.

 

@Nook Need a ruling