7130

They certainly should request change of venues. The prosecutors know their huge advantage in the venue they got, and will fight it tooth and nail.
The election case in DC alleges parts of crimes occurring in numerous states. The case could have been brought in any of those locations. The prosecutors brought the case in DC for a reason.
And it is a little curious that only Democrat DA’s and Democrat AG’s initiated any of these actions. No one else saw a crime. It screams political.

1 Like
7131

Aha:

“At the heart of Chutkan’s analysis — like most of her colleagues’ as well — is a rejection of Trump’s premise. Just because a juror is affiliated with one political party — and even opposes the political views of someone facing charges — does not mean they are incapable of setting aside those views to judge a case based on evidence and facts.”

Yeah. Sure. Take for example a nice race based case in 1950s Mississippi. It’s nonsense. They have him where they want him and are not letting him move to an impartial jury pool location.

1 Like
7132

Are you saying he is wrong? Did you actually do all those things that he said you didn’t do?

7133

How many indictments, false charges, accusations, failed impeachments, negative media coverage…etc…have any of your examples received compared to Trump? You could combine all of them and it still isn’t even close to being the equivalent. Libs have been manipulated/sheoplized by the forces feeding them that their TDS has them regurgibleating orange man baaa, baaa, baaad 24/7/365.

3 Likes
7134

Actually…you don’t “got it” but allow me to help.

This right can be found in the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution where it states, “the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.”

2 Likes
7135

Maybe, just maybe, Trump is the one breaking laws, and these other people who you hate, and who generate hours oof negative coverage, and accusations, haven’t.

7136

There is a system for selecting an impartial jury. Do you not trust it?

7137

Uh, huh…the perfect sheoplized response. In the many years this has been going on, how many convictions have their been?

7138

When a jury is selected from a pool of citizens where 95% voted against the person being tried, IMHO…there’s some potential bias here that would require the trial to be relocated IF …the goal was for an impartial jury? The fact that it wasn’t moved from the DC jury pool reinforces my belief that our once trusted systems…have been weaponized.

3 Likes
7139

image
image831×181 27.6 KB

Let me help. There isn’t a period after jury in the amendment, understandable because you quoted a web site and not the amendment.

The amendment says, image above, also that the jury will be from the state or district where the crime was committed.

WW

2 Likes
7141

Allow me then to repeat myself because there is no such thing as an “impartial jury” when 95% of them voted against the defendant and when the media has pounded the airwaves for years spreading hateful information about him to them. In such an instance, when the goal is for an impartial jury, it would have been relocated or “change of venue”.

1 Like
7142

If they get a conviction in Florida… what then?

7143

Why bother? We know that you wouldn’t be satisfied unless and until the trial was relocated to ruby red Trump country. And then, this alleged bias swings the other way: same problem, different angle.

It’s not perfect, but it’s the system we’ve got.

7144

When the bias is 95% and this is your response…you prove that you do not desire actual justice for all.

1 Like
7145

There are currently four trials against Trump right now and the probability of this denotes that our judicial system has been weaponized. How sad that it’s being used for political purposes and there is no denying this truth.

1 Like
7146

Or… how about this one… Trump likely committed a bunch of crimes.

Is that one possible?

1 Like
7147

Yep…and so they try him after the statute of limitations has expired and it gets kicked out. Now you tell me…who ever indicted him in the first place, should they already have known this? What’s happening is criminal.

7148

The funny part is that relying on the statute of limitations doesn’t show that Trump committed no crime… only that he probably got away with it.

7149

Ah, the struggles of those who expect to be protected by the system, but not bound by it.

For years, you couldn’t get a righty to give a rip about the criminal justice system; in fact, they’d want things to be worse, for surely “those people” deserved what they got, and more.

But now “those people” are very publicly their own, and all of a sudden it’s a problem. Perhaps this realization is a silver lining, but I wouldn’t hold my breath.

2 Likes
7150

I ask this question and this is your response.

Your ignoring this very pertinent question is representative of the many people across our nation that have been sheoplized…orange man baaa, baaa, baaad.