BillsFanNC Posted August 23, 2022 Author Posted August 23, 2022 Once again in chigoose fashion we have morons like @The Frankish Reich attacking the messenger. This is why I've provided updates of what other media outlets have done in this trial. It's overwhelmingly been silence from them. I'm sure that will change now that the desired verdict has been reached. If you wanted daily coverage from someone who listened to the entire trial then Julie Kelly was your source on a national level. There were no other options. And now the clowns come out as expected. 1
wnyguy Posted August 23, 2022 Posted August 23, 2022 8 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: True. Because: I am a lawyer. I have proposed and objected to jury instructions. And I have other relevant experience. You’re welcome. (but please, keep listening to your proud housewife instead!) Ooooh a lawyer you say? Let me ask you thIs is there anything that this lowly stay at home mom has tweeted that is factually or legally incorrect?
TH3 Posted August 23, 2022 Posted August 23, 2022 37 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: I have wondered “who is this Julie Kelly that our Trumpy posters seem obsessed with?” So I finally took a few minutes and discovered that she is, in fact, a proud “stay at home mom” and sometime food writer. Good enough to be some people’s Svengali I guess. Now I see she’s opining on jury instructions. Should I add some fresh cracked black pepper to those instructions, Julie? Haha... I always google the tweeters that these guys post here ALL THE TIME...You know who most of them are?....NOBODIES with no relevant educational, life, or professional experience...hell half of them go by a nickname....And clowns like Bman and DR post them like they came out of a buring bush chiseld onto a brick... Julie - FFS - she is just a spigot for the same old taking points she gets in her email.... 2
716er Posted August 23, 2022 Posted August 23, 2022 (edited) On 8/14/2022 at 4:57 PM, DRsGhost said: Yes. No Edited August 23, 2022 by 716er 1
wnyguy Posted August 23, 2022 Posted August 23, 2022 4 minutes ago, TH3 said: Haha... I always google the tweeters that these guys post here ALL THE TIME...You know who most of them are?....NOBODIES with no relevant educational, life, or professional experience...hell half of them go by a nickname....And clowns like Bman and DR post them like they came out of a buring bush chiseld onto a brick... Julie - FFS - she is just a spigot for the same old taking points she gets in her email.... Again has she tweeted anything factually inaccurate? Have you followed this trial? If so, please enlighten us.
BillsFanNC Posted August 23, 2022 Author Posted August 23, 2022 2 minutes ago, wnyguy said: Again has she tweeted anything factually inaccurate? Have you followed this trial? If so, please enlighten us. They wouldn't know one way or the other because they're clowns who know zero about what happened at the trial. Unlike Julie Kelly. @The Frankish Reich with the I'm a lawyer!!! Ummm yeah double barreled middle finger on those credentials. After two plus years of people online telling me that THEY are the experts in vaccine development and molecular diagnostics your credentials mean nothing. Absolutely nothing. 2
B-Man Posted August 23, 2022 Posted August 23, 2022 20 minutes ago, TH3 said: Haha... I always google the tweeters that these guys post here ALL THE TIME...You know who most of them are?....NOBODIES with no relevant educational, life, or professional experience...hell half of them go by a nickname... This is false. I would invite everyone to click on the tweet's author and see if they have more credibility than T3. It's an easy choice. . 2 1
The Frankish Reich Posted August 23, 2022 Posted August 23, 2022 18 minutes ago, DRsGhost said: They wouldn't know one way or the other because they're clowns who know zero about what happened at the trial. Unlike Julie Kelly. @The Frankish Reich with the I'm a lawyer!!! Ummm yeah double barreled middle finger on those credentials. After two plus years of people online telling me that THEY are the experts in vaccine development and molecular diagnostics your credentials mean nothing. Absolutely nothing. DRG, didn’t you just say in the Fauci thread that you have training in molecular biology? So you think you may know more about COVID than, say, a proud housewife and former political consultant? It’s fine and dandy for Julie to comment on testimony at trial, etc. But evidentiary rulings and jury instructions? No. I would ask a lawyer, not a food writer (not even one that may be bankrolled by big Ag).
BillsFanNC Posted August 23, 2022 Author Posted August 23, 2022 10 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: DRG, didn’t you just say in the Fauci thread that you have training in molecular biology? So you think you may know more about COVID than, say, a proud housewife and former political consultant? It’s fine and dandy for Julie to comment on testimony at trial, etc. But evidentiary rulings and jury instructions? No. I would ask a lawyer, not a food writer (not even one that may be bankrolled by big Ag). I'm sure that your credentials take you wherever they should in your professional endeavors. Just as mine do. Here they mean nothing nor do mine. I'm only playing by the rules that are in place online and the wild west that is PPP. Heck, in real life we even have numerous examples of well credentialed scientists, lawyers etc. being silenced and scoffed at because they don't tow the line of thinking approved by the narrative shapers. Julie Kelly in this instance is more than qualified to opine mainly because she is the only source that actually covered and watched the entire trial. You can be Alan Dershowitz, but if you watched 0.0 minutes of the trial I'm still going to defer to the layman's coverage. 1
716er Posted August 23, 2022 Posted August 23, 2022 For the record, Julie Kelly was not the only source that actually covered and watched the entire trial. She may have been the only source that actually covered and watched the entire trial while high on #TrumpCrack, however there are plenty of local Michigan reporters, such as Rachel Louise Just, and national reporters, such as Ken Bensinger of the New York Times, who covered the entire trial in full. 1 1 1
The Frankish Reich Posted August 23, 2022 Posted August 23, 2022 17 minutes ago, DRsGhost said: she is the only source that actually covered and watched the entire trial. Watching a trial means you are qualified to report on what was said, how the parties were dressed, whether the jury seemed bored or interested, etc. See Depp v Heard. It doesn’t make you qualified to opine on whether a judge’s evidentiary rulings or jury instructions are legally correct/flawed, etc. 20 minutes ago, DRsGhost said: being silenced and scoffed at because they don't tow the line Toe. 1
BillsFanNC Posted August 23, 2022 Author Posted August 23, 2022 (edited) 52 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: Watching a trial means you are qualified to report on what was said, how the parties were dressed, whether the jury seemed bored or interested, etc. See Depp v Heard. It doesn’t make you qualified to opine on whether a judge’s evidentiary rulings or jury instructions are legally correct/flawed, etc. Among your professional colleagues in the legal world the above is all true. Just as it is with my fellow immunologists and virologists. Online all bets are off. Especially at PPP. Your credentials and how you use them to determine who is/isn't qualified mean squat here. 52 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: Toe. Correct. Phone auto correct as I'm sure you can appreciate. Now I'm going to use this opportunity to give another bi-weekly-ish shout out to one of my admirers. I ignore this poster with religious zeal, and since you love it when I call out those on my ignore list then there's no better place or time than now, right? hey @716er ***** off! Edited August 23, 2022 by DRsGhost 1
The Frankish Reich Posted August 23, 2022 Posted August 23, 2022 I guess that closes the book on the whole FEDS CONSPIRED TO IMPRISON MICHIGAN BACKWOODS LOSERS ON FAKE POLITICAL KIDNAPPING CHARGES thing? 1
Demongyz Posted August 23, 2022 Posted August 23, 2022 27 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: I guess that closes the book on the whole FEDS CONSPIRED TO IMPRISON MICHIGAN BACKWOODS LOSERS ON FAKE POLITICAL KIDNAPPING CHARGES thing? Well, they did. Perhaps these useful morons should be punished for going along with it, but they did. 1
716er Posted August 23, 2022 Posted August 23, 2022 1 hour ago, DRsGhost said: Among your professional colleagues in the legal world the above is all true. Just as it is with my fellow immunologists and virologists. Online all bets are off. Especially at PPP. Your credentials and how you use them to determine who is/isn't qualified mean squat here. Correct. Phone auto correct as I'm sure you can appreciate. Now I'm going to use this opportunity to give another bi-weekly-ish shout out to one of my admirers. I ignore this poster with religious zeal, and since you love it when I call out those on my ignore list then there's no better place or time than now, right? hey @716er ***** off! 1
BillsFanNC Posted August 23, 2022 Author Posted August 23, 2022 2 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said: I guess that closes the book on the whole FEDS CONSPIRED TO IMPRISON MICHIGAN BACKWOODS LOSERS ON FAKE POLITICAL KIDNAPPING CHARGES thing? It looks like the lawyer who followed this case in detail forgot about the two "kidnappers" who were acquitted by a jury in April based on an FBI entrapment defense.
The Frankish Reich Posted August 23, 2022 Posted August 23, 2022 (edited) 13 minutes ago, DRsGhost said: It looks like the lawyer who followed this case in detail forgot about the two "kidnappers" who were acquitted by a jury in April based on an FBI entrapment defense. Well, let’s think about that. A reasonable finder of fact (a jury, or two of them) could find that some of the accused had a pre-existing propensity to engage in a violent action (today’s guilty verdicts) but that others did not (the first trial acquittals). So there was a conspiracy to do grave harm to the Gov, but not all of the charged conspirators are guilty. Edited August 23, 2022 by The Frankish Reich
Tiberius Posted August 23, 2022 Posted August 23, 2022 2 hours ago, B-Man said: No. No it does not. I will be bumped up to a higher court. . A pro-terrorist court? You sure take up for some seriously f'd up people.
TH3 Posted August 23, 2022 Posted August 23, 2022 (edited) 5 hours ago, wnyguy said: Again has she tweeted anything factually inaccurate? Have you followed this trial? If so, please enlighten us. Dude….the post above this literally has her being ONE HUNDRED PERCENT WRONG LOL Edited August 23, 2022 by TH3
ALF Posted August 23, 2022 Posted August 23, 2022 2 men convicted in plot to kidnap Michigan Gov. Whitmer GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. (AP) — A jury on Tuesday convicted two men of conspiring to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer in 2020, delivering swift verdicts in a plot that was broken up by the FBI and described as a rallying cry for a U.S. civil war by anti-government extremists. https://apnews.com/article/elections-presidential-michigan-gretchen-whitmer-grand-rapids-9ad8f100d32e7d5883b1be9d6c4cb8d5
Recommended Posts