Straight up lie. She was excused by the judge at her own request due to feeling intimidated by people that have determined who she is and were calling her.
Trump Trial - New York
- Thread starter Bowlmania
- Start date
Johnny maga was lying about Juror 2 and I assume this Trumpster Twitter Twit's tweet is a lie until proven not to be a lie.
Johnny maga lied about the first one. The second Trumpster Twitter Twit is right that the second was released for not disclosing run ins with the law. Prosecutors wanted that person off. Too bad for Trump on that one being dismissed. A lying criminal would probably inclined to be sympathetic to Trump.
This shows that the process is working. An intimidated person wouldn't be a good juror and neither would a lying criminal so they are off the jury.
They're lying to get on the jury. This is not how the process is supposed to work. Of course it's always liberals lying. Same thing happened during the Chauvin trial.
Do people think Trump is entitled to a jury of a particular political party?
A
anon_mya1phvcpf5x4
Guest
Oh you mean like Clay Travis was asking his followers to do? Remind me if he is conservative or liberal? Cant recall
You do know the jury pool is randomly selected right? You could voir dire every jury in the country over the next 6 months and I bet 2 people in each selected juror will have lied. Or misled. Or were mistaken. Whatever turn of phrase you please
All that aside, I feel bad for you. You are a little bundle of hate. Like those little terrier dogs with the underbite who always are filled with such rage because they haven't taken a dump in a week. Well, you've worked yourself into such a latter you have become that little hateful terrier with the underbite.
Yeah, and now he's hoping Bragg arrests him. Great for ratings.
Poll conducted Tuesday and Wednesday this week. He's gaining and your show trial is backfiring.
Wasn't Emerson the polling guys that came out with Trump leading Biden by 10 plus/minus in Pennsylvania a couple of months ago?
Remember what your boy said "All the polls are wrong unless they favor me".
I don’t know anything about DBM’s polls and I still think Trump will lose the election, but you’re kidding yourself if you don’t think this farce is helping him.
I don't pay attention to polls 7 months before the election. It is a long, long, long road to hoe before anybody might have true feel--if ever. I have no idea if this case is or isn't helping trump. Would be nigh impossible to empirically say with any reasonable degree of any precision whether it does or doesn't, because there a million other points that people care about.
If I was this prosecutor, I would have never brought this case. Too complicated; too many connections that have to be made, and there isn't a clean witness on either side of the judge. I said yesterday, Jury will hate everyone and Trump will likely get a hung jury or found not guilty. Unless someone who isn't a conman or liar offers startling testimony, it is a stupid case. That doesn't mean he should or shouldn't get prosecuted, it simply means what I referenced above.
Like that’s never happened before. The liar was discovered, that’s how it’s supposed to work.
No offense, but saying this is a stupid case that you would never have pursued and then saying that doesn’t mean it SHOULDN’T have been pursued doesn’t make a lot of sense.
This case would never have been brought were Trump not running for president. Thats the one thing that’s clear.
Thats problematic on its own because it’s the kind of thing that happens in other countries, not here.
I was just listening to NPR and they specifically said that she asked to be dismiss as she didn't think she could be impartial. And then went on to say that she was concerned that her identity may have been identified.
It makes total sense. And my exact words weren't what you said. I said:
"If I was this prosecutor, I would have never brought this case. Too complicated; too many connections that have to be made, and there isn't a clean witness on either side of the judge." Then I elaborated on what I thought would happen.
The issue becomes whether you can convince a jury that there is a felony--the mis. charge is something else all together. It is complicated to get a felony conviction here. The guys bringing these chargers (prosecutors), have so much to prove and then they have to do it and dumb it down for a jury. I'm not convinced that many prosecutors can do that. U.S. attorneys are a different story. Not only do they have to dumb it down, but they have the world's first or second shittiest witness as major part of this case.
The case was brought because the prosecutors felt a law was broken and that it amounted to felony. It might very well be a felony, but good luck getting a jury to understand it. I don't know, maybe they have a great expert witness. Or a witness who isn't a fraud like Cohen step forward. From my perspective, given all the foregoing, I said wouldn't have filed the case. That doesn't mean the allegations disappear--maybe they reach an out of court deal. Who knows. Both sides have extraordinary risk here.
You have no way of knowing that. It is like proving the non-existence of God. It simply can't be proven.
Yes, she specifically said she was ID’d and was getting calls making her feel intimidated which will make it hard to be impartial. Johnny maga is a liar.
You make it sound like you have to get the jury to understand Einstein's theories of relativity. The jury can "get it" just fine. They are far brighter than you, it would seem. Lawyers, a paralegal, a business owner, someone with a PhD... These are Manhattanites, not hilljacks from rural Martinsville or something.
You try a lot of cases? Not one I bet. Ever sit and talk to a jury after a trial? Not one I bet. Complicated doesn't mean your babble about the theory of relativity, it means convoluted that requires one explainer after the next. Your snide comments about my intelligence aside, you have to convince each juror to get a conviction--not just just a majority.
Nope. Testified at 13 of them though, as an expert witness. I got people even dumber than you to understand chemistry. One Federal judge was too dense, though.
Exactly, you don't know shit superstar.
I quoted you verbatim. You may not have meant it as I interpreted it but you did say it.
For the record, they are kicking this guy off for something he did likely 30 years ago. For Trump, that may actually have been a bad move. If this guy truly did find Trump fascinating / mysterious, it's very possible that he was on Trump's side, but something stupid he did as a kid / young adult just got him removed. I am certainly a heck of a lot more conservative now relative to who I was 30 years ago.
If a jury selection process knew some of the things I got away with in the 80's / 90's.......
I still thank the Lord everyday that social media did not exist back in my high school years.
Wrong! The jury pool has been infiltrated by "UNDERCOVER LIBERAL ACTIVISTS!" How do I know that? Because Jesse Watters and Trump said so!
You pulled a partial sentence out and left out the rationale for the basis and simply ran with your conclusion
Not to be pedantic but, you DID say it’s a case you wouldn’t have brought.
And the logical interpretation of this sentence-
“Unless someone who isn't a conman or liar offers startling testimony, it is a stupid case.”
is that unless something unlikely, IE startling, happens, it IS a stupid case.
I didn’t take you out of context or leave out rationale.
Not sure why you are insisting I did?
You are undoubtedly one of the most gullible people around. Did you really think this was some spontaneous event where all of these "happy people" just showed up at a near Harlem Bodega and chanted Trump's name? The same with the photo op at Chik Fil A in Atlanta when a compatriot of both Charlie Kirk and Candace Owens happened to just stroll in off the street,find out that Trump was there, and run up to him and hug him like he was her grand daddy?
Or how about all of those AI generated pics tweeted out by White MAGA types on twitter pruporting to show Trump as the beloved pal of POC. Like the one exposed in this tweet which shows extra arms/missing fingers...
It's OK if you think all these fake photo ops are cool, and can't wait to run here and post them. If you wanna look stupid be my guest. But at least realzie you've been bamboozled...
If Trump is so popular with all of these voters who are POC, then why the need for deceipt? The answer is pretty simple. This new found Trump "popularity" with POC is a myth, bolstered by the same polls that predicted a "red Tsunami". Those claims are not supported by what actual Black controlled polls/focus groups or exit polling conducted following the actual primary votes in various states show.
You do know that the majority of people who will be testifying against Trump in all of his criminal cases are either people who voted for him in 2016, in 2020, or both. Right?
Is there incontrovertible proof?
No.
Is it common sense that this uber liberal DA in this uber liberal location is the first one to EVER charge a former president with a crime on such a flimsy case as this when that person is running for reelection, did so for political reasons?
Of course it is. Don’t be ridiculous.
That's exactly what happened in the Bannon trial that ended in a hung jury...
See my enlightening post on soros and the group funding Bragg. You won’t want to miss it. Feel free to follow McMurtry66 as well
If by prove you mean it’s a logical certainty, ok.
Otherwise I’d argue otherwise. For both cases here.
It’s like Mark and I are sitting in a bar and we see Coach Murt across the way talking to some smoking hot babe and I say “Murts taking her home tonight” and Mark says “you don’t KNOW that”.
Oh yes I do.
