The only thing that really matters is how the electorate responds. It should be a Biden win, right?
figured no actual opinion.
What opinion? The jury concluded he was guilty. I haven’t been following it and there were no cameras in the courtroom anyway.
proves the character and values of his voters and the people who will vote for him come the fall. a convicted felon president is historic.
if that happened then this board would actually have an appropriate response to president becoming a convicted felon.
www.mediaite.com
What is the appropriate response, though? Like a lot of people, I'm conditioned to assume he will face no consequences for his actions. So while I think the verdict is good (and I find it very funny), I can't get too invested in it because I don't think anything will come of it.
Exactly what he wanted too. It's hard to waver when the defense hardly makes an effort. What did they call? 2 witnesses? And then he claims afterwords that "many key witnesses" to his defense weren't called to testify. Well why not? Why didn't his attorney call them? Either he's lying about their existence (most likely) or he wasn't that interested in being acquitted anyway (also true).
All people should be held accountable for their actions. Trump and Menendez are equally guilty of the crimes they are accused of. One got a trial where he received 5% of the vote. The other is getting a trial where he got 80% of the vote. Both should be held accountable for their actions but both should also receive a trial in a district where the vote is as close to 50-50 as possible. These are well known people not schmucks off the street. Everyone has a history of opinions of them before the trial begins. I'm sorry but if you think all the jurors are basing these cases on the evidence you are nuts.
Woah I never said they should be locked up. My comment was about the process for 2 highly known political individuals. It's about the process. One getting a trial where he got 5% of the vote and the other gets one where he gets something like 80% of the vote. We can go well past Trump and Menendez as far as politicians who are crooks ranging from the current president to local assemblymen. I don't have faith that the people in a highly red or highly blue area will vote strictly on the facts of the case.
lmao there ya go. bringing someone else up. were talking the former president and current republican presidential candidate. forget anything else. do you have no feelings /opinions on this man that actually committed crimes??
you dont think. criminals should be locked up??
lol news nation on the wrong side of trump now and not a peep from #1 fanboys here.‘How Can You Not Know?!’ Dan Abrams and Megyn Kelly Throw Down Over Trump Verdict
NewsNation host Dan Abrams battled Megyn Kelly on Thursday over the guilty verdict in Donald Trump's criminal trial.
Why should it matter what percentage of the vote a defendant gets? Venue is premised where the crime occurred. Not where he get a low turnout or a high turnout. Are you complaining that the classified document case is venued in Trump district? I bet you are not.
Isn't the goal of a jury of your peers to find an impartial jury? Isn't it safe to assume a black man won't get a fair jury if he could prove the area of the trial is 95% white supremist or vice versa. Are you telling me trials never have a change in venue?
Plenty of precedent of defendants changing venues because of high potential of biased jurors. OJ went from Santa Monica to Los Angeles. I would say he polled better in downtown Los Angeles than Santa Monica, just my guess. LOL
Wrong. Very rare to get change of venue. Your OJ example is also incorrect because the Prosecution moved the venue to accommodate this big trial. This was a huge mistake. However it had nothing to do with the argument you are making.
nonsense. they screen the jurors for this exact reason. its the whole point of screening them.
I would be happy to have a dialogue with you about this, but your habit of throwing out invectives is disturbing. You should be happy not vindictive.
Please. This spells it out. That case didn’t take place where the crime occurred which is the point you were making. Venue makes a world of difference. Prosecution had a much better chance in Santa Monica than LA.
www.latimes.com
the trial was rigged! the election was rigged!
well...... the prosecutor.... I mean the judge disallowed at least one of their witnesses...the FEC expert who would have testified that no federal election laws were broken. There may have been others. Plus he gave the one witness, I forget his name a really hard time..... the one who was disputing Cohen's testimony.
This article doesn’t tell you anything. In the OJ case, The Prosecutors requested the change of venue. They requested it because the courthouse was bigger. It’s a very unusual stance that the prosecutors took. It had nothing to do that it was moved to downtown LA to get a jury of his peers by the defense.Please. This spells it out. That case didn’t take place where the crime occurred which is the point you were making. Venue makes a world of difference. Prosecution had a much better chance in Santa Monica than LA.
Venue Change in Simpson Case
All attorneys, or certainly all litigation attorneys, know that the most important part of a case, and the threshold issue, is attempting to obtain a judge or jury who will give you at least a chance of winning the case.
because you think it's impossible for a maga idiot to ever come to an agreement if they were on a jury.
You should be celebrating embracing the win but you’re still name calling. Get a drink and enjoy, the greatest President now has a platform to run on. He’s better than a convicted felon. Political prosecution will only fan the flames of division. Now Republicans need to respond with the same. Maybe this is the start of something great where we throw lots of politicians in jail. Don’t see this as being a good thing but maybe I’m wrong.
