On political bias

[Rumpole]

Here's a question for you:

1. If a jury convicts Trump, would accept that he is guilty?
2. If a jury convicted Biden, would you accept that he is guilty?


So, if your answer is the same, yes, or no, you are not biased.

But if your answer is yes or one, and no for the other, 'in my opinion', you are biased.

Whatever that truth is, now you know it for certain.

I would answer yes, because I believe in the justice system.

Yes, sometimes verdicts are wrong, but the odds of the verdict being wrong twice on two of the most powerful political figures, I don't buy that argument. In fact, I don't buy it that a jury would be wrong on one. The stakes are too high, the evidence will be scrutinized on a level we haven't seen in the justice system, they will go to a great length to get it right, one way or the other. Justice will prevail.

Trump will be tried, and if the jury is unanimous for a guilty or innocent verdict, I will abide by it. And so should you.

 

[Mac1958]

Yes, yes. That includes any appeals. Trying to inject partisan politics into it only pollutes it, because partisan politics pollutes anything it touches.

Let it go. We move on.

Same for anyone else.

 

[SweetSue92]

Here's a question for you:

1. If a jury convicts Trump, would accept that he is guilty?
2. If a jury convicted Biden, would you accept that he is guilty?


So, if your answer is the same, yes, or no, you are not biased.

But if your answer is yes or one, and no for the other, 'in my opinion', you are biased.

Whatever that truth is, now you know it for certain.

I would answer yes, because I believe in the justice system.

Yes, sometimes verdicts are wrong, but the odds of the verdict being wrong twice on two of the most powerful political figures, I don't buy that argument. In fact, I don't buy it that a jury would be wrong on one. The stakes are too high, the evidence will be scrutinized on a level we haven't seen in the justice system, they will go to a great length to get it right, one way or the other. Justice will prevail.

Trump will be tried, and if the jury is unanimous for a guilty or innocent verdict, I will abide by it. And so should you.

What is this mess?

Is this is the same, "I believe in science", now turned to "I believe in the justice system"?

Ridiculous. Say....how did "I believe in science" turn out for you?

 

[kyzr]

????
Depends on the law and the evidence.

 

[Independent thinker]

Here's a question for you:

1. If a jury convicts Trump, would accept that he is guilty?
2. If a jury convicted Biden, would you accept that he is guilty?


So, if your answer is the same, yes, or no, you are not biased.

But if your answer is yes or one, and no for the other, 'in my opinion', you are biased.

Whatever that truth is, now you know it for certain.

I would answer yes, because I believe in the justice system.

Yes, sometimes verdicts are wrong, but the odds of the verdict being wrong twice on two of the most powerful political figures, I don't buy that argument. In fact, I don't buy it that a jury would be wrong on one. The stakes are too high, the evidence will be scrutinized on a level we haven't seen in the justice system, they will go to a great length to get it right, one way or the other. Justice will prevail.

Trump will be tried, and if the jury is unanimous for a guilty or innocent verdict, I will abide by it. And so should you.

Who's going to put Biden on trial, his weaponized DOJ?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Here's a question for you:

1. If a jury convicts Trump, would accept that he is guilty?
2. If a jury convicted Biden, would you accept that he is guilty?


So, if your answer is the same, yes, or no, you are not biased.

But if your answer is yes or one, and no for the other, 'in my opinion', you are biased.

Whatever that truth is, now you know it for certain.

I would answer yes, because I believe in the justice system.

Yes, sometimes verdicts are wrong, but the odds of the verdict being wrong twice on two of the most powerful political figures, I don't buy that argument. In fact, I don't buy it that a jury would be wrong on one. The stakes are too high, the evidence will be scrutinized on a level we haven't seen in the justice system, they will go to a great length to get it right, one way or the other. Justice will prevail.

Trump will be tried, and if the jury is unanimous for a guilty or innocent verdict, I will abide by it. And so should you.

You can't put a sitting President on trial for anything. All the House can do is impeach. It's the Senate that would have to vote to convict.

But not all circumstances are the same. For instance NYC is 80% Democrat. Do you think Trump could ever get a fair trial with such a jury and leftist judge if it were held there? Did officer Chauvin get a fair trial with the hearing held in a city that had a massive riot and protesters outside of the court on the days before they reached a verdict? Would you (as a juror) voted not guilty in that case fearing for your life and that of your family?

It's simply not as cut and dry as you pose it.

 

[g5000]

Here's a question for you:

1. If a jury convicts Trump, would accept that he is guilty?
2. If a jury convicted Biden, would you accept that he is guilty?

I would accept any jury conviction of either.

In today's deeply divided society, I frankly am surprised any jury would come to a unanimous opinion about the guilt of a political figure.

 

[Rumpole]

I would accept any jury conviction of either.

In today's deeply divided society, I frankly am surprised any jury would come to a unanimous opinion about the guilt of a political figure.

I agree. However, in NYC it is more likely than, say, Jackson, Mississippi, just sayin'.

 

[Rumpole]

You can't put a sitting President on trial for anything.

Says who? The 'Office of Legal Counsel'? Hmmm, okay, let's discuss.

While the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memo has provided guidance that a sitting US President should not be indicted, tried, or convicted while in office, there are several reasons why this memo should not be considered an insurmountable obstacle when it comes to holding a former or sitting President accountable for their actions.

1. Constitutional principles: The United States Constitution is founded on the principle that no person is above the law, including the President. Although the OLC memo seeks to provide some protection for the President from legal proceedings while in office, this should not be interpreted as an absolute shield against accountability. The Constitution does not explicitly provide immunity to a sitting President, and it is crucial to ensure that the rule of law is maintained by allowing for the possibility of indictment, trial, and conviction where necessary.
2. The importance of checks and balances: The American political system is based on a system of checks and balances among the three branches of government. If the OLC memo were to be interpreted as an absolute barrier to holding a President accountable, this would undermine the fundamental balance of power. Allowing for the possibility of legal proceedings against a sitting or former President helps to maintain this balance, as it ensures that the executive branch is not above the law and is held accountable for its actions.
3. Precedent for waiving the President's presence: In cases where the President's presence is required for official duties, there is precedent for waiving their presence in the interest of the nation. For example, during the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton, the Senate allowed for Clinton's participation via video conference, enabling him to continue fulfilling his presidential duties. This approach could also be applied to criminal proceedings, ensuring that the administration of justice is not impeded by the President's official responsibilities.
4. The OLC memo is not legally binding: It is essential to recognize that the OLC memo is an opinion and does not carry the force of law. It is subject to reevaluation and reinterpretation, especially in light of the evolving understanding of the Constitution and the role of the President. Legal scholars and courts may disagree with the OLC's conclusion, and a more nuanced approach may be taken to address the unique circumstances surrounding a particular case.

In conclusion, while the OLC memo presents an argument against the indictment, trial, and conviction of a sitting US President, it should not be considered an insurmountable obstacle to holding a President accountable for their actions. Upholding the principles of the Constitution, maintaining the system of checks and balances, considering precedents for waiving the President's presence, and recognizing the non-binding nature of the OLC memo are all reasons to allow for the possibility of legal proceedings against a sitting or former President.

All the House can do is impeach. It's the Senate that would have to vote to convict.

A criminal conviction would, or should prompt an impeachment. I am not saying a conviction should automatically force a president to resign (unless his/her crime is heinous resulting in incarceration, which, in my view, prompts the 25th amendment), that would be up to members of congress/senate, but it should initiate either the 25th amendment, or an impeachment.

But not all circumstances are the same. For instance NYC is 80% Democrat. Do you think Trump could ever get a fair trial with such a jury and leftist judge if it were held there?

You are saying what, only Republicans can render a valid verdict? I reject the implication. Political persuasion, per a competent judge's instructions, should easily convince a jury to check their political leanings outside the doors of the courtroom. I recall one prosecutor (though I don't have the link, off hand) describing how juries, though they might be biased before they enter the jury, they almost always take their job seriously, once the proceeding begins. This is an American institution, and it's very participation will affect one as to its seriousness accordingly, i.e., to the principle that lady justice is administered without 'fear or favor' and is blind. It would seem logical that voir dire, in the case of a sitting or former US President, extra care in the selection of a jury will follow.

Did officer Chauvin get a fair trial with the hearing held in a city that had a massive riot and protesters outside of the court on the days before they reached a verdict? Would you (as a juror) voted not guilty in that case fearing for your life and that of your family?

It's simply not as cut and dry as you pose it.

It never is, but, see above.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You are saying what, only Republicans can render a valid verdict? I reject the implication. Political persuasion, per a competent judge's instructions, should easily convince a jury to check their political leanings outside the doors of the courtroom. I recall one prosecutor (though I don't have the link, off hand) describing how juries, though they might be biased before they enter the jury, they almost always take their job seriously, once the proceeding begins. This is an American institution, and it's very participation will affect one as to its seriousness accordingly, i.e., to the principle that lady justice is administered without 'fear or favor' and is blind. It would seem logical that voir dire, in the case of a sitting or former US President, extra care in the selection of a jury will follow.

In your fantasy land that's all fine and dandy. In the real world leftists are vindictive hateful people. A poll I seen on the O'Reilly show stated that 80% of Democrats approve of an indictment of President Trump. Based on what? The charges still haven't been revealed yet. It was based on hate.

The United States Constitution guarantees every accused citizen a fair and speedy trial with an unbiased judge and jury. Think the commies give a rats ass about that? Of course not. Just look at those still sitting in jail from 1/6. Some are reported not even receiving medical attention. The guy with the makeup and horns they just let out (under pressure) was in solitary confinement for several months. Solitary confinement is reserved for the most violent and dangerous inmates. What did he do? He walked around the Capital. Did they check their political leanings when locking him up like a rabid animal? Like I said, these are Democrats and could give a shit less about the constitution or humane treatment for their political enemies, and we should expect these very same people to not be biased when hearing a case against Donald Trump?

 

[Rumpole]

In your fantasy land that's all fine and dandy. In the real world leftists are vindictive hateful people. A poll I seen on the O'Reilly show stated that 80% of Democrats approve of an indictment of President Trump.

Based on the available evidence. He was listed as coconspirator in the Cohen indictment, and the false business records were to conceal the hush money payments and the catch and kill scheme from the electorate. We also witness him obstructing the governments efforts to retrieve the documents, He claimed in an interview that he had the right to take national defense information and restricted data (nuclear) documents, which is not accurate.

In fact, he's admitting he finds it acceptable to violate 793, Espionage Act, the Presidential Records Act, and the Atomic Energy Act, not to mention a violation of his oath of office. And then we have his phone call to Raffensperger.

We have the Eastman/Navarro Memo, outlining a scheme to overturn the election, his condoning the fake elector scheme, the 10 counts of obstruction outlined in the Mueller Report, and we witnessed his obstruction of congress defying lawful congressional subpoenas.

We saw him, a year before the first ballot was cast, persuade some 65 million persons that 'the only way Democrats can win is if they rig the election" thus shaking confidence in American Democracy. Heck, Trump is a Putin's dream come true.

Based on what? The charges still haven't been revealed yet. It was based on hate.

Indeed they have, this is the charging document

This is the statement of facts:

This is the statement from the DA's website, summarizing the above:

District Attorney Bragg Announces 34-Count Felony Indictment of Former President Donald J. Trump

“The People of the State of New York allege that Donald J. Trump repeatedly and fraudulently falsified New York business records to conceal crimes that hid damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 presidential election,” said District Attorney Bragg. “Manhattan is home to the coun

www.manhattanda.org

The United States Constitution guarantees every accused citizen a fair and speedy trial with an unbiased judge and jury.

they will, but Trump historically delays trial as long as he can via all kinds of vexatious legal tricks, so your point is rather moot.

Think the commies give a rats ass about that? Of course not.

Well, one thing is certain, Trump won't either, he will try and delay the trial past the election in order to run out the clock. It's not going to happen. Judges are going to fast track this one as fast as they can do it.

Just look at those still sitting in jail from 1/6. Some are reported not even receiving medical attention. The guy with the makeup and horns they just let out (under pressure) was in solitary confinement for several months. Solitary confinement is reserved for the most violent and dangerous inmates. What did he do? He walked around the Capital. Did they check their political leanings when locking him up like a rabid animal? Like I said, these are Democrats and could give a shit less about the constitution or humane treatment for their political enemies, and we should expect these very same people to not be biased when hearing a case against Donald Trump?

Please substantiate your claims, thank you.

Cheers,
Rumpole

 

[Lastamender]

Here's a question for you:

1. If a jury convicts Trump, would accept that he is guilty?
2. If a jury convicted Biden, would you accept that he is guilty?


So, if your answer is the same, yes, or no, you are not biased.

But if your answer is yes or one, and no for the other, 'in my opinion', you are biased.

Whatever that truth is, now you know it for certain.

I would answer yes, because I believe in the justice system.

Yes, sometimes verdicts are wrong, but the odds of the verdict being wrong twice on two of the most powerful political figures, I don't buy that argument. In fact, I don't buy it that a jury would be wrong on one. The stakes are too high, the evidence will be scrutinized on a level we haven't seen in the justice system, they will go to a great length to get it right, one way or the other. Justice will prevail.

Trump will be tried, and if the jury is unanimous for a guilty or innocent verdict, I will abide by it. And so should you.

It is never going to get that far. Thread closed.

 

[B. Kidd]

It depends on what the meaning of 'depends' is....

 

[g5000]

In the real world leftists are vindictive hateful people.

]

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Based on the available evidence. He was listed as coconspirator in the Cohen indictment, and the false business records were to conceal the hush money payments and the catch and kill scheme from the electorate. We also witness him obstructing the governments efforts to retrieve the documents, He claimed in an interview that he had the right to take national defense information and restricted data (nuclear) documents, which is not accurate.

In fact, he's admitting he finds it acceptable to violate 793, Espionage Act, the Presidential Records Act, and the Atomic Energy Act, not to mention a violation of his oath of office. And then we have his phone call to Raffensperger.

We have the Eastman/Navarro Memo, outlining a scheme to overturn the election, his condoning the fake elector scheme, the 10 counts of obstruction outlined in the Mueller Report, and we witnessed his obstruction of congress defying lawful congressional subpoenas.

We saw him, a year before the first ballot was cast, persuade some 65 million persons that 'the only way Democrats can win is if they rig the election" thus shaking confidence in American Democracy. Heck, Trump is a Putin's dream come true.

Indeed they have, this is the charging document

This is the statement of facts:

This is the statement from the DA's website, summarizing the above:

District Attorney Bragg Announces 34-Count Felony Indictment of Former President Donald J. Trump

“The People of the State of New York allege that Donald J. Trump repeatedly and fraudulently falsified New York business records to conceal crimes that hid damaging information from the voting public during the 2016 presidential election,” said District Attorney Bragg. “Manhattan is home to the coun

www.manhattanda.org

they will, but Trump historically delays trial as long as he can via all kinds of vexatious legal tricks, so your point is rather moot.

Well, one thing is certain, Trump won't either, he will try and delay the trial past the election in order to run out the clock. It's not going to happen. Judges are going to fast track this one as fast as they can do it.

Please substantiate your claims, thank you.

Cheers,
Rumpole

There is no co-conspirator in the Cohen case. First of all federal election matters are federal, not city. Secondly Cohen's ex lawyer under oath testified that Cohen told him Trump knew nothing about the payment to Stormy nor was he ever reimbursed, and stated he's more than happy to testify to the same thing if it ever does go to trial. Third is the fallacy that it had anything to do with the election since the so-called infraction took place in 2017 when Trump was not running against anybody. Fourth of course is that even if there was a smidgen of a city case, the statue of limitations ran out two years ago. Fifth is Fat Alvin's star witness lied to the Court and to Congress alike under oath making him a non-credible witness. And we won't even get into the judge issue who's daughter worked in the Biden campaign with Whorris.

The deck is too stacked against you. The Chicoms don't even conduct cases like this, but I realize the Democrats are out to out commie China.

Trump had every constitutional authority as President to declassify and take those documents home. Biden on the other hand stole similar documents as a Senator and put them in several unsecured locations. He had no authority to take them.

Fiancée of Jan. 6 defendant reportedly denied cancer treatment in prison speaks out

A January 6 defendant was reportedly denied cancer treatment for eight months while in prison on charges related to the riot at the U.S. Capitol.

nypost.com

He said he had been in "administrative segregation" for over 300 days, which he described as "basically solitary confinement."

Although told it was for his safety, Chansley said he didn't think this was true as he had been warmly welcomed by other prisoners during a stint in a Colorado jail, who said they recognized him from TV.

'QAnon Shaman' Jacob Chansley compared himself to Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and Jesus Christ in interview from prison

Speaking from prison, QAnon Shaman Jacob Chansley went on a right-wing podcast to discuss his political views and prison conditions.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[g5000]

Secondly Cohen's ex lawyer under oath testified that Cohen told him Trump knew nothing about the payment to Stormy nor was he ever reimbursed,

Trump Admits To Authorizing Stormy Daniels Payoff​

​

DAMMIT!

 

[Rumpole]

There is no co-conspirator in the Cohen case.

Cohen committed the crime 'at the direction of, in coordination with, for the benefit of, individual-1', who, by default, is the unindicted co-conspirator. That person has been established as Donald Trump. If I forgot the adjective 'unindicted', my apologies, that is what I meant.

First of all federal election matters are federal, not city.

There is more than one enhancement theory named in the Statement Of Facts. If the enhancement crime is a federal crime, that means it can't be charged, but it can be the basis to enhance the 34 counts of Falsifying Business Documents to the First Degree which is a felony, (as I understand the law, "IANAL")

Secondly Cohen's ex lawyer under oath testified that Cohen told him Trump knew nothing about the payment to Stormy nor was he ever reimbursed, and stated he's more than happy to testify to the same thing if it ever does go to trial.

that point will be challenged with context.

Third is the fallacy that it had anything to do with the election since the so-called infraction took place in 2017 when Trump was not running against anybody.

Ah, but the scheme was concocted just before the election of which part was completed before the election. That the payback part of the scheme was done later, doesn't change that fact and by that fact, does not exonerate Trump.

Fourth of course is that even if there was a smidgen of a city case, the statue of limitations ran out two years ago.

The tolling issue has yet to be ruled on, so you don't know that. NY has a tolling law.

Fifth is Fat Alvin's

Your propensity to traffic in cheap shots diminishes your credibility.

star witness lied to the Court and to Congress alike under oath making him a non-credible witness.

It's common that when indicting criminals, that the star witness is also a criminal. Every prosecutor will tell you this. Where your argument fails is that when a witness is a criminal, all that is required is corroboration, and every charge by Cohen is corroborated by documents and testimony.

And we won't even get into the judge issue who's daughter worked in the Biden campaign with Whorris.

You'd better not, it's irrelevant.

More cheap shots. Sorry, I'm not going to bother with the rest of your comment, you are dismissed in this subthread. But I am generous, I will be happy to continue a new discourse, discussion or debate with you in a new thread or subthread to this one, and hopefully you won't resort to cheap shots. I can live with lack of knowledge and weak arguments.

Cheers,

Rumpole

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Cohen committed the crime 'at the direction of, in coordination with, for the benefit of, individual-1', who, by default, is the unindicted co-conspirator. That person has been established as Donald Trump. If I forgot the adjective 'unindicted', my apologies, that is what I meant.

There is more than one enhancement theory named in the Statement Of Facts. If the enhancement crime is a federal crime, that means it can't be charged, but it can be the basis to enhance the 34 counts of Falsifying Business Documents to the First Degree which is a felony, (as I understand the law, "IANAL")

that point will be challenged with context.

Ah, but the scheme was concocted just before the election of which part was completed before the election. That the payback part of the scheme was done later, doesn't change that fact and by that fact, does not exonerate Trump.

The tolling issue has yet to be ruled on, so you don't know that. NY has a tolling law.

Your propensity to traffic in cheap shots diminishes your credibility.

It's common that when indicting criminals, that the star witness is also a criminal. Every prosecutor will tell you this. Where your argument fails is that when a witness is a criminal, all that is required is corroboration, and every charge by Cohen is corroborated by documents and testimony.

You'd better not, it's irrelevant.

More cheap shots. Sorry, I'm not going to bother with the rest of your comment, you are dismissed in this subthread. But I am generous, I will be happy to continue a new discourse, discussion or debate with you in a new thread or subthread to this one, and hopefully you won't resort to cheap shots. I can live with lack of knowledge and weak arguments.

Cheers,

Rumpole

Look....... I told you about breaking up my posts, and instead of trying to minimize it, you enhanced it therefore I'm not responding to yours any longer. I don't have the time to spend an hour per response. Like I said, if you can't find a high school in your area to learn how to respond without doing that, I'm not going to waste anymore of my time.

 

[westwall]

Here's a question for you:

1. If a jury convicts Trump, would accept that he is guilty?
2. If a jury convicted Biden, would you accept that he is guilty?


So, if your answer is the same, yes, or no, you are not biased.

But if your answer is yes or one, and no for the other, 'in my opinion', you are biased.

Whatever that truth is, now you know it for certain.

I would answer yes, because I believe in the justice system.

Yes, sometimes verdicts are wrong, but the odds of the verdict being wrong twice on two of the most powerful political figures, I don't buy that argument. In fact, I don't buy it that a jury would be wrong on one. The stakes are too high, the evidence will be scrutinized on a level we haven't seen in the justice system, they will go to a great length to get it right, one way or the other. Justice will prevail.

Trump will be tried, and if the jury is unanimous for a guilty or innocent verdict, I will abide by it. And so should you.

This LEGAL system(it stopped being a justice system when it stopped enforcing the law against dems) is corrupt to the core.

It is not worth paying attention to.

 

[Rumpole]

This LEGAL system(it stopped being a justice system when it stopped enforcing the law against dems) is corrupt to the core.

It is not worth paying attention to.

Westwall, please allow me to restore your faith in the US Justice system, all of the following are democrats, though *Traficant, at some juncture, converted from Democrat to Independent, though he continued to caucus with dems. Now, I do realize, at the executive branch, it is clear there are more convictions for Republicans, but I'm sorry, Dems haven't produced characters like Nixon, Reagan, and Trump all of whose entourage were rife with criminals. Clintons, only a couple. Hope we can do better for you in the future. Cheers, Rumpole

1. Daniel J. Flood (U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania): Pleaded guilty to a conspiracy charge in 1980.
2. Raymond Lederer (U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania): Convicted in the Abscam bribery scandal in 1981.
3. Harrison A. Williams (U.S. Senator from New Jersey): Convicted in the Abscam bribery scandal in 1981.
4. Mario Biaggi (U.S. Representative from New York): Convicted on charges of racketeering, bribery, and extortion in 1987.
5. Mel Reynolds (U.S. Representative from Illinois): Convicted on charges of sexual assault, obstruction of justice, and solicitation of child pornography in 1995.
6. *James A. Traficant Jr. (U.S. Representative from Ohio): Convicted on charges of bribery, racketeering, and tax evasion in 2002.
7. William J. Jefferson (U.S. Representative from Louisiana): Convicted on charges of bribery, racketeering, and money laundering in 2009.
8. Rod Blagojevich (former Governor of Illinois): Convicted on charges of corruption, including attempting to sell Barack Obama's Senate seat, in 2011.
9. Chaka Fattah (U.S. Representative from Pennsylvania): Convicted on charges of racketeering, fraud, and money laundering in 2016.