America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 8 months ago by RayR. 61 replies replies.
Poll Question : Should Trump's trials be televised?
Choice Votes Statistics
Yes 14 77 %
No 4 22 %
Total 18 100%

2 Pages12>
Should Trump's trials be televised?
rfenst Offline
#1 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,336
Absolutely every single hearing. Transparency should rule.

If you disagree, why?
frankj1 Offline
#2 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,222
posting twice is asking for voter fraud charges Robert.
I'm already guilty
rfenst Offline
#3 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,336
frankj1 wrote:
posting twice is asking for voter fraud charges Robert.
I'm already guilty

I should be turning my self in tonight?
That would avoid Frank and Drafter from having to come down here to "deal" with me.
rfenst Offline
#4 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,336
.
frankj1 Offline
#5 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,222
rfenst wrote:
.




is that a blank ballot?

Anyway, the measure has passed by a 3 to 1 margin.
BuckyB93 Offline
#6 Posted:
Joined: 07-16-2004
Posts: 14,209
I would say yes. I could be wrong but I don't think Federal court trials can be televised. I think State court trials can and can't but I think it depends on the state. Again, I could be wrong.
Abrignac Offline
#7 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,288
Sure why not? We’re due for another OJ fiasco. It’s been a while since the last one.
rfenst Offline
#8 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,336
BuckyB93 wrote:
I would say yes. I could be wrong but I don't think Federal court trials can be televised. I think State court trials can and can't but I think it depends on the state. Again, I could be wrong.


https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/judicial-administration/cameras-courts/history-cameras-courts

"The following is the current policy for cameras in trial courts:

A judge may authorize broadcasting, televising, recording, or taking photographs in the courtroom and in adjacent areas during investitive, naturalization, or other ceremonial proceedings. A judge may authorize such activities in the courtroom or adjacent areas during other proceedings, or recesses between such other proceedings, only:

1) for the presentation of evidence;
2) for the perpetuation of the record of the proceedings;
3) for security purposes;
4) for other purposes of judicial administration;
5) for the photographing, recording, or broadcasting of appellate arguments; or
6) in accordance with pilot programs approved by the Judicial Conference.

When broadcasting, televising, recording, or photographing in the courtroom or adjacent areas is permitted, a judge should ensure that it is done in a manner that will:

1) be consistent with the rights of the parties,
2) not unduly distract participants in the proceeding, and
3) not otherwise interfere with the administration of justice."

https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/judicial-administration/cameras-courts/history-cameras-courts
rfenst Offline
#9 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,336
Abrignac wrote:
Sure why not? We’re due for another OJ fiasco. It’s been a while since the last one.


I think this is infinitely more important. What televised in OJ's trial became a fiasco? Too much reality of how boring a trial is? Didn't like the outcome?

Don't you think it is important for Americans to have the opportunity to directly see and hear the evidence and come to their own conclusion(s), whether or not one has a predetermined opinion of what the outcome should be.?

Or, would you rather just see artist sketches and hear/see and simple news interpretations of what actually occurred?
HockeyDad Offline
#10 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,142
No television. NBC can just put together a highlight show with footage of Trump arriving at a federal prison. Two weeks later we can get a breaking news headline that Trump was found dead in his cell.
deadeyedick Offline
#11 Posted:
Joined: 03-13-2003
Posts: 17,103
I don't think we televise lynch mobs anymore.
Whistlebritches Offline
#12 Posted:
Joined: 04-23-2006
Posts: 22,128
deadeyedick wrote:
I don't think we televise lynch mobs anymore.



You stole my thunder..............DITTO!!!
MACS Offline
#13 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,800
Sure... televise it. Let Trump's lawyers share all the discovery on live TV.
Brewha Online
#14 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,192
MACS wrote:
Sure... televise it. Let Trump's lawyers share all the discovery on live TV.

MACS is right.

Never thought you would read that from me, huh?
HockeyDad Offline
#15 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,142
Brewha wrote:
MACS is right.

Never thought you would read that from me, huh?



Stay where you are. Sit down. Drink some water. Looks like heat stroke. I’m sending help.
Brewha Online
#16 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,192
HockeyDad wrote:
Stay where you are. Sit down. Drink some water. Looks like heat stroke. I’m sending help.

Can you believe it? now macs doesn't what to talk to me any more.
I guess he is smarter than I thought....
RayR Offline
#17 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,898
Brewha wrote:
Can you believe it? now macs doesn't what to talk to me any more.
I guess he is smarter than I thought....


I'll still talk to you even when you pretend to ignore me.
MACS Offline
#18 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,800
So now that Trump and his lawyers have "discovery" because of the charges filed against him for Jan 6th... the Jan 6th committee has deleted everything.

You can't make this sh*t up, I swear...
Brewha Online
#19 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,192
RayR wrote:
I'll still talk to you even when you pretend to ignore me.

Yes.....Ain't I the fortunate son....
DrMaddVibe Offline
#20 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,453
rfenst wrote:
Absolutely every single hearing. Transparency should rule.

If you disagree, why?



I'm more interested in why people even want to see this?
delta1 Offline
#21 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,797
the American tradition is that criminal trials are open to the public...because of the sheer size of the American public, television fulfills that tradition better than any other form of media...

this would be a far more important, historically significant, case than the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin trial that had a huge audience...


edit: I'm back by unpopular demand...blame RR
delta1 Offline
#22 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,797
MACS wrote:
So now that Trump and his lawyers have "discovery" because of the charges filed against him for Jan 6th... the Jan 6th committee has deleted everything.

You can't make this sh*t up, I swear...



incorrect...the committee published its work in an 865 page report


see LA Times, 8/15/23

"Much of the committee's work was made public through an 845-page, eight-chapter report, several televised hearings and about 180 released transcripts and interviews. Loudermilk himself alleged only that the information his subcommittee has is incomplete, not that it was all destroyed"
frankj1 Offline
#23 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,222
delta1 wrote:
incorrect...the committee published its work in an 865 page report


see LA Times, 8/15/23

"Much of the committee's work was made public through an 845-page, eight-chapter report, several televised hearings and about 180 released transcripts and interviews. Loudermilk himself alleged only that the information his subcommittee has is incomplete, not that it was all destroyed"

so than you can make this stuff up?


sorry, Shawn. Couldn't resist.
Abrignac Offline
#24 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,288
There won’t be a trial so the point is moot.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#25 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,453
delta1 wrote:
the American tradition is that criminal trials are open to the public...because of the sheer size of the American public, television fulfills that tradition better than any other form of media...

this would be a far more important, historically significant, case than the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin trial that had a huge audience...


edit: I'm back by unpopular demand...blame RR


1st off...you're wherever you belong. Glad to see you back.

2nd...THIS right now...this $hit show we're ALL living in right now is NOTHING our Founding Fathers would recognize. They would kill Pedo Joe out in the open town square for what they used to call TREASON. As for Trump, other than being guilty of using his Free Speech in a manner he desires (because we're free and have rights!) that is contradictory to your political slant and a bad combover...the charges Jack Smith ESQ. & Co. decided the Constitution was designed for...political payback and to sway elections...Ain't it! You're going to be sadly let down. AGAIN. Even if they get their coveted (and they do!) guilty verdict...it will go to the Supreme Court and there (you'll have the usual idiots that cannot read nor ever taken a Biology class) they will slap this down*.

3rd...PLEASE go back and read that Zimmerman trial. It was completely 100% called correctly by me. From the beginning to the end. I chose to read and do the research. Listen to the media. Was totally disgusted by the game the presstitutes have made with their liberties. It was used by the left to gin up a violent rebuke of the facts and the Rule of Law. Fast Forward to Milwaukee and George Floyd and we get more of the same but the rebuke was deadlier and more violent. I concur that we don't need more racial violence in this nation. Picking scabs is getting old and the people responsible for the crimes are long dead. So are the ones that decided to fight it out to end Slavery. Both sides lost and won. We're the only nation to hold a civil war to end Slavery, you'd think we'd choose to uphold that and use it as a healing moment but we're seeing those picking scabs again and again.

*PS: Jack Smith ESQ. has the unique record of getting a unanimous decision from a SCOTUS. A 100% total shutdown rebuke, but that won't slow the DNC from pushing a guy that will pervert the Law to fit a narrative.
delta1 Offline
#26 Posted:
Joined: 11-23-2011
Posts: 28,797
you're saying that the people who wrote the Constitution would embrace an imbecile who pisses all over it?
HockeyDad Offline
#27 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,142
delta1 wrote:
you're saying that the people who wrote the Constitution would embrace an imbecile who pisses all over it?


You mean like unconstitutional vaccine mandates or $20 million in foreign bribes? Not sure where you’re going with this.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#28 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,453
delta1 wrote:
you're saying that the people who wrote the Constitution would embrace an imbecile who pisses all over it?



No, I believe I said...

DrMaddVibe wrote:
this $hit show we're ALL living in right now is NOTHING our Founding Fathers would recognize. They would kill Pedo Joe out in the open town square for what they used to call TREASON.


drglnc Offline
#29 Posted:
Joined: 04-01-2019
Posts: 715
Abrignac wrote:
There won’t be a trial so the point is moot.
You expect trump to take a "Art of the" Plea Deal?
Brewha Online
#30 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,192
drglnc wrote:
You expect trump to take a "Art of the" Plea Deal?


I expect him to take it in the shorts - and some Oath Breakers too...
Speyside2 Offline
#31 Posted:
Joined: 11-11-2021
Posts: 2,397
Georgia will be televised. Trump will love being on television every day.
bencounter Offline
#32 Posted:
Joined: 07-07-2023
Posts: 204
they should televise me sucking trumps ****** for 10 thousand dollars. oh yeah thats my price, anyone reading this, if you are interested in my services
Brewha Online
#33 Posted:
Joined: 01-25-2010
Posts: 12,192
Z wants to know if you’ll take a check.
MACS Offline
#34 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,800
frankj1 wrote:
so than you can make this stuff up?


sorry, Shawn. Couldn't resist.


Funny is funny... gotta respect it.

But the report they published may be exactly what they want you to see, no? Why delete everything if you got nothing to hide?

Spoiler: They had stuff to hide.
frankj1 Offline
#35 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,222
check the report I guess.

Pretty sure this wasn't like the Rose Mary Woods affair...
MACS Offline
#36 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,800
You'll pardon me if I trust exactly nothing the government says.
frankj1 Offline
#37 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,222
I don't think that's crazy
Abrignac Offline
#38 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,288
drglnc wrote:
You expect trump to take a "Art of the" Plea Deal?


No reason to. I’d be surprised if all the indictments don’t end up being tossed. DOJ is criminalizing protected speech and the ability to contest an election; two things fundamental to our Republic. Unfortunately, Trump haters are willing to latch on to any bone they can find.
rfenst Offline
#39 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 39,336
Abrignac wrote:
No reason to. I’d be surprised if all the indictments don’t end up being tossed. DOJ is criminalizing protected speech and the ability to contest an election; two things fundamental to our Republic. Unfortunately, Trump haters are willing to latch on to any bone they can find.

Sorry, Anthony, but I fully disagree.

The First Amendment crap is nothing butt a "red herring." If you and I discuss throwing mama off the train and then want to talk about it publicly, the 1st and 5th Amendments don't apply. Otherwise, how could there be a conspiracy of any kind without speech?

As to challenging election results, I have no problem with that, but the manner in which one does it DOES matter.

My analysis of this post as nothing to do with Trump. It has to do with what I know about the 1st and 5th Amendments and having been a prosecutor.

I still have my 1st Amendment text book and will post a link to SCOTUS decisions on this when I get home from vacation tomorrow or Tuesday.
RayR Offline
#40 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,898
I've heard the left has reinterpreted what is protected speech under the 1st Amendment using Newspeak words.
Abrignac Offline
#41 Posted:
Joined: 02-24-2012
Posts: 17,288
rfenst wrote:
Sorry, Anthony, but I fully disagree.

The First Amendment crap is nothing butt a "red herring." If you and I discuss throwing mama off the train and then want to talk about it publicly, the 1st and 5th Amendments don't apply. Otherwise, how could there be a conspiracy of any kind without speech?

As to challenging election results, I have no problem with that, but the manner in which one does it DOES matter.

My analysis of this post as nothing to do with Trump. It has to do with what I know about the 1st and 5th Amendments and having been a prosecutor.

I still have my 1st Amendment text book and will post a link to SCOTUS decisions on this when I get home from vacation tomorrow or Tuesday.



Though I certainly value your opinion as a learned attorney I see this differently. I read the entire 45 page January 6th indictment and I see numerous flaws. The entire indictment is based on what Trump said to various people in the furtherance of contesting the election. That is political speech and generally protected.

The indictment points out numerous alleged lies Trump told in the said contestation. Is it a crime to lie to achieve a political end? If so, then Obama needs to be indicted as well. Let's not forget the "If you like your doctor/policy you can keep them" lie that Obama told the American people on national TV. He told this lie, which was used to intimidate lawmakers into voting for a law when he was well aware that the law was going to do the opposite of what he claimed causing citizens to lose protections guaranteed by law.

Jonathan Gruber who has been described as a key architect of both the 2006 Massachusetts health care reform, sometimes referred to as "Romneycare", and the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, sometimes referred to as the "ACA" and "Obamacare". wrote:
"You can't do it political, you just literally cannot do it. Transparent financing and also transparent spending. I mean, this bill was written in a tortured way to make sure CBO did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes the bill dies. Okay? So it’s written to do that," Gruber said. "In terms of risk rated subsidies, if you had a law which said that healthy people are going to pay in, you made explicit healthy people pay in and sick people get money, it would not have passed. Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really really critical to get for the thing to pass. Look, I wish Mark was right that we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not."


https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/obama-admin-knew-millions-could-not-keep-their-health-insurance-flna8C11484394 wrote:
Buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010 is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, “40 to 67 percent” of customers will not be able to keep their policy. And because many policies will have been changed since the key date, “the percentage of individual market policies losing grandfather status in a given year exceeds the 40 to 67 percent range.”

That means the administration knew that more than 40 to 67 percent of those in the individual market would not be able to keep their plans, even if they liked them.


Based on what Obama did when taken into consideration the way the law is applied to Trump, Obama should also be guilty of

18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights wrote:
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or

If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.



I'm not attempting to make a straw man argument though I will certainly be accused of such. I'm merely pointing out that politicians are inherent liars and if we indict one then perhaps we need to indict them all.
8trackdisco Offline
#42 Posted:
Joined: 11-06-2004
Posts: 60,082
Make it Pay Per View and use the proceeds to reimburse the expenses of the state prosecution (tax payers).
DrMaddVibe Offline
#43 Posted:
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,453
8trackdisco wrote:
Make it Pay Per View and use the proceeds to reimburse the expenses of the state prosecution (tax payers).



I don't really like that option. The people voted that garbage in. They're responsible for it. Now, make it go to Maui relief...sure. As a nation Pedo joe is more concerned in giving away cash to Ukraine that its own neighbors view as hot garbage. Today he's going to make a scene by showing up. What's he going to do? Stumble and fall? Talk all high and mighty and then do his creepy whisper? Try out the local ice cream shops for Choco Choco Chip? After more than a week of "No Comment" or dodging the questions about Maui the locals there deserve more than they're getting. I read in one story they can claim a one time 700 hundred dollar relief claim. Yet those neo-nazis pricks in Ukrain rake in BILLIONS???
RayR Offline
#44 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,898
8trackdisco has a novel LEFTY idea...Pay Per View Show Trials to fund the Marxist state prosecutor's witch hunts.
Why didn't Stalin think of that?
MACS Offline
#45 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,800
^I don't think he is saying what you think he is saying...
pullfoot Offline
#46 Posted:
Joined: 03-10-2022
Posts: 1
Is it real or is it Memorex
RayR Offline
#47 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 8,898
MACS wrote:
^I don't think he is saying what you think he is saying...


No? Think Is it more like if a Roman Emperor charged admission to the Colosseum to watch a bloodbath?
frankj1 Offline
#48 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,222
would anyone be happy if he just tossed out a few rolls of Bounty, The Quicker Picker-Upper?
MACS Offline
#49 Posted:
Joined: 02-26-2004
Posts: 79,800
frankj1 wrote:
would anyone be happy if he just tossed out a few rolls of Bounty, The Quicker Picker-Upper?


Saw a meme: "Biden... the quicker f**ker upper". LOL

In fact... I'ma text it to you, Frankie...
frankj1 Offline
#50 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 44,222
^^^

caught me at a meeting for my mother. Then saw it when I got in the car, thought it was a riot especially in the context of it relating to this thread, typed out my reply...and never hit "send" until you texted again expressing the hope that my flipfone received it!

all in all, two or three good laffs as friends often share.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
2 Pages12>