How do I know if I’m a MAGA?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you’re house is on wheels and your truck isn’t, you might be MAGA.

Why do this? There are lots of poor good people who just don’t have money. Some make poor decisions but being poor is expensive. Why pretend it’s about class and socioeconomic policy when MAGA tends to have more money than the average person, they just make crap decisions based on keeping White, Christianist men in power?

Take a chill pill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you support the Jan. 6th traitors, you are MAGA.

What if you think they should be offered speedy trials somewhere other than the District as you don’t believe the juries selected in DC are impartial?

That’s still MAGA. The traitors don’t get special privileges.

Bill of Rights applies to all defendants (MAGA and non MAGA alike). Sorry I’m starting to sound awfully MAGA here.

How is a trial by a jury of your peers in the jurisdiction where you committed the crime against the Bill of Rights? Your lawyer can petition the judge for a change of venue, but no amendment guarantees one.

6th amendment specifically guarantees 1) speedy trial and 2) impartial jury.

"impartial" doesn't mean what you think it means...jurors are not impartial simply because the facts and the law lead them to convict. from the tone of your argument, you seem to think that "impartial" means sympathetic. it doesn't

Also, PP intentinally leaves out a relevant phrase:

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


If you don't want a DC jury, don't commit your crime in DC.

This doesn't say what you think it says. It does not in any way *require* that the accused must stand trial in the state/district. It says the accused has the right to such a trial, but only if the jury is impartial. The protection here is for the accused, not for the state/district.

Play with the semantics all you want but the reality is motions for change of venue are very rarely granted in a federal criminal case. Even the Boston Marathin bonnets couldn’t get their cases transferred. Several of the Jan 6 terrorists also have had frivolous motions denied. Juries are to consider the evidence in an impartial manner. Period. And DC juries in criminal cases skew older and more conservative “law-and-order” than someone from a red state fed on a steady diet of Fox News manure might expect. An overwhelming number of felony level cases plead out because defendants know this and federal prosecutors generally aren’t going to bring a weak case to trial unless they’re named John Durham.

LOL...

Republicans: the law says...
Democrats: that's just semantics, man.

I understand the bar is high, but that's not the same thing as claiming that the trial is required to take place in DC, which is a factually false statement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you support the Jan. 6th traitors, you are MAGA.

What if you think they should be offered speedy trials somewhere other than the District as you don’t believe the juries selected in DC are impartial?

That’s still MAGA. The traitors don’t get special privileges.

Bill of Rights applies to all defendants (MAGA and non MAGA alike). Sorry I’m starting to sound awfully MAGA here.

How is a trial by a jury of your peers in the jurisdiction where you committed the crime against the Bill of Rights? Your lawyer can petition the judge for a change of venue, but no amendment guarantees one.

6th amendment specifically guarantees 1) speedy trial and 2) impartial jury.

"impartial" doesn't mean what you think it means...jurors are not impartial simply because the facts and the law lead them to convict. from the tone of your argument, you seem to think that "impartial" means sympathetic. it doesn't

DP here, I don't detect any "tone". Impartial simply means someone who doesn't hold a preconceived bias against something. This may be difficult to do in a location where an event happened due to biased news coverage of the event. This is why it's common for a case to be moved out of the jurisdiction where the event happened.

Obviously, the drafters of the Constitution disagree with you that it is difficult to have an impartial jury in the location where an event happened because that is exactly where the Constitution requires the jury to come from. The hurdle to end run this Constitutional requirement through a Rule 21(a) motion is high.

You are going to have to show where it requires the trial to be in the state/district. It says the accused has the right to an impartial jury from such a state/district. No where does it say the accused *MUST* stand trial there.

OK, here it is:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_18

LOL, did you read this link? The very first sentence says "Unless a statute or these rules permit otherwise..."

And oh, look, Rule 21:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_21

Learn to read. It's a useful skill for life.

That’s only if it’s impossible to have a fair trial in the district in which the crime occurred. That’s not the case here. You learn to read.

So you are conceding that it's not a requirement for the trial to take place in DC. You are welcome.

[Anonymous]

If you believe the election was stolen and that Trump is the second coming of Christ and you will vote for him again then you are a MAGA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you support the Jan. 6th traitors, you are MAGA.

What if you think they should be offered speedy trials somewhere other than the District as you don’t believe the juries selected in DC are impartial?

That’s still MAGA. The traitors don’t get special privileges.

Bill of Rights applies to all defendants (MAGA and non MAGA alike). Sorry I’m starting to sound awfully MAGA here.

How is a trial by a jury of your peers in the jurisdiction where you committed the crime against the Bill of Rights? Your lawyer can petition the judge for a change of venue, but no amendment guarantees one.

6th amendment specifically guarantees 1) speedy trial and 2) impartial jury.

"impartial" doesn't mean what you think it means...jurors are not impartial simply because the facts and the law lead them to convict. from the tone of your argument, you seem to think that "impartial" means sympathetic. it doesn't

DP here, I don't detect any "tone". Impartial simply means someone who doesn't hold a preconceived bias against something. This may be difficult to do in a location where an event happened due to biased news coverage of the event. This is why it's common for a case to be moved out of the jurisdiction where the event happened.

Obviously, the drafters of the Constitution disagree with you that it is difficult to have an impartial jury in the location where an event happened because that is exactly where the Constitution requires the jury to come from. The hurdle to end run this Constitutional requirement through a Rule 21(a) motion is high.

You are going to have to show where it requires the trial to be in the state/district. It says the accused has the right to an impartial jury from such a state/district. No where does it say the accused *MUST* stand trial there.

PP suggested it is too difficult to think such a jury could be impartial. The framers thought otherwise, so strongly that the made it a constitutional right of the accused.

No, learn to read. The framers in no way assumed the impartiality of the jury in the state/district where the crime is committed. The fact that they made it a requirement for the jury to be impartial indicates that they are concerned about the impartiality of such a jury.

We can all read the Constitution, the rules of criminal procedure, and the case law that goes with it. An impartial jury is a right. A defendant can file a motion to change venue due to lack of an impartial jury, but the burden of proof is on the defendant, so yes, the court does assume impartiality unless on motion the defendant satisfactorily meets the burden of proving otherwise, and the court has wide discretion when considering these motions. They are rarely granted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you believe the election was stolen and that Trump is the second coming of Christ and you will vote for him again then you are a MAGA.

I remember Democrats claiming this about 2016 election...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you support the Jan. 6th traitors, you are MAGA.

What if you think they should be offered speedy trials somewhere other than the District as you don’t believe the juries selected in DC are impartial?

That’s still MAGA. The traitors don’t get special privileges.

Bill of Rights applies to all defendants (MAGA and non MAGA alike). Sorry I’m starting to sound awfully MAGA here.

How is a trial by a jury of your peers in the jurisdiction where you committed the crime against the Bill of Rights? Your lawyer can petition the judge for a change of venue, but no amendment guarantees one.

6th amendment specifically guarantees 1) speedy trial and 2) impartial jury.

"impartial" doesn't mean what you think it means...jurors are not impartial simply because the facts and the law lead them to convict. from the tone of your argument, you seem to think that "impartial" means sympathetic. it doesn't

DP here, I don't detect any "tone". Impartial simply means someone who doesn't hold a preconceived bias against something. This may be difficult to do in a location where an event happened due to biased news coverage of the event. This is why it's common for a case to be moved out of the jurisdiction where the event happened.

Obviously, the drafters of the Constitution disagree with you that it is difficult to have an impartial jury in the location where an event happened because that is exactly where the Constitution requires the jury to come from. The hurdle to end run this Constitutional requirement through a Rule 21(a) motion is high.

You are going to have to show where it requires the trial to be in the state/district. It says the accused has the right to an impartial jury from such a state/district. No where does it say the accused *MUST* stand trial there.

PP suggested it is too difficult to think such a jury could be impartial. The framers thought otherwise, so strongly that the made it a constitutional right of the accused.

No, learn to read. The framers in no way assumed the impartiality of the jury in the state/district where the crime is committed. The fact that they made it a requirement for the jury to be impartial indicates that they are concerned about the impartiality of such a jury.

We can all read the Constitution, the rules of criminal procedure, and the case law that goes with it. An impartial jury is a right. A defendant can file a motion to change venue due to lack of an impartial jury, but the burden of proof is on the defendant, so yes, the court does assume impartiality unless on motion the defendant satisfactorily meets the burden of proving otherwise, and the court has wide discretion when considering these motions. They are rarely granted.

Well, apparently only some of us can read the Constitution. The rest of what you wrote is all true, and I agree with everything. However, the previous claim is that the US Constitution requires that the trial take place in the state/district where the crime occurred. This is factually and unambiguously false. People should just admit their mistakes and move on, rather than be gleefully dismissive when others point out their mistaken understanding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you support the Jan. 6th traitors, you are MAGA.

What if you think they should be offered speedy trials somewhere other than the District as you don’t believe the juries selected in DC are impartial?

That’s still MAGA. The traitors don’t get special privileges.

Bill of Rights applies to all defendants (MAGA and non MAGA alike). Sorry I’m starting to sound awfully MAGA here.

How is a trial by a jury of your peers in the jurisdiction where you committed the crime against the Bill of Rights? Your lawyer can petition the judge for a change of venue, but no amendment guarantees one.

6th amendment specifically guarantees 1) speedy trial and 2) impartial jury.

"impartial" doesn't mean what you think it means...jurors are not impartial simply because the facts and the law lead them to convict. from the tone of your argument, you seem to think that "impartial" means sympathetic. it doesn't

DP here, I don't detect any "tone". Impartial simply means someone who doesn't hold a preconceived bias against something. This may be difficult to do in a location where an event happened due to biased news coverage of the event. This is why it's common for a case to be moved out of the jurisdiction where the event happened.

Obviously, the drafters of the Constitution disagree with you that it is difficult to have an impartial jury in the location where an event happened because that is exactly where the Constitution requires the jury to come from. The hurdle to end run this Constitutional requirement through a Rule 21(a) motion is high.

You are going to have to show where it requires the trial to be in the state/district. It says the accused has the right to an impartial jury from such a state/district. No where does it say the accused *MUST* stand trial there.

It identifies the place where the accused has a right to trial by jury. It doesn't say the accused has a right to choose a jury from wherever the accused wishes. Court rules for procedure governs venue changes. If the accused wants a change in venue, there are standards to meet.

So you are conceding the point that the trial isn't required to take place in DC, and in fact, cannot take place in DC if the government can't produce an impartial Jury.

The government doesn’t “produce” a jury. DC maintains a list of eligible jurors based on records such as voter registration, drivers licenses, and receipt of public assistance. Jurors are then summoned for duty where they may get selected after being subjected to questioning by the court and counsel utilizing a void dire process designed to identify individuals who cannot judge the evidence with impartiality. Impartial doesn’t mean that you can’t be a registered Democrat. It doesn’t mean you can’t have voted for Obama. Living in DC doesn’t disqualify anyone from serving on a jury. This is the type of critical thinking I’d expect from a fourth grader.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you support the Jan. 6th traitors, you are MAGA.

What if you think they should be offered speedy trials somewhere other than the District as you don’t believe the juries selected in DC are impartial?

That’s still MAGA. The traitors don’t get special privileges.

Bill of Rights applies to all defendants (MAGA and non MAGA alike). Sorry I’m starting to sound awfully MAGA here.

How is a trial by a jury of your peers in the jurisdiction where you committed the crime against the Bill of Rights? Your lawyer can petition the judge for a change of venue, but no amendment guarantees one.

6th amendment specifically guarantees 1) speedy trial and 2) impartial jury.

"impartial" doesn't mean what you think it means...jurors are not impartial simply because the facts and the law lead them to convict. from the tone of your argument, you seem to think that "impartial" means sympathetic. it doesn't

DP here, I don't detect any "tone". Impartial simply means someone who doesn't hold a preconceived bias against something. This may be difficult to do in a location where an event happened due to biased news coverage of the event. This is why it's common for a case to be moved out of the jurisdiction where the event happened.

Obviously, the drafters of the Constitution disagree with you that it is difficult to have an impartial jury in the location where an event happened because that is exactly where the Constitution requires the jury to come from. The hurdle to end run this Constitutional requirement through a Rule 21(a) motion is high.

You are going to have to show where it requires the trial to be in the state/district. It says the accused has the right to an impartial jury from such a state/district. No where does it say the accused *MUST* stand trial there.

OK, here it is:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_18

LOL, did you read this link? The very first sentence says "Unless a statute or these rules permit otherwise..."

And oh, look, Rule 21:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_21

Learn to read. It's a useful skill for life.

That’s only if it’s impossible to have a fair trial in the district in which the crime occurred. That’s not the case here. You learn to read.

So you are conceding that it's not a requirement for the trial to take place in DC. You are welcome.

Tedious and juvenile shooting down straw man arguments no one made. No one ever said Rule 21 doesn't exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you support the Jan. 6th traitors, you are MAGA.

What if you think they should be offered speedy trials somewhere other than the District as you don’t believe the juries selected in DC are impartial?

That’s still MAGA. The traitors don’t get special privileges.

Bill of Rights applies to all defendants (MAGA and non MAGA alike). Sorry I’m starting to sound awfully MAGA here.

How is a trial by a jury of your peers in the jurisdiction where you committed the crime against the Bill of Rights? Your lawyer can petition the judge for a change of venue, but no amendment guarantees one.

6th amendment specifically guarantees 1) speedy trial and 2) impartial jury.

"impartial" doesn't mean what you think it means...jurors are not impartial simply because the facts and the law lead them to convict. from the tone of your argument, you seem to think that "impartial" means sympathetic. it doesn't

DP here, I don't detect any "tone". Impartial simply means someone who doesn't hold a preconceived bias against something. This may be difficult to do in a location where an event happened due to biased news coverage of the event. This is why it's common for a case to be moved out of the jurisdiction where the event happened.

Obviously, the drafters of the Constitution disagree with you that it is difficult to have an impartial jury in the location where an event happened because that is exactly where the Constitution requires the jury to come from. The hurdle to end run this Constitutional requirement through a Rule 21(a) motion is high.

You are going to have to show where it requires the trial to be in the state/district. It says the accused has the right to an impartial jury from such a state/district. No where does it say the accused *MUST* stand trial there.

It identifies the place where the accused has a right to trial by jury. It doesn't say the accused has a right to choose a jury from wherever the accused wishes. Court rules for procedure governs venue changes. If the accused wants a change in venue, there are standards to meet.

So you are conceding the point that the trial isn't required to take place in DC, and in fact, cannot take place in DC if the government can't produce an impartial Jury.

The government doesn’t “produce” a jury. DC maintains a list of eligible jurors based on records such as voter registration, drivers licenses, and receipt of public assistance. Jurors are then summoned for duty where they may get selected after being subjected to questioning by the court and counsel utilizing a void dire process designed to identify individuals who cannot judge the evidence with impartiality. Impartial doesn’t mean that you can’t be a registered Democrat. It doesn’t mean you can’t have voted for Obama. Living in DC doesn’t disqualify anyone from serving on a jury. This is the type of critical thinking I’d expect from a fourth grader.

Produce - cause (a particular result or situation) to happen or come into existence.

Everything in your description is the government causing a jury to be formed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you believe the election was stolen and that Trump is the second coming of Christ and you will vote for him again then you are a MAGA.

I remember Democrats claiming this about 2016 election...

I don’t remember Hillary refusing to concede, a conspiracy to appoint fake electors, a violent attack on the Capitol in January 2017 and people defending the attack as ordinary tourists. Maybe I missed all of that. What I do remember is Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell refusing to join Obamacin a bipartisan denunciation of Russian efforts to interfere in the election through well-documented hacking and disinformation operations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you believe the election was stolen and that Trump is the second coming of Christ and you will vote for him again then you are a MAGA.

I remember Democrats claiming this about 2016 election...

Democrats NEVER said this about 2016 election. Hillary conceded that same night despite the fact that she won the popular vote by three million votes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you support the Jan. 6th traitors, you are MAGA.

What if you think they should be offered speedy trials somewhere other than the District as you don’t believe the juries selected in DC are impartial?

That’s still MAGA. The traitors don’t get special privileges.

Bill of Rights applies to all defendants (MAGA and non MAGA alike). Sorry I’m starting to sound awfully MAGA here.

How is a trial by a jury of your peers in the jurisdiction where you committed the crime against the Bill of Rights? Your lawyer can petition the judge for a change of venue, but no amendment guarantees one.

6th amendment specifically guarantees 1) speedy trial and 2) impartial jury.

"impartial" doesn't mean what you think it means...jurors are not impartial simply because the facts and the law lead them to convict. from the tone of your argument, you seem to think that "impartial" means sympathetic. it doesn't

DP here, I don't detect any "tone". Impartial simply means someone who doesn't hold a preconceived bias against something. This may be difficult to do in a location where an event happened due to biased news coverage of the event. This is why it's common for a case to be moved out of the jurisdiction where the event happened.

Obviously, the drafters of the Constitution disagree with you that it is difficult to have an impartial jury in the location where an event happened because that is exactly where the Constitution requires the jury to come from. The hurdle to end run this Constitutional requirement through a Rule 21(a) motion is high.

You are going to have to show where it requires the trial to be in the state/district. It says the accused has the right to an impartial jury from such a state/district. No where does it say the accused *MUST* stand trial there.

It identifies the place where the accused has a right to trial by jury. It doesn't say the accused has a right to choose a jury from wherever the accused wishes. Court rules for procedure governs venue changes. If the accused wants a change in venue, there are standards to meet.

So you are conceding the point that the trial isn't required to take place in DC, and in fact, cannot take place in DC if the government can't produce an impartial Jury.

The government doesn’t “produce” a jury. DC maintains a list of eligible jurors based on records such as voter registration, drivers licenses, and receipt of public assistance. Jurors are then summoned for duty where they may get selected after being subjected to questioning by the court and counsel utilizing a void dire process designed to identify individuals who cannot judge the evidence with impartiality. Impartial doesn’t mean that you can’t be a registered Democrat. It doesn’t mean you can’t have voted for Obama. Living in DC doesn’t disqualify anyone from serving on a jury. This is the type of critical thinking I’d expect from a fourth grader.

Produce - cause (a particular result or situation) to happen or come into existence.

Everything in your description is the government causing a jury to be formed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you believe the election was stolen and that Trump is the second coming of Christ and you will vote for him again then you are a MAGA.

I remember Democrats claiming this about 2016 election...

I don’t remember Hillary refusing to concede, a conspiracy to appoint fake electors, a violent attack on the Capitol in January 2017 and people defending the attack as ordinary tourists. Maybe I missed all of that. What I do remember is Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell refusing to join Obamacin a bipartisan denunciation of Russian efforts to interfere in the election through well-documented hacking and disinformation operations.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019/05/06/hillary-clinton-warns-2020-democratic-candidates-stolen-election/1116477001/

https://www.npr.org/2017/09/18/551217204/hillary-clinton-says-shes-optimistic-about-our-country-but-i-am-not-naive

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-trump-is-an-illegitimate-president/2019/09/26/29195d5a-e099-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/08/25/hillary-clinton-joe-biden-election-advice-401641

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you support the Jan. 6th traitors, you are MAGA.

What if you think they should be offered speedy trials somewhere other than the District as you don’t believe the juries selected in DC are impartial?

Why, exactly, do you believe juries in DC are less able to be impartial than juries in, say, Alabama?

If you are ignoring this question because you know how bad your honest answer would make you look, you’re MAGA.