The Orwellian Prohibition: Any Mention of Mr. Trump’s Felon Status On The House Floor

IMG_6901.jpeg
 
Judgement is civil cases. Criminal is different try checking out this link.


After reaching a decision, the jury notifies the bailiff, who notifies the judge. All of the participants reconvene in the courtroom and the decision is announced. The announcement may be made by either the foreperson or the court clerk.

Possible verdicts in criminal cases are guilty or not guilty. In a civil suit, the jury will find for the plaintiff or the defendant. If the jury finds for the plaintiff, it will also usually set out the amount the defendant should pay the plaintiff for damages, often after a separate hearing concerning damages. The jury will also make a decision on any counterclaims that may be part of the case.

The lawyer for either party may ask that the jury be polled , although the request usually comes from the losing party. This means each juror will be asked if he or she agrees with the decision, as announced. This is to make sure that the verdict announced is the actual verdict of the jury. After the decision is read and accepted by the court, the jury is dismissed, and the trial is over.


Possible Verdicts are Guilty or Not Guilty. So try again. Link to these lawyers who say you really aren’t guilty until the sentencing.
I cannot answer for your inability to understand the written word. This is why i ignore democrats when you want links or proof. It's a waste of time. You changed your criteria. Now you are yammering,about guilty not guilty. The issue is CONVICTION. not determination of guilt. A defendant is not convicted until there is a judgement of conviction and sentencing.
 
I cannot answer for your inability to understand the written word. This is why i ignore democrats when you want links or proof. It's a waste of time. You changed your criteria. Now you are yammering,about guilty not guilty. The issue is CONVICTION. not determination of guilt. A defendant is not convicted until there is a judgement of conviction and sentencing.

So when Trump vowed to appeal the conviction he was talking out his ass?

 
No toleration of criticizing Mr. Trump as a felon is allowed. Is this the ultimate in cancel culture? Gaga order? Is this an attack on Freedom of Speech, disguised as some congressional rule preventing certain types of speech?

What slippery road has the GOP of today gone down in order to shield, or protect Mr. Trump? What kind of behavior is this?

View attachment 965858

congressional memo

On the House Floor, Republicans Gag Mentions of Trump’s Conviction​

During official proceedings of the G.O.P.-controlled chamber, speaking about former President Donald J. Trump’s felony conviction has been forbidden, while disparaging President Biden and Democrats is routine.


The Republicans who now hold the majority have used those rules to impose what is essentially a gag order against talking about Mr. Trump’s hush-money payments to a porn actress or about the fact that he is a felon at all, notwithstanding that those assertions are no longer merely allegations but the basis of a jury’s guilty verdict. Doing so, they have declared, is a violation of House rules.

...

“The chair would remind members to refrain from engaging in personalities toward presumptive nominees for the office of the president,” is now a common phrase heard in the chamber after the mention of the words “Trump” and “felon.”

On one occasion, Republicans barred Representative Jim McGovern, Democrat of Massachusetts, from speaking for the rest of the day and deleted his comments from the Congressional Record after he railed against Mr. Trump and his court cases.

“When they censor any mention of Donald Trump’s criminal convictions, they are essentially trying to ban a fact,” Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the top Democrat on the Oversight Committee, said in an interview. “I am not aware of any precedent where factual statements have been banned in our lifetime.”

The rightwing deep state.
 
Or, he assumed the judge, based on the verdict would enter a judgment of conviction at sentencing. Right now, the verdict of the jury is in question because if juror misconduct. If the verdict is set aside, there will be no judgment of conviction. Hence, no conviction. None of this is making any sense to you is it?
 
No toleration of criticizing Mr. Trump as a felon is allowed. Is this the ultimate in cancel culture? Gaga order? Is this an attack on Freedom of Speech, disguised as some congressional rule preventing certain types of speech?

What slippery road has the GOP of today gone down in order to shield, or protect Mr. Trump? What kind of behavior is this?

View attachment 965858

congressional memo

On the House Floor, Republicans Gag Mentions of Trump’s Conviction​

During official proceedings of the G.O.P.-controlled chamber, speaking about former President Donald J. Trump’s felony conviction has been forbidden, while disparaging President Biden and Democrats is routine.


The Republicans who now hold the majority have used those rules to impose what is essentially a gag order against talking about Mr. Trump’s hush-money payments to a porn actress or about the fact that he is a felon at all, notwithstanding that those assertions are no longer merely allegations but the basis of a jury’s guilty verdict. Doing so, they have declared, is a violation of House rules.

...

“The chair would remind members to refrain from engaging in personalities toward presumptive nominees for the office of the president,” is now a common phrase heard in the chamber after the mention of the words “Trump” and “felon.”

On one occasion, Republicans barred Representative Jim McGovern, Democrat of Massachusetts, from speaking for the rest of the day and deleted his comments from the Congressional Record after he railed against Mr. Trump and his court cases.

“When they censor any mention of Donald Trump’s criminal convictions, they are essentially trying to ban a fact,” Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the top Democrat on the Oversight Committee, said in an interview. “I am not aware of any precedent where factual statements have been banned in our lifetime.”

:th_Back_2_Topic_2:

OP

Page/post #1

JQA Adams house floor collapse text.jpg


 
Or, he assumed the judge, based on the verdict would enter a judgment of conviction at sentencing. Right now, the verdict of the jury is in question because if juror misconduct. If the verdict is set aside, there will be no judgment of conviction. Hence, no conviction. None of this is making any sense to you is it?

You keep putting personal desire in place of facts or truth.

A Facebook post. Please. If there are three posts in a row on Facebook or Twitter that tell the truth it would herald the apocalypse.


What is happening now is everyone is weighing in on the Sentence. They’re all doing reports and motions for the Judge. The Defense is saying probation or house arrest for the minimum time by the sentencing guidelines. The prosecution is making a motion for the maximum penalty. The probation department is reporting on the viability of house arrest, and monitored release. The Department of Corrections is doing the initial assessment for which prison at which security level. Add to that the Secret Service which is charged by law to protect Trump, and there is enough paper being generated to wipe out a decent sized grouping of trees.

On July 11th, we will all learn what punishment Trump is sentenced to from his conviction.
 
So is the fact that only hardened democrats believe this is the result of a fair trial.

I said when all the cases were still in the preliminary that I thought the NY case was the weakest. I figured that the odds favored an acquittal. You can look it up. I gave it 60/40 in favor of Not Guilty. But I underestimated the stupidity of Trump.

His defense was among the worst I’ve ever heard about. Instead of attacking the weakest part of the evidence he spent most of their time screaming that Trump had not slept with Stormy Daniels and Cohen was just awful.

I figured that in New York finding a competent defense attorney would be a breeze. The Lord knows there are a hell of a lot of lawyers in that town.

I still believe there are competent Attorneys in New York. I just think Trump didn’t hire them.

That was his mistake. And somehow he lost a case he should have been able to win.
 

Forum List

Back
Top