I don't like this actually. DOJ needs to stop her. She is risking a judge ruling that she released evidence to poison a future jury pool to keep defendants from getting a fair trial. She also needs to hold onto at least something that will force the defense to research during discovery. Hopefully someone was smart enough to hold at least something back.
I don't think I agree with this perspective. There is nothing stopping a judge from ruling any which way, given what we have seen of judges anyway, so pulling punches because a judge might rule adversely is just conceding your case to defeat before you even get going. What is a fair trial? One that considers only provable and proven facts. Considering that the media are all in for the culprits and will diminish the case against them in every breath, the only counter-tactic is to make all the facts widely known to the public. A judge cannot pull these horses back into the barn; they are now public information. What can defense possibly "research" when there is no defense? This is like a murderer being caught in the act on multiple cameras. Does a "fair trial" exclude the damning evidence? I don't think so. We're beyond courtroom minuet. This has to be a bulldozer assault.
I agree with what you are saying, but my point is to not release anything else to the public. Yeah we may want to see it, but she released enough to show the people. Keep some for the trial. I'd prefer we get a conviction, and not have to settle with just showing people he is guilty.
She showed them. It is their choice to believe now. Now the job is to indict and convict, and get our country back. When there are convictions I don't want them overturned on appeal because everyone on the jury researched the case before they were even called.
So, what happens when the jury pool consists of nothing but witnesses? Not conduct a trial? One has a right to a jury of one's peers, not to a jury of ignorant boobs. There is already too much information available for any jury member to hold in mind. I understand your point in theory, but in this case I don't see any advantage to withholding anything. It seems you want to provide the defense with an excuse to conduct discovery for months or years---for what? You can't provide a trial with surprise information; it must all be disclosed to the defense anyway. I would say, better that they know their case is impossible, and plea guilty for mercy.
Prosecution: "Your honor, the accused was found, in flagrante delecto, standing over the corpse of the victim with a smoking gun, the victim having deceased from bullet wounds confirmed by ballistics to have been shot from his gun, and he covered in her blood, and her covered in his blood, as determined by genetic analysis."
"Well, Mr. Hyde, what do you have to say for yourself?"
"Ah...ah...it was self defense!"
"Against a victim who was 95 years old, paraplegic, wheelchair bound, breathing supplemental oxygen, blind, deaf, and suffering from terminal Parkinson's palsy?"
"Ah...ah...it wasn't me!"
"With your bloody fingerprints all over the victim, your weapon, your clothes, your forehead, and most objects in her living room? Including the fishbowl? With security cameras recording the whole event from start to finish?"
(Hyde huddles with his lawyer.)
Defense: "Your honor, my client is willing to enter a plea of guilty, on the condition that he not be tossed into a pool of alligators."
We just disagree. There have been appeals on convictions where there was so much pretrial publicity the defendant couldn't possibly have received a fair trial because the publicity biased at least some jurors and could have turned the case. Usually the defense will petition for a new venue. In this case there won't be anywhere they could get one.
The right wants 0bama to swing. The left wants him to win. Both sides will follow this at every turn. I wonder if that will satisfy the conditions to move the trial to a military tribunal at that point. It would certainly lead to a fair trial if all the jurors were senior officers and were completely sequestered on GITMO...
You can't provide a trial with surprise information; it must all be disclosed to the defense anyway. I would say, better that they know their case is impossible, and plea guilty for mercy.
That's why I mentioned discovery. The prosecution shares their evidence with defense attorneys and they have a specific time to review. None of it is a surprise unless the defense doesn't do their job.
Wow. Hard hitting truth never looked so good.
It's called Chinese water torture, drip, Drip, DRIP! 🙄🤨😭😵💫
u/#dripdrip
What's wrong, a little truth won't hurt....ahhhhhhhhhhhhh make it stop!
https://qalerts.app/?q=slow+drip%7Cone+leads
YEP!!!!!!!1
Tulsi Gabbard is a true patriot! Fearless! 🇺🇸
Seeing him on Capitol Hill would be nice (and more) =)
NCSWIC
🍿🍿🍿🍿
Be humble
https://x.com/nicksortor/status/1948176448625234372?s=46
More of the interview
I don't like this actually. DOJ needs to stop her. She is risking a judge ruling that she released evidence to poison a future jury pool to keep defendants from getting a fair trial. She also needs to hold onto at least something that will force the defense to research during discovery. Hopefully someone was smart enough to hold at least something back.
I don't think I agree with this perspective. There is nothing stopping a judge from ruling any which way, given what we have seen of judges anyway, so pulling punches because a judge might rule adversely is just conceding your case to defeat before you even get going. What is a fair trial? One that considers only provable and proven facts. Considering that the media are all in for the culprits and will diminish the case against them in every breath, the only counter-tactic is to make all the facts widely known to the public. A judge cannot pull these horses back into the barn; they are now public information. What can defense possibly "research" when there is no defense? This is like a murderer being caught in the act on multiple cameras. Does a "fair trial" exclude the damning evidence? I don't think so. We're beyond courtroom minuet. This has to be a bulldozer assault.
I agree with what you are saying, but my point is to not release anything else to the public. Yeah we may want to see it, but she released enough to show the people. Keep some for the trial. I'd prefer we get a conviction, and not have to settle with just showing people he is guilty.
She showed them. It is their choice to believe now. Now the job is to indict and convict, and get our country back. When there are convictions I don't want them overturned on appeal because everyone on the jury researched the case before they were even called.
So, what happens when the jury pool consists of nothing but witnesses? Not conduct a trial? One has a right to a jury of one's peers, not to a jury of ignorant boobs. There is already too much information available for any jury member to hold in mind. I understand your point in theory, but in this case I don't see any advantage to withholding anything. It seems you want to provide the defense with an excuse to conduct discovery for months or years---for what? You can't provide a trial with surprise information; it must all be disclosed to the defense anyway. I would say, better that they know their case is impossible, and plea guilty for mercy.
Prosecution: "Your honor, the accused was found, in flagrante delecto, standing over the corpse of the victim with a smoking gun, the victim having deceased from bullet wounds confirmed by ballistics to have been shot from his gun, and he covered in her blood, and her covered in his blood, as determined by genetic analysis."
"Well, Mr. Hyde, what do you have to say for yourself?"
"Ah...ah...it was self defense!"
"Against a victim who was 95 years old, paraplegic, wheelchair bound, breathing supplemental oxygen, blind, deaf, and suffering from terminal Parkinson's palsy?"
"Ah...ah...it wasn't me!"
"With your bloody fingerprints all over the victim, your weapon, your clothes, your forehead, and most objects in her living room? Including the fishbowl? With security cameras recording the whole event from start to finish?"
(Hyde huddles with his lawyer.)
Defense: "Your honor, my client is willing to enter a plea of guilty, on the condition that he not be tossed into a pool of alligators."
We just disagree. There have been appeals on convictions where there was so much pretrial publicity the defendant couldn't possibly have received a fair trial because the publicity biased at least some jurors and could have turned the case. Usually the defense will petition for a new venue. In this case there won't be anywhere they could get one.
The right wants 0bama to swing. The left wants him to win. Both sides will follow this at every turn. I wonder if that will satisfy the conditions to move the trial to a military tribunal at that point. It would certainly lead to a fair trial if all the jurors were senior officers and were completely sequestered on GITMO...
That's why I mentioned discovery. The prosecution shares their evidence with defense attorneys and they have a specific time to review. None of it is a surprise unless the defense doesn't do their job.