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.

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

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.

Waiting for the MAGA lolyers to post … but … but … DC isn’t a state!

The word "District" is in that phrase of the Constitution for a reason.

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.

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.

Waiting for the MAGA lolyers to post … but … but … DC isn’t a state!

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.

It is not common at all for cases to be moved out of the jurisdiction where the crime occurred; that is the rare exception to the rule. Motions to change venue are rarely granted.

You know if you’re MAGA when you refuse to accept the consequences of your actions and want a whiter jury pool.

+1. Beneath all this complaining about impartial juries is just a desire to have one's fellow hillbilly friends on the jury back in Alabama or Idaho or wherever nullify the charges. I don't care where you are from. If you travel far to wreak havoc and commit violence, you're not going to be judged by your hometown crowd.

Indeed! Why did you hillbillies need to come + tear down the US Capitol?! If you wanted hillbilly juries, why did you not stay in your own red state capitals and tear them down? You would have had what you wanted- fellow hillbilly jurists. Here is my tiny violin for you.

I know and work with lots of traditional Republicans who are extremely pro-business, anti-union, low tax types who don't care about abortion (since most of them are male), and are vaguely homophobic and think that the Dems spend too much time talking about sexuality, gender, and diversity in the workplace. They lack a great deal of self-awareness that for decades incompetent white men have obtained jobs and promotions largely because they were simply white men in a system controlled by white men. (Or perhaps they are aware, because many of them seem a little anxious when faced with a room of people where white men are not the dominant majority. . . . ). They voted for Trump because of the traditional Republican reasons above and ---honestly---because they were sexist when it came to Hillary. About half of them rapidly became appalled by Trump and either voted for Biden or didn't vote. The other half, while still saying they hated Trump's behavior, voted for him again for all the reasons listed above. And, that group would probably vote for him again EVEN after January 6th and even after we now know he thumbed his nose at returning classified documents even when given multiple off-ramps to do so. At this point, anybody who would vote for Trump again is a MAGA.

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.

It is not common at all for cases to be moved out of the jurisdiction where the crime occurred; that is the rare exception to the rule. Motions to change venue are rarely granted.

You know if you’re MAGA when you refuse to accept the consequences of your actions and want a whiter jury pool.

+1. Beneath all this complaining about impartial juries is just a desire to have one's fellow hillbilly friends on the jury back in Alabama or Idaho or wherever nullify the charges. I don't care where you are from. If you travel far to wreak havoc and commit violence, you're not going to be judged by your hometown crowd.

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.

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.

It is not common at all for cases to be moved out of the jurisdiction where the crime occurred; that is the rare exception to the rule. Motions to change venue are rarely granted.

You know if you’re MAGA when you refuse to accept the consequences of your actions and want a whiter jury pool.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you believe the election was stolen?

Don't know. Up to the system to convince me that things are being done properly. Definitely don't agree with mail in ballots as they are right now. Voters should have to re-confirm voter registration information is current before a ballot can be mailed out. Maybe confirm by a certain date before district can mass mailed them out. The idea that cheating/mistakes are not occurring is insane. To what degree who knows.

If you are bored checkout this grand jury report from the past.

https://sites.duke.edu/pjms364s_01_s2016_jaydelancy/files/2016/04/Report-of-the-Special-Grand-Jury-US-District-Court-NE-Illinois-.pdf

The degree is not unknown. It’s very rare and doesn’t affect outcomes.

Certainly the wide use of mail in balloting may have affected the outcome. (This represented a process change, not necessarily election fraud.)

Mailed ballots are inherently prone to fraud because there is no auditable chain of custody to ensure that the person who cast a vote is the same person who claims to be the voter. When you show up to vote at a polling place, you show ID, is given a ballot, you then fill it out in person, and feed it into the box/machine. That's complete chain of custody, the gold standard. Mailed ballots have no such guarantee - none what so ever. There is no way to track the ballot or audit the authenticity of the vote after the fact. I would trust cell phone app voting far more than mailed voting - you can even use biometric authentication for people who want to be sure that no one else has stolen their vote. We use biometric authentication for banking transactions, there is no excuse why voting should be less secure.

Entire states have used mail in ballots for decades. Only MAGAs think this way.

Which states? Or are you confusing absentee ballots...

Google? Oregon has universal mail in voting. Other states including Colorado and DC mail a ballot to every registered voter. This isn’t hard.

To answer OP's question, I like to think about Rene Descartes' philosophy which should lead to your answer:

I think, therefore I am...NOT a MAGA

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.

It is not common at all for cases to be moved out of the jurisdiction where the crime occurred; that is the rare exception to the rule. Motions to change venue are rarely granted.

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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do you believe the election was stolen?

Don't know. Up to the system to convince me that things are being done properly. Definitely don't agree with mail in ballots as they are right now. Voters should have to re-confirm voter registration information is current before a ballot can be mailed out. Maybe confirm by a certain date before district can mass mailed them out. The idea that cheating/mistakes are not occurring is insane. To what degree who knows.

If you are bored checkout this grand jury report from the past.

https://sites.duke.edu/pjms364s_01_s2016_jaydelancy/files/2016/04/Report-of-the-Special-Grand-Jury-US-District-Court-NE-Illinois-.pdf

The degree is not unknown. It’s very rare and doesn’t affect outcomes.

Certainly the wide use of mail in balloting may have affected the outcome. (This represented a process change, not necessarily election fraud.)

Mailed ballots are inherently prone to fraud because there is no auditable chain of custody to ensure that the person who cast a vote is the same person who claims to be the voter. When you show up to vote at a polling place, you show ID, is given a ballot, you then fill it out in person, and feed it into the box/machine. That's complete chain of custody, the gold standard. Mailed ballots have no such guarantee - none what so ever. There is no way to track the ballot or audit the authenticity of the vote after the fact. I would trust cell phone app voting far more than mailed voting - you can even use biometric authentication for people who want to be sure that no one else has stolen their vote. We use biometric authentication for banking transactions, there is no excuse why voting should be less secure.

Entire states have used mail in ballots for decades. Only MAGAs think this way.

Entire states used to allow slavery, doesn't mean it's right. If you have actual arguments showing how mailed ballots are secure, we can discuss.

“There is no way to track the ballot or audit the authenticity of the vote after the fact” is a complete lie, so it’s not worth discussing with you.

How do you audit the authenticity of the vote for mailed in ballots? Explain how you can confirm that the vote was cast by the person whose name is on the ballot.

Here's the thing: whether you love mail-in voting or hate mail in voting, at the time of the 2020 election it was LEGAL to vote that way in certain jurisdictions. Over 60 lawsuits, dozens of recounts proved that there was very little voter fraud and certainly not enough to change any state's vote on President. Therefore, the election was not fraudulent and was not stolen. If you believe otherwise, then you are a MAGA.