watthong

Actually the pool of jury is the weakest link in our judicial system. For all the oomph and angst over choices of judges, locations etc. it only takes one juror to upset the apple cart. In a not too recent famous trial (Kittenhouse) the defense even hired a juror-whisperer to be in the courtroom. And we know how Trump gang navigates the underworld. It's like fish to the water.

Looks like he 's clocked out.

We make do with what we got, if crickety old tool, as long as it does the job. In this case kicking the orange butt out of the WH. American spirit... You no american no?

At this point the trumpers are like zombies, regurgitating old nonsense and gurgling gibberish. They wish they were dead, but they can't, being Trumps army of the undead they are doomed to do one thing and one thing only, defending the master at any cost and juncture. At least vampires got a respite when the sun is up.

What's your shift? 8pm to midnight? to the 2nd post above.

Thanks, finally someone answers my question, "why only six unindicted?"

Carson's victory might have been due to that particular judge on his case. I bet on Jack Smith and judge Chutkan would rally together and give this only idiots would believe me argument a "new and improved" interpretation...

Could you give a brief refresher on that case, thanks.

In short if I refuse the fact shown to my face, saying that I can't read, understand etc., does that allow me to plead innocence (non-knowledgement) of the fact? what kind of law is this?

That was a genuine question of mine, not a criticism. Sorry if it sounded that way.

Yeah, proof that their brains has turned to mush. Hard to detox oneself, if ever, from Trump kool-aid.

Trump REFUSED to know. So how does that argument go? That's ultimately he DOESN'T know?

This plea of innocence is bewildering to me. Is it going to work as plea of insanity? Of course we all know that both instances it can be faked. If this is the case I can always hire a lawyer who would tell me it's legal to rob a bank, then go rob a bank. Can I plead innocence/blame it on my lawyer then?

Call me politically miopic but my personally feeling SC is a bridge too far for now. We'll cross when we come to it. Let's get "some" conviction(s) first so we can "toast" Trump (in every sense of the word). The ride is gonna be fun. For every Cannon we get a Chutkan. My interest now turns on the unindicted ones. Why is it declared to be just six?

This is precisely how a MAGA troll operates. Tire you out with their nonsense, irk you to feed them and if you do so wallow in their cesspool of endless non-intel detritus and the thread soon dies of lack of oxygen (intelligent/sensible) discussion, because reasonable folks just don't want to dip their toes into the muck. In short they hijack the thread, turn it into a zombie spreading their worms. The mystery remain how many folks can't seem to refrain themselves from engaging in this kind of nonsensical "debate" and would write long posts responding to the trolls few choice button-pushing words, in the vain hope that these trolls would see the "light..." However by doing that they help the trolls kill the thread (whether that was intentional or not is another matter.) This thread could have been a gloriously lively debate, the day this indictment came out should be enshrined as a national holiday, but so far, a lot of keystrokes have been performed in the service of a few trolls taking turn holding the fort.

You can download the indictment in pdf form here - it took me 2 sec to download. Enjoy. https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23893948/trumpindictment.pdf

Back in medieval times, this surely was complicated. "She swallowed a feather" reported in the next town as "the whole chicken flew out of her mouth!" Now we have smartphones and that helps.

I hope sensible folks will keep this in mind that arguing with a troll is like arguing with an asylum inmate. You walk by their barricaded window, they shout out a few incendiary words, "you're mother is a b-ch" or "Trump won!" - that's enough to stop in your track and have you spend next 10 minutes arguing with the crazies. But ask yourself what good does that do? Is it going to enlighten them? Nope, and you have just wasted 10 minutes of your critical thinking. Keep your blood pressure down and keep on walking. The more you feed the troll the more people will stay away from the topic at hand, thus thread hi-jacked.

Exactly, all that available on youtube. At one time I subscribed to the NY Times, it didn't take long for me to realize it's still one voice. And I need to listen to many. As I said before, discerning is a personal action, whether it's guided by right or wrong is another matter.

Being in Thailand I have to follow news on Youtube. I don't have "personal news/truth." Thank God I still have a mind that is in reasonably state of functioning and can discern right from wrong.

The more we feed (re-act to) the troll, the more he/she will hoard up place from sensible/sensical discussion, and other folks would turn away because they are not interested in the non-sense. In real life meeting/forum, a troll would be called the "agitator." See what is happening in the lower house of US Congress overrun by trolls. In short said troll will succeed in hi-jack (kill) the thread. You can keep feed the thread (keep it alive) by not feeding the troll. Just ignore them like dog turd on your daily walk.

Yep, let's keep the thread/discussion on the right track. Just kick the trash aside. Thanks.

Confession by accusation. Sounds familiar.

Just ignore him - he's trying to hijack this thread and people are turning away from the garbage being spilled out.

MAGA alert! Troll at large (Don't waste your time folks.) The stench is overwhelming!