Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Zontar said:

Please. If you have an implicit political bias, never mind an overt one, would mean you are biased and therefore unsuitable to enusure a fair trial. This is basic common law here.

Oh cool- I had no clue, can you point me to the section where jury selection deals with that please. I am not that well versed in Law. I don't think there is such a rule, but I am open to being wrong- please show me.

Edited by wanna-b-fanboy
Posted
Just now, Zontar said:

Please. If you have an implicit political bias, never mind an overt one, would mean you are biased and therefore unsuitable to enusure a fair trial. This is basic common law here.

Thats absurd.   But it's telling.  An alt-right person assumed that a Democrat would instinctively and maliciously screw a Republican even when sworn to be impartial.  And that Alt Right person feels that way because its how they would act.  Intriguing.  Its really like how Trump always accuses people of doing what he has done.  Its fascinating.

Posted (edited)

Challenging jurors for bias is the responsibility of the defence counsel.

If Stone doesn't have adequate representation, that's his problem. Dude is rich and can afford whatever attorneys he wants. He apparently picked poorly. 

It's just like a right winger to want the state to insulate people from the impact of their choices.

Edited by johnzo
Posted
1 hour ago, Zontar said:

Please. If you have an implicit political bias, never mind an overt one, would mean you are biased and therefore unsuitable to enusure a fair trial. This is basic common law here.

Still waiting on your explanation of the million illegal votes, btw.

Posted
4 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

You know this is a lie, right?  Are you suggesting that had Cohen named Trump, that you would agree Trump is a criminal, should be charged with a felony and removed from office?  

If Cohen HAD named Trump then Trump would be named as a co-conspirator even if he couldn't be charged. Cohen didn't name him, so Trump can't be named as a co-conspirator in the crime, that is what the law says and what was discussed at length when Cohen rolled over on him. Now do you see the difference? Once again false news making **** up that never happened. 

Posted
3 hours ago, 17to85 said:

Except that's not all they dug up... why do you ignore that? That's even with the White House with the aid of the DOJ and Senate Republicans prevent witnesses from talking... 

 

So I say again, stand up and pull your head out of your ass.

That's funny I don't recall the articles of impeachment charging him any specific crime? You have been reading false news again. 

Posted
3 minutes ago, pigseye said:

If Cohen HAD named Trump then Trump would be named as a co-conspirator even if he couldn't be charged. Cohen didn't name him, so Trump can't be named as a co-conspirator in the crime, that is what the law says and what was discussed at length when Cohen rolled over on him. Now do you see the difference? Once again false news making **** up that never happened. 

Actually he named Trump in sworn testimony.  And it was detailed in his case.

There was never any doubt that “Individual 1” was President Donald Trump. But now, in his testimony before the House Oversight Committee Wednesday, Cohen has confirmed it.

“I pled guilty in federal court to felonies for the benefit of, at the direction of, and in coordination with ‘Individual 1,’” Cohen said, reading from his prepared statement. “And for the record: ‘Individual 1’ is Donald J. Trump.”

Now, do you understand?

 

Posted
Just now, The Unknown Poster said:

Just because you dont know how impeachment works, thats not any one else's fault.

He alleged there was a crime I asked him what it was, where's the problem? 

Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, pigseye said:

He alleged there was a crime I asked him what it was, where's the problem? 

For starters, we know Trump committed crimes.  

Secondly, impeachment isnt a criminal trial.

Thirdly, what trump was charged with are violations of the constitution.  If you want to argue they dont actually fall under the criminal code, fine, but thats an obtuse argument to make.  He was charged with crimes against his oath and the constitution.  I mean sure, its not a BJ in the Oval office, but some people think bribery is a crime.

Edited by The Unknown Poster
Posted
2 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Actually he named Trump in sworn testimony.  And it was detailed in his case.

There was never any doubt that “Individual 1” was President Donald Trump. But now, in his testimony before the House Oversight Committee Wednesday, Cohen has confirmed it.

“I pled guilty in federal court to felonies for the benefit of, at the direction of, and in coordination with ‘Individual 1,’” Cohen said, reading from his prepared statement. “And for the record: ‘Individual 1’ is Donald J. Trump.”

Now, do you understand?

 

I googled that nothing comes up. 

Posted
Just now, The Unknown Poster said:

For starters, we know Trump committed crimes.  

Secondly, impeachment isnt a criminal trial.

Thirdly, what trump was charged with are violations of the constitution.  If you want to argue they dont actually fall under the criminal code, fine, but thats an obtuse argument to make.  He was charged with crimes against his oath and the constitution.  I mean sure, its not a BJ in the Oval office, but some people think bribery is a crime.

I'll ask again, what was the crime in the articles of impeachment he is referring too? 

Posted (edited)

oh yeah, one more thing about jury bias -- dude was convicted by unanimous vote of all the jurors, as the English common law demands.  Which tells me that the jury was entirely composed of:

a) Soros clones grown in a secret Venezuelan lab

b) robolesbian deep state gun confiscators

c) members of the UN Permanent Committee On Baby Tissue Resale

d) those Portland pastors who provided sanctuary to Mexican Gender-Quaida

e) refugee lizards from Alpha Centauri

f) Socks Clinton

Edited by johnzo
Posted (edited)
48 minutes ago, do or die said:

It was 3 million, and they were all biased.

BREAKING: MILLIONS OF DEMOCRATS LIVE IN UNITED STATES, PARTICIPATING FREELY IN ELECTIONS DESPITE OBVIOUS BIAS.

5 minutes ago, wanna-b-fanboy said:

God damn... I just got a trump re-election ad on the banner here at MBB

Click on it a bunch.  If Trump wants to advertise in Canada, might as well redirect some of the marks' money to Rich.

Edited by johnzo
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...