Posted on 06/16/2024 6:37:18 AM PDT by PJ-Comix
Just another reminder that the story which about 10 days ago was BLASTED over the news that a Facebook poster named Michael Anderson who claimed his juror cousin in the Manhattan Kangaroo Court declared the jury had already found Trump guilty the day BEFORE the verdict was handed down has NOT been debunked. And the big TELL for that is that the media has DROPPED this story like a hot potato. Believe me, if this story had been investigated and proven to be false, it would be all over the news.
So has this claim by Michael Anderson been investigated? He later claimed he was just a "shit-poster" who made up lots of fake postings? So where are his fake postings?
Some have laughably claimed that Michael Anderson himself debunked his own story. So now if a perp denies he did something, that somehow "debunks" the crime? If Anderson does have a cousin (apparently female) on the jury, that gives him a strong motive to pretend his own claim has been debunked ...by him.
Something would be really wrong for CORRUPT Judge Juan Merchan to sentence Trump on July 11 if this story has NOT been investigated. What is happening now is the media is ignoring the story and hoping it will just go away. Why? Maybe they know Michael Anderson's post was too valid for comfort.
It’s the 21st century dude. Everybody knows that rule died.
Also keep in mind our rando who sez he got a cousin has also retraced.
There is no story. 8 people on FR are the only ones that paid any attention in the first place, and frankly you all shouldn’t have.
You realize they had decided President Trump was guilty long before they figured out the crime, right?
Leaking information about the verdict before it’s been made is not OK.
If it WAS OK, then why would Merchan notify all the attorneys about it?
Do you have a link to something confirming that the NYSC had verified the poster-juror connection?
It isn’t, but it happens. All the time in the modern world. And honestly when the whole trial is on TV expecting the jury not to text anybody is kinda silly. And we declared a mistrial every time it happened we’d never finish a trial anymore. Judges tell attorneys about all kinds of stuff, and often to tell them “we’re not having a mistrial, move on”.
Thank you for posting that so I didn’t have to!
New York - screwed up in so many ways!
Dude. Justice has died too, no big deal, huh?
Dude.
Justice died before I was born. Pissing and moaning ain’t changing that either.
So hey, anything goes now. Why even have rules about how to not be a kangaroo court anyway, since all courts are gonna kangaroo anyway, dude.
Dude.
Anything has gone since before you were born. Welcome to reality.
I’ve known our justice system is a crooked for a while.
My beef is you acting as if we all just have to accept it, and that there’s something wrong with us if we still believe that the rules are worth fighting for.
Why don’t we all just die and get it over with, with that attitude?
If that's the case, then hasn't President Trump debunked this trial over and over and over?
-PJ
I never said that. Your beef is with your lack of reading comprehension.
I said this is a non-story. Because it is. Worst case scenario some juror texted a relative and relative told somebody else. Something that we know happens all the time now, because texting now exists. And that’s ASSUMING our random idiot was actually telling the truth. Which, these days, is a very very stupid assumption.
That’s what I said. And it’s true. If you wanna just die and get it over with because of that, well OK. Your suicidal tendencies are not my problem.
You said it was a non-story.
You have no problem with the rules being broken.
You acted like anybody having a problem with it should just drop it as a non-issue. Dude.
It’s sort of like saying. Dude, people get murdered in the streets all the time. It’s just a fact of life these days. A non-story, dude. Get with the times, dude.
It IS a non-story. You can tell because nobody cares.
Rules get broken all the time. We got too many rules, many of which were created for a vastly different version of the world.
It’s already a non-issue hand has been dropped by basically everybody.
Nope, it’s not like saying that at all. That’s where your desire to lie about what I said takes over. That’s a you problem.
The court system cared enough to inform the attorneys.
But your argument is defeatist. Nobody cares that the J6 prisoners are being abused and having medical treatments denied, so it’s a non-issue. Happens all the time. No big deal.
Sometimes sliding into the ocean is a big deal, even if nobody else seems to care.
You’re acting like a troll, accusing me of lying. I’m not gonna engage with a troll. Bye.
Which happens ALL THE TIME.
It’s not defeatist. It’s acknowledging reality. Heck I’ve gotten texts from friends on juries.
Part of the problem is that we have so many rules that they can’t all be enforced. Because people are jerking off about maybe a text being sent by a juror (MAYBE), they don’t have the bandwidth to pay attention to mistreatment of prisoners. Which is another CONSTANT problem in this country that we really should be doing something about.
See there’s only so much bandwidth. Focus on the important, realize what isn’t, and stop letting the unimportant distract from the important.
You’ve insulted me in every single post on this thread. And you HAVE lied about what I said. You ARE a troll. Good luck not engaging with yourself.
During a criminal trial, all involved, from the judge, the bailiff, all lawyers, and every juror must follow all the rules by the letter, and if not any conviction should be tossed.
A better way for me to have initially responded would have been:
“It seems that you are saying that because everybody does something it makes it no big deal. Is that what you’re saying?”
Later on it was acknowledged that this isn’t a valid argument for things that are very bad but common.
So the reason for the poster to say this isn’t a big deal doesn’t seem like it is the reason he actually gave. There is some OTHER reason that poster thinks this is no big deal. Maybe being influenced by somebody else during deliberations doesn’t seem important to him. Why does he believe that? I don’t know, because the reason he gave was that it happens all the time.
I think the Mom in me kicked in and I reacted instantly with the “If all your friends jump over a cliff does that mean it’s no big deal and you should do it too?”
I’m glad the poster in question doesn’t seem to believe the argument he made and actually does believe that there are some important things that you don’t just let slide because “everybody does them”/they’re common.
I think what he meant to say was that in the bigger picture, letting an unauthorized person influence you during jury deliberations is not worth focusing your attention on. I don’t agree with that; suppose this Michael threatened his cousin during that communication. That’s always a possibility, and the rules are in place to make sure that doesn’t happen. All kinds of rules have been broken by Judge Merchan, and if none of them are confronted because they seem piddly by themselves, then you end up with just a little bit of poison in your drink - but it ends up killing you just the same.
At some point you have to confront wrongs even if they seem small simply because the small things are the only things the world’s “handlers” let us confront, in a world where they kill us using a thousand paper cuts.
I made no personal attacks against the poster, although I probably overreacted to the “dude”, probably because the Mom in me thought the argument being made was childish. The poster did attack me, which is trollish and an attitude that very frequently causes shitstorms here at FR.
I apologize for my knee-jerk “Mom” response.
All good applicable points for the dysfunctional world I have a tendency to reject. Thanks for the responses.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.