Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Rearranging your stance now
What ever the demrat/leftists say it is to protect their narrative.I don't understand the term. Would black people say that when a black person is tried with an all white or mostly white jury that it would be called a jury of your peers? What about if you are a staunch Republican (we'll just call him Donald J Trump) and you have a trial in a deep blue city inside a deep blue state (with a deep blue DA and deep blue prosecutors and a deep blue judge)? Would that be called a jury of your peers? What in the hell is a peer?
Because the limited nature of what you are offering does not fully define peerMy stance is the same. That peers are adult citizens who live in the same geographic location.
See post 143, 124, 56, and my very first post in this thread on page 1, post 10.
With me citing the same Cornell Law School legal definition repeatedly in this thread, presented here.
Why would I ignore the commonly used legal definition of 'peer' and instead believe you?
Because the limited nature of what you are offering does not fully define peer
But the jury of one’s peers is required to be IMPARTIAL - as outlined in the Constitution. So too, obviously, must be the judge.In legal terms, its anyone who is an adult citizen. Usually from the same general geographic location as the alleged crime in question.
But the jury of one’s peers is required to be IMPARTIAL - as outlined in the Constitution. So too, obviously, must be the judge.
The judge should have recused himself, and the trial held in Staten Island.
Why would someone need to hack a pc that was already looked at and the emails were missing?
You got any evidence of your screed or are you just an asshole?In Hunter Biden's case, a "jury of his peers" means selecting former drug addicts and people convicted of DUI. Our jury process has MAJOR flaws as anyone with common sense can see.
Not on topic as to peerGO tell that to the convicted felon P01135809.
It was his stupid statement.
Try thinking!
Nope. They were overwhelmingly liberal, and Trump-haters. That doesn’t qualify as an impartial jury. And of course the “judge” was horribly biased.Trump's jury were from the district he lived in and operated his Trump organization in, and where he committed his crimes. And low and behold his group of jurists fit right in....educated jurists who were professionals, living and working in Manhattan.
Judge donated to Biden. Against the rules.Trump had unlimited dismissals of potential jurors for cause. And 10 dismissals for any reason at all. An inability to be impartial being a completely valid reason for dismissal with cause.
Every juror and alternate seated in his trial was an individual that Trump's lawyers had no cause to dismiss.
As for the judge being recused, why?
Nope. They were overwhelmingly liberal, and Trump-haters.
That doesn’t qualify as an impartial jury. And of course the “judge” was horribly biased.
There is no question this miscarriage of justice will be overturned. The only questions are:
1. If the NY appeals court appeals it, will they drag it out until after the election to allow Dems to campaign on the false “convicted felon” nonsense?
"peers of the realm," for example, the nobility is a classI don't understand the term. Would black people say that when a black person is tried with an all white or mostly white jury that it would be called a jury of your peers? What about if you are a staunch Republican (we'll just call him Donald J Trump) and you have a trial in a deep blue city inside a deep blue state (with a deep blue DA and deep blue prosecutors and a deep blue judge)? Would that be called a jury of your peers? What in the hell is a peer?
Judge donated to Biden. Against the rules.
Jury of your peers are Lying Liberals who pretended they cared and promised to be impartial. They were all Trump haters.
In what universe has a individual ever had a long-ago misdemeanor resurrected, and then charged as 34 felonies, due to an underlying unidentified crime, and then the judge throws out different possible crimes it COULD be, and then allows the jury to split 4-4-4?Says who? What is your evidence that these jurors were incapable of being impartial?
You're offering us your imagination of people you don't know, nor have ever met, nor have ever been in the same room with...
....as a legal standard.
It isn't.
Again, says who?
What 'miscarriage of justice'?
Lying liberals who were all Trump haters....says who?
You understand that you making up shit, pretending that you know the heart of hearts of an entire jury you've never met.....has no connection to reality whatsoever.
Right?
Let me guess: Hunter will get a Jury of his Peers and they will all be Biden loving Liberals and say Hunter is innocent.
LET ME JUST GUESS!!!!!!!!!!!
