The Walls be Closing

[Kemp]

Trump addresses a crisis that he alone seems to be facing.

Hasn't anyone told him that he can let more water in by turning the knob?

[BillsFanNC]

 

 

[49er Fan]

WE WILL BE IMMEDIATELY ASKING FOR RECUSAL OF THIS JUDGE ON VERY POWERFUL GROUNDS

 

AND LIKEWISE FOR VENUE CHANGE

 

Good luck fat boy!

[Kemp]

1 hour ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

 

 

People who refer to themselves as fake electors shouldn't be surprised when others believe they are fake.

[All_Pro_Bills]

6 hours ago, BillStime said:

Lock her up bro.

 

JFC - watching these idiots spin their way defending the must corrupt POTUS in our lifetime is glorious.

 

 

I provide some insights from actual experience with grand juries and your response correlates to my post how exactly?  Just weird buddy.

[Kemp]

23 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

I provide some insights from actual experience with grand juries and your response correlates to my post how exactly?  Just weird buddy.

 

I stayed in a Holiday Inn Express.

[BillStime]

23 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

I provide some insights from actual experience with grand juries and your response correlates to my post how exactly?  Just weird buddy.

 

anecdotal

 

an·ec·do·tal

adjective

(of an account) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.

 

 

[Doc]

27 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

I provide some insights from actual experience with grand juries and your response correlates to my post how exactly?  Just weird buddy.

 

Hardly weird.  It's what they do.

[All_Pro_Bills]

2 hours ago, BillStime said:

 

anecdotal

 

an·ec·do·tal

adjective

(of an account) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.

 

 

Hoax!

[BillStime]

3 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Hoax!

👆👇

 

[All_Pro_Bills]

1 minute ago, BillStime said:

👆👇

 

Always got to have the last word, don't you? 

[SectionC3]

6 hours ago, redtail hawk said:

I wonder if someone has been checking his blood pressure.  he's at risk of stroking out.  Fat, deranged and livid is not as good combo.

Him dying before Justice is served would be horrible.  And, I agree with the earlier comment about revoking pre trial release.  Almost anyone else under this set of circumstances would have to post significant bail. 

3 hours ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

I provide some insights from actual experience with grand juries and your response correlates to my post how exactly?  Just weird buddy.

You unwittingly spoke against Trump.  The threshold to indict is legally sufficient evidence to support a conviction.  Same standard applies at trial.   The indictment, as you acknowledge, reflects that the grand jury believes that there is legally sufficient evidence to support a conviction.  Your anecdotal experience informs your view that there is significant — legally sufficient — evidence that trump committed the crimes alleged. 

[All_Pro_Bills]

26 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

You unwittingly spoke against Trump.  The threshold to indict is legally sufficient evidence to support a conviction.  Same standard applies at trial.   The indictment, as you acknowledge, reflects that the grand jury believes that there is legally sufficient evidence to support a conviction.  Your anecdotal experience informs your view that there is significant — legally sufficient — evidence that trump committed the crimes alleged. 

My insights on grand jury are real life experience not anecdotal. And my intent is not to defend or condemn Trump.  My intent is to provide some firsthand insights into the grand jury process while pouring a little cold water on the idea the prosecutor's case must be solid for the grand jury to produce an indictment.  It's a rarity a grand jury will vote for "no indictment".  

A glitch in that argument equating the indictment with a "strong case" is the grand jury only hears the evidence and testimony the prosecutor wants them to consider.  While that might be "sufficient evidence to support a conviction" it's not the totality of the case the prosecutor will likely present, and the grand jury considers nothing the defense might present because the defense doesn't participate except under the the most unusual of circumstances.

A jury trial is significantly different than a grand jury session.  At a jury trial the prosecutor and defense can lay out their case to the jury with opening statements.  The defense can raise motions with the court on issues like probable cause for things like searches and warrants, the admissibility and suppression of evidence, and present witnesses or expert testimony that will counter or refute the expert and witness testimony brought to the trial by the prosecution.  

 

[SectionC3]

1 minute ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

My insights on grand jury are real life experience not anecdotal. And my intent is not to defend or condemn Trump.  My intent is to provide some firsthand insights into the grand jury process while pouring a little cold water on the idea the prosecutor's case must be solid for the grand jury to produce an indictment.  It's a rarity a grand jury will vote for "no indictment".  

A glitch in that argument equating the indictment with a "strong case" is the grand jury only hears the evidence and testimony the prosecutor wants them to consider.  While that might be "sufficient evidence to support a conviction" it's not the totality of the case the prosecutor will likely present, and the grand jury considers nothing the defense might present because the defense doesn't participate except under the the most unusual of circumstances.

A jury trial is significantly different than a grand jury session.  At a jury trial the prosecutor and defense can lay out their case to the jury with opening statements.  The defense can raise motions with the court on issues like probable cause for things like searches and warrants, the admissibility and suppression of evidence, and present witnesses or expert testimony that will counter or refute the expert and witness testimony brought to the trial by the prosecution.  

 

Thanks for the insight.  Hoax.  I don’t have enough time to explain how clueless this is.  Bottom line: an indictment is based upon legally sufficient evidence.  It’s the same standard that applies at trial.  And away we go. 

[BillsFanNC]

^^^^^^

 

Hoax.

[BillsFanNC]

Nicely said. The critical distinction that TDS patients will never get.

 

Nor should we expect them to. They're just being the useful idiots that they are.

 

 

[Kemp]

A little off-topic, but what's wrong with him?

 

He thinks the result of a soccer match is determined by "wokeness".

 

 

[Doc]

3 hours ago, BillsFanNC said:

Nicely said. The critical distinction that TDS patients will never get.

 

Nor should we expect them to. They're just being the useful idiots that they are.

 

 

 

As if Dems can talk with how they excuse Joke's behavior.

[Westside]

On 8/5/2023 at 4:57 PM, L Ron Burgundy said:

I'm laughing at you.  You are just like that chit for brains orange turd.  They're all against us!  So unfair!  All because someone that committed crimes is being held accountable.   The talking points go out his arse and right into your mouth and back out again.   But maybe ATM is your thing.   

No evidence of any crime committed by Trump. Just accusations.

[L Ron Burgundy]

2 minutes ago, Westside said:

No evidence of any crime committed by Trump. Just accusations.

Except a phone call where he admits he's breaking the law willfully.   You probably ignored that though.  God forbid you listen to facts about your half-wit hero.  

 

Keep twisting.  You don't seem like a moron I promise.