OOTB's Political Thread . ..

[heelmanwilm]

The judge tells jurors that cohen is an accomplice to the accused crime and if they
Find any witness to not be credible they are fine to disregard their testimony partially or in its entirety. Doesn’t sound like a judge bought and paid for by biden to me. I’ve wavered somewhat on what I would decide if I’m a juror but to hear that right before going into deliberations would be a huge push to finding him not guilty for me.

 

[heelmanwilm]

Throw in @prlyles and @heelmanwilm and you have a pentad that doesn’t have enough common sense to come in out of the rain.

Whereas you’ve managed to separate yourself from the right wingers in here and stand alone on an island of stupidity and idiotic beliefs.

 

[gteeitup]

In the grand scheme, how does DT fuggin a hooker effect the running of a country? Seems some people are worried about things that have nothing to do with being a good president and businessman. Feigning outrage over something almost every president has done be it before, during, or after the presidency. Sh1t, Kennedy was fuggin everything that moved back during his political career. He had affairs with women of virtually every race or nationality. But that was ok since he was a dim.

do we need rank em thread for affairs by a candidate or sitting president?

what say you @bluetoe and @Heels Noir

 

[bluetoe]

Didn't you say once that you owned a business? An expense is not an expense. You have business expenses that you can use to reduce you business's income which will reduce your taxes. You have personal expenses that does not reduce your income. Recording a personal expense as a business expense is tax fraud. You should know that. That said, whether Trump did this or not is anybody's guess.

lol, remind me to never let you keep my books. OF COURSE an expense IS an expense, and OF COURSE I'm talking about business expenses. YOU introduced the idea that the expense was not a legit one, and I did not do so because there was no reason to. This isn't like you're expensing a riding lawn mower that you keep at home, on the basis of having to maintain the two square yards of grass in front of your office.

Hush money can be a legit expense if it's paid to save the reputation of your company. If I had to pay out on that basis, you better believe it would be expensed and I would argue til the cows come home with the auditor if he denied it. If in the end he still said 'no way', the only repercussion would be that I would lose it as an expense. As I said it happens a hundred times a day in NY that an expense is put in a different accoun for any number of reasons, and unless it IS fraudulent, no one gives a shit...unless it's DJT we're persecuting. And even if it is fraudulent (like claiming the lawn mower), unless you are running some major scam, no one is going to try to send you to prison over it.

But to begin with, maybe you don't realize that the money was paid to his lawyer for services rendered. The lawyer handled it from there....he did render that service. THAT is what they caught him up on, not the legitimacy of the expense. Try making me believe that covering up hush money to a whore is such a big deal that your average Joe might go up the river for it.

The fact is, they have had to twist all this into illegal campaign contibutions in order to put meat on the bone they're chewing. It's just bullshit.

Stay the F away from my books.

 

[bluetoe]

do we need rank em thread for affairs by a candidate or sitting president?

what say you @bluetoe and @Heels Noir

sorry no interest in doing that; as long as the country is being properly attended to, I don't know why anyone should care......especially when I'm going against a moron who thinks that cheating with a girlfriend on his dying wife while campaigning on the basis of how decent he is and good for America, deserves some sort of merit badge. I can still picture that two-faced bastard exploiting his children in campaign ads. They probably were pretty happy to get close enough to him to have their picture taken with him. He probably didn't know their names.

Momo would have nothing to offer if not that. Plus all the other candidates are leftists as well so he wouldn't put them up anyway.

I have to comment that as I pointed out, those who haven't a clue what this is all about repeatedly point to the whore abgle. It isn't about the whore or the hush money or affairs..

 

[bluetoe]

The judge tells jurors that cohen is an accomplice to the accused crime and if they
Find any witness to not be credible they are fine to disregard their testimony partially or in its entirety. Doesn’t sound like a judge bought and paid for by biden to me. I’ve wavered somewhat on what I would decide if I’m a juror but to hear that right before going into deliberations would be a huge push to finding him not guilty for me.

if I'm a juror, I'd have to say I'm well ahead of the judge and his simple-minded instructions. 'You have to ignore the witness confessing on the stand that HE was who killed the victim, because he isn't on trial.' Yeah right judge, I'll just forget that. It's like it never happened. Gimme a break.

I don't need no stinking instructions. I'm just going to take everything I saw and heard into account and then vote not guilty.

 

[bluetoe]

^^^^^^^ derpp derpp.....

 

[Heels Noir]

do we need rank em thread for affairs by a candidate or sitting president?

what say you @bluetoe and @Heels Noir

I'm down.

 

[bluetoe]

I'm down.

and out

 

[Heels Noir]

I'm going against a moron who thinks that cheating with a girlfriend on his dying wife while campaigning on the basis of how decent he is and good for America, deserves some sort of merit badge.

You're not going against anyone because I've already punked your stupid ass on this one. At this point, obviously all you can do is lie about it.

 

[pooponduke]

The judge tells jurors that cohen is an accomplice to the accused crime and if they
Find any witness to not be credible they are fine to disregard their testimony partially or in its entirety. Doesn’t sound like a judge bought and paid for by biden to me. I’ve wavered somewhat on what I would decide if I’m a juror but to hear that right before going into deliberations would be a huge push to finding him not guilty for me.

I haven't been following it at this point due to a couple of reasons, but what you are describing is very standard in any trial, civil or criminal, regarding witness credibility. They have what are known as pattern jury instructions that each state's courts have approved for use. It makes everything consistent and reduces the amount of appealable issues from trial to trial as you don't want judges doing their own thing on general stuff. It's likely that this judge pulled many instructions from those standards and if he deviated he would be asking for any ruling to be overturned on appeal.

As such, I wouldn't draw any conclusion about this judge and his handling of the trial in particular, but you are correct that the State has a big, big problem that their main witness is Cohen. Frankly, that one issue is just one of the reasons any neutral prosecutor would not have brought the case in the first place. Think of it like the decision by Hur to not bring the document case against Biden. He didn't do it because Biden didn't commit the acts, Hur concluded that he could never prove the case against a forgetful, likely senile, old man in front of a jury.

 

[heelmanwilm]

I'm down.

 

[heelmanwilm]

if I'm a juror, I'd have to say I'm well ahead of the judge and his simple-minded instructions. 'You have to ignore the witness confessing on the stand that HE was who killed the victim, because he isn't on trial.' Yeah right judge, I'll just forget that. It's like it never happened. Gimme a break.

I don't need no stinking instructions. I'm just going to take everything I saw and heard into account and then vote not guilty.

I just think it’s pretty significant that a judge would single out a witness, remind the jurors he’s a criminal, and basically recommend they ignore his testimony

 

[pooponduke]

I just think it’s pretty significant that a judge would single out a witness, remind the jurors he’s a criminal, and basically recommend they ignore his testimony

It IS significant. But it's for different reasons than you are thinking. That is, the instruction as to how to treat any witness and their individual credibility is a fairly standardized jury instruction. It just so happens that it is really, really significant in this particular trial because the State's smoking gun witness is the criminally convicted liar. It's truly a rarity to have such a situation.

 

[gunslingerdick]

Most Trump fans are hoping for a guilty verdict. The libs didn't think this through. America's martyr.

 

[pooponduke]

Most Trump fans are hoping for a guilty verdict. The libs didn't think this through. America's martyr.

Maybe, maybe not. I for one (wouldn't describe myself as a fan, but certainly favor his policies strongly over anything that Biden has done or proposed) hope for a not guilty verdict. You get the martyr without the taint. I've said before I expect a guilty finding due to the nature of things, but am more and more leaning towards a hung jury.

 

[Heels Noir]

It just so happens that it is really, really significant in this particular trial because the State's smoking gun witness is the criminally convicted liar. It's truly a rarity to have such a situation.

You think? I would think convicted criminals-turned-witness for the prosecution is more common than a mere rarity. No?

 

[Archer2]

Maybe, maybe not. I for one (wouldn't describe myself as a fan, but certainly favor his policies strongly over anything that Biden has done or proposed) hope for a not guilty verdict. You get the martyr without the taint. I've said before I expect a guilty finding due to the nature of things, but am more and more leaning towards a hung jury.

I prefer not guilty myself but think a hung jury is the best that people without TDS can hope for.

 

[bluetoe]

You're not going against anyone because I've already punked your stupid ass on this one. At this point, obviously all you can do is lie about it.

no, now you're just lying about having punked anything. You haven't done shit, you've only talked shit as you always do. You've actually been low-life enough to try to minimize the scumminess of cheating in an ongoing fashion on a dying wife. You've tried to contend that that is no worse than getting laid once while your wife is pregnant, and in the process you have punked yourself as being no better than an idiot.

Furthermore, John Edwards was trying to portray himself as Mr. Clean. Donald Trump was honest enough to tell us about groping the goods. Sounds like the lying sack of shit John Edwards is your kind of guy.

I'm not surprised that you have so few scruples, but what I want you to show me is where this imaginary 'punking' you speak of took place. I know where it took place.... in your deranged mind and only in your deranged mind.

You try too hard to be what you aren't capable of being and always end up looking like the fool that you are.

 

[bluetoe]

I just think it’s pretty significant that a judge would single out a witness, remind the jurors he’s a criminal, and basically recommend they ignore his testimony

it might be pretty significant and I'm not saying otherwise. But I believe most people are like me, they aren't going to unhear what they heard just because some judge says it's OK if they do.

 

[bluetoe]

Maybe, maybe not. I for one (wouldn't describe myself as a fan, but certainly favor his policies strongly over anything that Biden has done or proposed) hope for a not guilty verdict. You get the martyr without the taint. I've said before I expect a guilty finding due to the nature of things, but am more and more leaning towards a hung jury.

I would describe you as definitely not a fan based on earlier expressions of contempt, but having been gifted with a healthy portion of common sense as well as a sense of right and wrong, you push aside your personal feelings to do the right thing and what's best for all of us. Why is it so hard for others to do likewise? Oh that's right, it must be the common sense and right or wrong thing they lack that makes them hold onto their personal animosity beyond reason. That or terminal TDS.

 

[gteeitup]

officially deliberated longer than the oj trial and tomorrow they want to hear worthless testimony again.

 

[bluetoe]

question for the legal eagles out there. Are jurors sometimes allowed to ask a witness questions while the witness is providing testimony? When I am in charge, one of the first things I'll do is get the citizenry more involved in the workings of our institutions, instead of treating them like trained seals.

 

[bluetoe]

I haven't been following it at this point due to a couple of reasons, but what you are describing is very standard in any trial, civil or criminal, regarding witness credibility. They have what are known as pattern jury instructions that each state's courts have approved for use. It makes everything consistent and reduces the amount of appealable issues from trial to trial as you don't want judges doing their own thing on general stuff. It's likely that this judge pulled many instructions from those standards and if he deviated he would be asking for any ruling to be overturned on appeal.

As such, I wouldn't draw any conclusion about this judge and his handling of the trial in particular, but you are correct that the State has a big, big problem that their main witness is Cohen. Frankly, that one issue is just one of the reasons any neutral prosecutor would not have brought the case in the first place. Think of it like the decision by Hur to not bring the document case against Biden. He didn't do it because Biden didn't commit the acts, Hur concluded that he could never prove the case against a forgetful, likely senile, old man in front of a jury.

some of us might wonder if there isn't some other factor at play in these decisions to not prosecute those dems who were just basically pronounced as being guilty.

 

[Heels Noir]

I'm going against [my superior] who thinks that cheating with a girlfriend on his dying wife while campaigning on the basis of how decent he is and good for America, deserves some sort of merit badge.

You've actually been low-life enough to try to minimize the scumminess of cheating in an ongoing fashion on a dying wife. You've tried to contend that that is no worse than getting laid once while your wife is pregnant, and in the process you have punked yourself as being no better than an idiot.

Hey, flaming britches, I have NOT tried to minimize John Edwards' affair and I certainly don't think he deserves praise in the form of a merit badge. This is just your stupid punk ass creating untruths because you know otherwise I'm punking your sissy ass.

By all means, throw another pussy hissy fit. They are always entertaining. X^D

 

[gteeitup]

question for the legal eagles out there. Are jurors sometimes allowed to ask a witness questions while the witness is providing testimony? When I am in charge, one of the first things I'll do is get the citizenry more involved in the workings of our institutions, instead of treating them like trained seals.

i believe some states still allow that…for me, that would tread too much into crazy.

 

[bluetoe]

Hey, flaming britches, I have NOT tried to minimize John Edwards' affair and I certainly don't think he deserves praise in the form of a merit badge. This is just your stupid punk ass creating untruths because you know otherwise I'm punking your sissy ass.

By all means, throw another pussy hissy fit. They are always entertaining. X^D

no hissy fit, just pointing out the truth of the matter. I always laugh when you think that just because you say something is true, others must think it actually is true regardless of how idiotic it is.

When you try to compare cheating on the reg behind your dying wife's back to getting laid once while your wife is pregnant, you have tried to minimize the wrongdoing of the former. It's all relative. Get someone to explain to you what all things being relative means. And then get them to try to get through your neanderthal skull that the merit badge comment was metaphorical sarcasm that emphasizes the fact of your idiocy.

You try too hard to be what you are not capable of being.

I like that you find it entertaining that your ass is being handed to you. I find it entertaining as well.

 

[bluetoe]

i believe some states still allow that…for me, that would tread too much into crazy.

if treading into crazy results in more truth being revealed and a better understanding of the facts, so be it.

 

[gteeitup]

if treading into crazy results in more truth being revealed and a better understanding of the facts, so be it.

wrong interpretation…you sometimes get jurors that are advocates for the witness.

 

[bluetoe]

wrong interpretation…you sometimes get jurors that are advocates for the witness.

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying.

 

[Heels Noir]

When you try to compare cheating on the reg behind your dying wife's back to getting laid once while your wife is pregnant, you have tried to minimize the wrongdoing of the former.

To the contrary, you're trying to minimize Trump's affair with a porn star and that's what this is really all about.

Punked again!

 

[gteeitup]

I'm not sure exactly what you're saying.

you could get jurors that favor any witness just because; insert your bias, pretext, whatever.

if you allow those people to ask questions then it could become a problem for the court…then throw in the attorney’s thought out strategy for a specific case that might get sideways if they object, then the juror could get offended.

i’ve seen some wild shit.

 

[chickenhunter]

To the contrary, you're trying to minimize Trump's affair with a porn star and that's what this is really all about.

Punked again!

Finally, the truth. That's the only thing the trial is for. Yet, the dims and their trained media want everyone to believe it was about the money and other BS business.

 

[Archer2]

Finally, the truth. That's the only thing the trial is for. Yet, the dims and their trained media want everyone to believe it was about the money and other BS business.

He got distracted and finally admitted the truth. That’s the trouble with lying so much, it’s hard to remember all the lies you’ve told. TDS must be a beotch.

 

[bluetoe]

To the contrary, you're trying to minimize Trump's affair with a porn star and that's what this is really all about.

Punked again!

no, you're just trying to lie your way out again as usual, you lying sack of feces... The subject of John Edwards came up within this thread and I elaborated on it, and then you tried to make the scumminess of his that I pointed out seem to be on the same level as Trump's alleged little jaunt.. You tried to minimize Edwards extremely vile character and behavior by comparing the two. That is what this exchange is about. I can't even say nice try, that was so clumsy and desperate a deflection..

You keep saying that what Edwards did was no worse, and now you're saying that I'm trying to minimize what Trump did. So tell me genius, how am I minimizing what Trump did by comparing the two if what John Edwards did wasn't worse?

Punked yourself again, dipshit. LOL.

 

[pooponduke]

You think? I would think convicted criminals-turned-witness for the prosecution is more common than a mere rarity. No?

Of course, you have all kinds of backgrounds with witnesses. And, it's not at all uncommon to have a witness called by the prosecution who has dirty hands. Often, they are doing so to get more favorable deals for themselves. It is not uncommon for witnesses to have past convictions. Many of those even are granted immunity by the State (the only entity that can do so) which allows the person to testify freely and completely without having to assert a right to not self-incriminate. The big difference is typically you see criminals testifying who are not straight up liars. A small time drug dealer or user testifying against a bigger fish upstream would be such an example.

With Cohen, he has been proven to be a liar many times and has even been convicted of it. That type of witness with a background of what is known as a conviction for a crime of moral turpitude is a rarity. Think about it, if a main witness has previously been convicted of perjury, why would a jury believe he's telling the truth this time? It's a house of cards to build a case on such a witness and it simply shows how THIS prosecution team was DESPERATE to proceed with a case against the Donald.

And, one more thing, this is particularly true here when there were at least two other witnesses whom the State could have called as witnesses and made the decision to not do so. They have the power to grant immunity and could have compelled anyone within their jurisdiction to come testify with complete freedom. Instead, they relied on the convicted liar. That alone should be reasonable doubt. Doesn't mean Trump is not a scumbag who did something wrong, but the burden always stays with the State to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[bluetoe]

you could get jurors that favor any witness just because; insert your bias, pretext, whatever.

if you allow those people to ask questions then it could become a problem for the court…then throw in the attorney’s thought out strategy for a specific case that might get sideways if they object, then the juror could get offended.

i’ve seen some wild shit.

I'd love to get into this in more depth but probably not in this thread. When you say 'problem for the court', it makes me think of exactly what I want to create, my contention being that the court in our system is too controlling for the truth to come out...and you can't have justice if you can't have truth.

The adversarial system to me is in a way self-defeating in that each side is taking the evidence presented away from the full truth in different directions. They are not as much interested in the truth of the matter as they are in winning with what is offered (since they have already chosen a desired outcome), and they and the judge control what is offered.. The full truth that a trial is supposed to bring out lies somewhere in the middle, and the adversaries aren't necessarily able...or willing...to reveal the entirety of it.

When I imagine myself a juror in the actual trials I have observed, I am itching to ask questions. If what I'm asking is somehow improper in a way that undermines the general purpose, the judge should be there to advise over the desires of the adversaries.

 

[pooponduke]

question for the legal eagles out there. Are jurors sometimes allowed to ask a witness questions while the witness is providing testimony? When I am in charge, one of the first things I'll do is get the citizenry more involved in the workings of our institutions, instead of treating them like trained seals.

To answer, you must first make a distinction about "jurors". The type of thing you are speaking of is often allowed in grand jury proceedings. But those are a different animal altogether. Those are just the prosecutors presenting information to a jury without a judge, any representative for or the defendant themselves. There are no real rules of evidence other than witnesses being under oath, but things like hearsay are allowed and so on. Grand jury members are sometimes allowed to ask direct questions of witnesses. These only serve the purpose of the prosecution getting indictments against a target defendant. Because it's so imbalanced and favors the prosecution's presentation, it has been associated with sayings like being able to get an indictment against a ham sandwich.

In Trump's case, the jurors are part of what is known as a petit jury. In those trials, the system is supposed to be fair and balanced to both sides with the judge only calling balls and strikes. Rules are in place to ensure this neutrality and our system is designed to default to the defendant. The State has the burden. If they don't meet it, the guy walks. It's historical in nature and it's part of what has made us the envy of the world, but from a policy perspective, we'd rather that 10 guilty guys go free than put 1 innocent guy in jail. I would have to research it to know the actual answer, but my guess is that would be very rare for jurors to be allowed to ask questions in a regular trial. It would upset the balance of the system.

But, this gets back to the point that's been harped on in this particular trial regarding the rulings and behavior of this particular judge. He's not just calling balls and strikes. From what I read last evening, some of his jury instructions alone are likely to be a basis for overturning a guilty finding. However, politically, the end result will not matter as it will be after the election.

 

[bluetoe]

To answer, you must first make a distinction about "jurors". The type of thing you are speaking of is often allowed in grand jury proceedings. But those are a different animal altogether. Those are just the prosecutors presenting information to a jury without a judge, any representative for or the defendant themselves. There are no real rules of evidence other than witnesses being under oath, but things like hearsay are allowed and so on. Grand jury members are sometimes allowed to ask direct questions of witnesses. These only serve the purpose of the prosecution getting indictments against a target defendant. Because it's so imbalanced and favors the prosecution's presentation, it has been associated with sayings like being able to get an indictment against a ham sandwich.

In Trump's case, the jurors are part of what is known as a petit jury. In those trials, the system is supposed to be fair and balanced to both sides with the judge only calling balls and strikes. Rules are in place to ensure this neutrality and our system is designed to default to the defendant. The State has the burden. If they don't meet it, the guy walks. It's historical in nature and it's part of what has made us the envy of the world, but from a policy perspective, we'd rather that 10 guilty guys go free than put 1 innocent guy in jail. I would have to research it to know the actual answer, but my guess is that would be very rare for jurors to be allowed to ask questions in a regular trial. It would upset the balance of the system.

But, this gets back to the point that's been harped on in this particular trial regarding the rulings and behavior of this particular judge. He's not just calling balls and strikes. From what I read last evening, some of his jury instructions alone are likely to be a basis for overturning a guilty finding. However, politically, the end result will not matter as it will be after the election.

thanks, my question wasn't specific to this trial but it was regarding the trial itself. See my last reply to gteeitup. Upsetting the balance of the court might be a good thing when things go overboard in trying to maintain the balance. As a matter of fact, as I said to gee, you might say the system itself goes overboard in that regard.

All there is to me is the truth of the matter, any matter. To me, anything that doesn't seek without interference to get to the whole truth is flawed and no bueno.

I've read that our structure points to something like a 90% surety in outcome. 90% sounds pretty good unless you're that innocent 10th guy behind bars. If I had the wherewithal to do so, I would revamp the system. As you mention, so much of it is historical, and we should consider that our history regresses toward the less enlightened and progressive (not that kind of 'progressive'). But when lawyers exploit the system so greatly to their benefit, and lawyers control the system, I doubt we'll see much in the way of advancement.

 

[pooponduke]

I'd love to get into this in more depth but probably not in this thread. When you say 'problem for the court', it makes me think of exactly what I want to create, my contention being that the court in our system is too controlling for the truth to come out...and you can't have justice if you can't have truth.

The adversarial system to me is in a way self-defeating in that each side is taking the evidence presented away from the full truth in different directions. They are not as much interested in the truth of the matter as they are in winning with what is offered (since they have already chosen a desired outcome), and they and the judge control what is offered.. The full truth that a trial is supposed to bring out lies somewhere in the middle, and the adversaries aren't necessarily able...or willing...to reveal the entirety of it.

When I imagine myself a juror in the actual trials I have observed, I am itching to ask questions. If what I'm asking is somehow improper in a way that undermines the general purpose, the judge should be there to advise over the desires of the adversaries.

What you are talking about, however, just doesn't exist as there is no fairer system (to all sides) to get at the truth. No one has yet invented an infallible machine to detect "truth". It's one of those things that is a great theory, but isn't reality. I'd analogize it to something like communism or socialism. They are great in theory in a college lecture hall, but they never work in the real world.

When you are talking about trials, someone's liberty is at risk and it's not fair to the defendant to inject anything a juror may want to jump in on because they saw it on Law & Order or something. Trials are not a matter for John or Jane to put in their two cents about because they have some whim about how they can get to the truth. The prosecutors and the defense are highly trained and fully capable of presenting the necessary elements of any given case and there are reasons for what they are allowed to present or not present. I mean, I wouldn't go to a NBA game and expect to interrupt and tell Stephen Curry about a flaw in his shooting form (a message board is another animal, however!).

An example. Suppose it is a civil case where the question is who ran the red light and caused injuries. It happened late at night, so, as a juror, someone wants to know if anyone had been drinking. The answer is yes, one of the drivers had one beer an hour before. Scientifically, and just as importantly, the existing statute says that such a scenario is not relevant as it literally could have had no impact whatsoever on the accident. Thus, there has been a ruling by the judge that neither side can address the issue of alcohol as it is way too prejudicial and unfair. If you as a juror were then allowed to ask such a question, when the judge sustains the defense's objection, you are likely to make all kinds of assumptions. That just wouldn't be fair, particularly when no one knows that the juror has a built in bias due to having lost a family member to a drunken driver (which this is not, but might be assumed). It changes everything.

That's why there are such extensive rules in place and it's often why things get overturned on appeal because something happened that the judge's curative instruction couldn't fix. Hope that helps answer your questions.