The Commie DC/NYC (and Elsewhere) Judges And Jury Pools

[BillStime]

 

[BillsFanNC]

^^^^^

 

What entertainment does the court jester bring today?

[BillStime]

 

[TSOL]

Is that for the mattress tag thing? ^

[Westside]

The corrupt left and their stupid supporters must keep the limelight off the biden cartel. Keep indicting him until the corrupt biden cartel news blows over. 

You’d have to be a complete moron to believe this isn’t a witch hunt. 

[BillsFanNC]

 

It's like putting Lincoln on trial in Charleston, SC in 1860. 

 

 

[BillsFanNC]

Cue The King:

 

It absolutely was an armed insurrection.  You can clearly see that the vast majority of J6 insuurectionists still have two arms.

 

 

 

 

[The Frankish Reich]

What is "shocking" here is the inability of Trumpists to admit that a mob storming the Capitol, chanting things like "Hang [the Vice President]" would be considered anything other than an attempted overthrow of the government.

[ChiGoose]

6 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

What is "shocking" here is the inability of Trumpists to admit that a mob storming the Capitol, chanting things like "Hang [the Vice President]" would be considered anything other than an attempted overthrow of the government.

Especially when you consider that their avowed plan was to halt or delay the counting so that it can be thrown to the individual states and/or they can execute the fake electors plan. 

[wnyguy]

24 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

What is "shocking" here is the inability of Trumpists to admit that a mob storming the Capitol, chanting things like "Hang [the Vice President]" would be considered anything other than an attempted overthrow of the government.

It was a mostly peaceful protest, they learned it by watching your side.

[All_Pro_Bills]

20 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

Especially when you consider that their avowed plan was to halt or delay the counting so that it can be thrown to the individual states and/or they can execute the fake electors plan. 

I have a copy of that "plan".  It's like the one the Coyote has used to try catching the Roadrunner.  There was no "plan".  

[BillsFanNC]

39 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

Especially when you consider that their avowed plan was to halt or delay the counting so that it can be thrown to the individual states and/or they can execute the fake electors plan. 

 

What's "shocking" is that useful idiots like The King here and Finding Qanon don't even want to ask how it's possible that a rag tag bunch of middle aged, unarmed protesters were able to storm the Capitol of the most powerful nation this planet has ever known with incredible ease.

 

It's akin to 12 random stadium wall posters taking the field against the Bills offense and holding them to negative yards.

 

Useful.

 

Idiots.

 

[ChiGoose]

25 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

I have a copy of that "plan".  It's like the one the Coyote has used to try catching the Roadrunner.  There was no "plan".  

 

I'm sorry that whatever your media diet is, it has kept you in a bubble. They had a plan. It was dumb, unconstitutional, and illegal, but it was a plan and it was what they were trying to do. It's like a dumb version of the election of 1876 but on steroids.

 

Here's the memo on their plan

 

1. VP Pence, presiding over the joint session (or Senate Pro Tempore Grassley, if Pence recuses himself), begins to open and count the ballots, starting with Alabama (without conceding that the procedure, specified by the Electoral Count Act, of going through the States alphabetically is required).
2. When he gets to Arizona, he announces that he has multiple slates of electors, and so is going to defer decision on that until finishing the other States. This would be the first break with the procedure set out in the Act.
3. At the end, he announces that because of the ongoing disputes in the 7 States, there are no electors that can be deemed validly appointed in those States. That means the total number of “electors appointed” – the language of the 12th Amendment -- is 454. This reading of the 12th Amendment has also been advanced by Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe (here). A “majority of the electors appointed” would therefore be 228. There are at this point 232 votes for Trump, 222 votes for Biden. Pence then gavels President Trump as re-elected.
4. Howls, of course, from the Democrats, who now claim, contrary to Tribe’s prior position, that 270 is required. So Pence says, fine. Pursuant to the 12th Amendment, no candidate has achieved the necessary majority. That sends the matter to the House, where the “the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote . . . .” Republicans currently control 26 of the state delegations, the bare majority needed to win that vote. President Trump is re-elected there as well.
5. One last piece. Assuming the Electoral Count Act process is followed and, upon getting the objections to the Arizona slates, the two houses break into their separate chambers, we should not allow the Electoral Count Act constraint on debate to control. That would mean that a prior legislature was determining the rules of the present one — a constitutional no-no (as Tribe has forcefully argued). So someone – Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, etc. – should demand normal rules (which includes the filibuster). That creates a stalemate that would give the state legislatures more time to weigh in to formally support the alternate slate of electors, if they had not already done so.
6. The main thing here is that Pence should do this without asking for permission – either from a vote of the joint session or from the Court. Let the other side challenge his actions in court, where Tribe (who in 2001 conceded the President of the Senate might be in charge of counting the votes) and others who would press a lawsuit would have their past position -- that these are non-justiciable political questions – thrown back at them, to get the lawsuit dismissed. The fact is that the Constitution assigns this power to the Vice President as the ultimate arbiter. We should take all of our actions with that in mind.

 

 

[All_Pro_Bills]

4 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

I'm sorry that whatever your media diet is, it has kept you in a bubble. They had a plan. It was dumb, unconstitutional, and illegal, but it was a plan and it was what they were trying to do. It's like a dumb version of the election of 1876 but on steroids.

 

Here's the memo on their plan

 

1. VP Pence, presiding over the joint session (or Senate Pro Tempore Grassley, if Pence recuses himself), begins to open and count the ballots, starting with Alabama (without conceding that the procedure, specified by the Electoral Count Act, of going through the States alphabetically is required).
2. When he gets to Arizona, he announces that he has multiple slates of electors, and so is going to defer decision on that until finishing the other States. This would be the first break with the procedure set out in the Act.
3. At the end, he announces that because of the ongoing disputes in the 7 States, there are no electors that can be deemed validly appointed in those States. That means the total number of “electors appointed” – the language of the 12th Amendment -- is 454. This reading of the 12th Amendment has also been advanced by Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe (here). A “majority of the electors appointed” would therefore be 228. There are at this point 232 votes for Trump, 222 votes for Biden. Pence then gavels President Trump as re-elected.
4. Howls, of course, from the Democrats, who now claim, contrary to Tribe’s prior position, that 270 is required. So Pence says, fine. Pursuant to the 12th Amendment, no candidate has achieved the necessary majority. That sends the matter to the House, where the “the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote . . . .” Republicans currently control 26 of the state delegations, the bare majority needed to win that vote. President Trump is re-elected there as well.
5. One last piece. Assuming the Electoral Count Act process is followed and, upon getting the objections to the Arizona slates, the two houses break into their separate chambers, we should not allow the Electoral Count Act constraint on debate to control. That would mean that a prior legislature was determining the rules of the present one — a constitutional no-no (as Tribe has forcefully argued). So someone – Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, etc. – should demand normal rules (which includes the filibuster). That creates a stalemate that would give the state legislatures more time to weigh in to formally support the alternate slate of electors, if they had not already done so.
6. The main thing here is that Pence should do this without asking for permission – either from a vote of the joint session or from the Court. Let the other side challenge his actions in court, where Tribe (who in 2001 conceded the President of the Senate might be in charge of counting the votes) and others who would press a lawsuit would have their past position -- that these are non-justiciable political questions – thrown back at them, to get the lawsuit dismissed. The fact is that the Constitution assigns this power to the Vice President as the ultimate arbiter. We should take all of our actions with that in mind.

 

 

But it wasn't executed.  You can say it was a "conspiracy" but rarely is conspiracy a standalone charge absent some actionable offense.    

[ChiGoose]

1 minute ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

But it wasn't executed.  You can say it was a "conspiracy" but rarely is conspiracy a standalone charge absent some actionable offense.    

 

Conspiracy is charged if a member of the conspiracy takes an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.

 

Doesn't require success or even likelihood of success.

[BillsFanNC]

8 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

I'm sorry that whatever your media diet is, it has kept you in a bubble. They had a plan. It was dumb, unconstitutional, and illegal, but it was a plan and it was what they were trying to do. It's like a dumb version of the election of 1876 but on steroids.

 

Here's the memo on their plan

 

1. VP Pence, presiding over the joint session (or Senate Pro Tempore Grassley, if Pence recuses himself), begins to open and count the ballots, starting with Alabama (without conceding that the procedure, specified by the Electoral Count Act, of going through the States alphabetically is required).
2. When he gets to Arizona, he announces that he has multiple slates of electors, and so is going to defer decision on that until finishing the other States. This would be the first break with the procedure set out in the Act.
3. At the end, he announces that because of the ongoing disputes in the 7 States, there are no electors that can be deemed validly appointed in those States. That means the total number of “electors appointed” – the language of the 12th Amendment -- is 454. This reading of the 12th Amendment has also been advanced by Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe (here). A “majority of the electors appointed” would therefore be 228. There are at this point 232 votes for Trump, 222 votes for Biden. Pence then gavels President Trump as re-elected.
4. Howls, of course, from the Democrats, who now claim, contrary to Tribe’s prior position, that 270 is required. So Pence says, fine. Pursuant to the 12th Amendment, no candidate has achieved the necessary majority. That sends the matter to the House, where the “the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote . . . .” Republicans currently control 26 of the state delegations, the bare majority needed to win that vote. President Trump is re-elected there as well.
5. One last piece. Assuming the Electoral Count Act process is followed and, upon getting the objections to the Arizona slates, the two houses break into their separate chambers, we should not allow the Electoral Count Act constraint on debate to control. That would mean that a prior legislature was determining the rules of the present one — a constitutional no-no (as Tribe has forcefully argued). So someone – Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, etc. – should demand normal rules (which includes the filibuster). That creates a stalemate that would give the state legislatures more time to weigh in to formally support the alternate slate of electors, if they had not already done so.
6. The main thing here is that Pence should do this without asking for permission – either from a vote of the joint session or from the Court. Let the other side challenge his actions in court, where Tribe (who in 2001 conceded the President of the Senate might be in charge of counting the votes) and others who would press a lawsuit would have their past position -- that these are non-justiciable political questions – thrown back at them, to get the lawsuit dismissed. The fact is that the Constitution assigns this power to the Vice President as the ultimate arbiter. We should take all of our actions with that in mind.

 

 

 Stunning stupidly,  even for The King.

[All_Pro_Bills]

6 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

Conspiracy is charged if a member of the conspiracy takes an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.

 

Doesn't require success or even likelihood of success.

It does require action.  Does this furtherance meet the criteria for action?  That's the question. 

 

If you and I decide to rob a bank, write down a 5 step plan, discuss the plan, drive by the bank to check it out, and then decide not to do it, then the cops find out we discussed a plan to rob the bank do you think they're going arrest us and a prosecutor would acquire an indictment and attempt to try and convict us of conspiracy to rob the bank? 

[The Frankish Reich]

13 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

But it wasn't executed.  You can say it was a "conspiracy" but rarely is conspiracy a standalone charge absent some actionable offense.    

It wasn't "executed" because Pence failed to cooperate, being "very weak" and all of that.

I think you need to research what a criminal conspiracy means. Conspiracy charges are all about planning to do something illegal and taking steps ("overt acts") toward accomplishing that illegal act.

[ChiGoose]

4 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

It does require action.  Does this furtherance meet the criteria for action?  That's the question. 

 

If you and I decide to rob a bank, write down a 5 step plan, discuss the plan, drive by the bank to check it out, and then decide not to do it, then the cops find out we discussed a plan to rob the bank do you think they're going arrest us and a prosecutor would acquire an indictment and attempt to try and convict us of conspiracy to rob the bank? 

 

The "decide not to do it" part of your hypothetical is inapplicable here since they very much were trying to do it.

 

If you and I plan to rob a bank and then I drive you to the bank to rob it, we are both guilty of conspiracy to rob the bank (even though normally giving someone a ride to a bank isn't a crime).

 

If you and I plan to rob a bank and then I illegally hack into the bank's security system, you would be liable for the hacking even if you didn't do it, or weren't even with me when I did it.

 

They had a plan, they took many steps to execute the plan, but the plan failed. They can still be found guilty of the conspiracy even if it was unsuccessful.

[All_Pro_Bills]

17 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

 

The "decide not to do it" part of your hypothetical is inapplicable here since they very much were trying to do it.

 

If you and I plan to rob a bank and then I drive you to the bank to rob it, we are both guilty of conspiracy to rob the bank (even though normally giving someone a ride to a bank isn't a crime).

 

If you and I plan to rob a bank and then I illegally hack into the bank's security system, you would be liable for the hacking even if you didn't do it, or weren't even with me when I did it.

 

They had a plan, they took many steps to execute the plan, but the plan failed. They can still be found guilty of the conspiracy even if it was unsuccessful.

I think people are making a lot of assumptions about what they believe and what a jury might believe given counter arguments from a defense counsel vs. a grand jury indictment where the prosecutor will tell the GJ the minimum necessary information to acquire an indictment on the charges they've submitted.  Such as the bolded hypothetical below.  A prosecutor might argue that I'm complicit but convincing a jury when confronted by a defense argument might not so easy.  Given I had no knowledge of your actions and wasn't present when the hack occurred.  Not to mention it wasn't part of "the plan".

 

The other part is the unconstitutionality of it all.  You might have a better understanding of the details around the charges than I do but I don't recall any of the charges indicating any specific article or amendment to the Constitution was violated in the indictments.  One thing for sure, any convictions will be appealed.  Perhaps all the way to the Supreme Court.

 

Also not sure any of this is hurting Trump, or maybe helping Biden is a more appropriate way of looking at it.  CBS news poll has Trump over Biden right now 50/49.  Which seems incredible.

 

https://www.scribd.com/document/671717605/cbsnews-20230917-SUN#