mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, that he wrote about a creator is a fact, but that is not the same as the creator is a fact or that natural rights are facts.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Jury finally hears BOMBSHELL evidence against Trump
- Thread starter McBell
- Start date
Well, that he wrote about a creator is a fact, but that is not the same as the creator is a fact or that natural rights are facts.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
Daniel's sworn testimony swings the case against Trump IMO. If Trump testifies under oath that it didn't happen, consistent with his previous denials, then it's game on, though.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Does anyone really think Trump is going to testify under oath?
Wandering Monk
Well-Known Member
Not me!
McBell
Unbound
I hope he does testify.
I would call into work to watch it.
Mostly to watch his lawyers reactions.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
Matters of fact and matters of law are treated differently. The existence of natural rights is a matter of law, as is the source of those rights. Blackstone's opinion is pretty clear, and as an expert on English law his opinion is preferred unless there is an expert with an opposing opinion that is better supported by facts and reason.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Oh absolutely, I'd be there with a big bowl of popcorn. Just don't think it will happen but my fingers are definitely crossed.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
So you have to connect that to how people are the source of justice themselves?
Wandering Monk
Well-Known Member
People who repeat Trump's line that he can't get a fair trial in New York should consider this:
Trump and his attorneys were involved in the selection of the jury. So Trump is saying that his lawyers are incompetent.
To convict Trump, all 12 jurors have to reach a guilty verdict. For Trump to be acquitted only ONE juror has to make that conclusion.
Trump and his attorneys were involved in the selection of the jury. So Trump is saying that his lawyers are incompetent.
To convict Trump, all 12 jurors have to reach a guilty verdict. For Trump to be acquitted only ONE juror has to make that conclusion.
Spice
StewardshipPeaceIntergityCommunityEquality
I don't believe one turns into an acquittal -- just a mistrial of which the prosecution can retrial or not. Deciding not to retry is also not an acquittal. Trump could be reindicted on the same charges at a later date, without an unanimous decision.
Wandering Monk
Well-Known Member
You are correct. I was wrong. It would be a hung jury, a mistrial. The prosecution could attempt to retry.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
They're not the source, they have the right to administer justice according to law (due process).
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
No, it doesn't. Even if she were lying about the affair and just blackmailing Trump with a false accusation, he still altered business records in a cover-up effort to influence an election. Those are the crimes he is charged with, not having an actual affair. The alleged affair just explains his motivation for committing the crimes he is charged with. This has been explained to you by me and others, but you still keep coming back to it like a broken record.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Ordinary people not on a jury?
Copernicus
Industrial Strength Linguist
Look, Ebionite, this is just some rando who made a Youtube video about his hazy recollections late at night involving Stormy Daniels. It has nothing to do with Trump or the crimes he is charged with. It is not about the kind of person Stormy Daniels is, or Donald Trump, or Ben Szemkus. It is about whether Donald Trump actually committed the crimes he is charged with.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
Except for the politcal connections and Stormy Daniels being part of the story, of course.
Szemkus's story is relevant to the context of political animus.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
A jury that isn't administered by a state with an axe to grind.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Yeah, poor you.
Spice
StewardshipPeaceIntergityCommunityEquality
I just read a report that included two of yesterday's witnesses. Both contend that the money came from his personal accounts, and the instructions to write the checks did not come from Trump. Now it sounds like it's all going to hang on Cohen's testimony. He may just get off if they show a solid reasonable doubt. But, in any case, the probability of a split jury has increased, IMO.