WHAT DO YOU GET WITH A HILLARY DONOR AND SELF AVOWED TRUMP HATERS IN A ROOM?

[Incogneeto]

I'm not and I get shit on for not picking a side.   

You're not safe anywhere.

You deserve it.

[rdshear]

Hi guys.

Hey Smit, Good to see you dropping in.  Even though I don't usually agree with your arguments, I do respect your right to have your views.  Plus I like hearing from the other side at times. 

Uh Oh, I better get my flame suit on...  LOL

[mkd]

Hey Smit, Good to see you dropping in.  Even though I don't usually agree with your arguments, I do respect your right to have your views.  Plus I like hearing from the other side at times. 

Uh Oh, I better get my flame suit on...  LOL

Are spouting DNC talking points now considered having an opinion?
But I do agree having him to kick around makes for less of a sausage fest.🤣

[beej]

sussman trial was interesting in that he was truly tried by his peers. Easy to say the judge and jurors were in league together without stretching any definition.
Being a Libertarian, it would actually be nice to see more cases brought where your actual peers are on the jury, which I'd venture to guess happens less than 1% of the time.

I'm not sure what you mean by that? Juries come out of a random pool of people within the county where we live and are charged with a crime. Do you mean they were truly his peers because they "knew" each other? or because they voted the same? hung around in the same circles? that points to jury bias not fairness.

Imagine a white man charged with lynching a black person, and only having KKK members on the jury because they were "truly his peers"

[Tim Johnson]

I heard a good quote today. It wasn't about national politics, it was a police matter that was dismissed in court.

The prosecutor said "The court room is where conspiracy theories die because real evidence is required in a court of law."

There is a LOT of truth to that. 

Hi guys.

Two testimonies admitted the conspiracy was manufactured and passed through Hillary.

[crazy^millman]

I'm not sure what you mean by that? Juries come out of a random pool of people within the county where we live and are charged with a crime. Do you mean they were truly his peers because they "knew" each other? or because they voted the same? hung around in the same circles? that points to jury bias not fairness.

Imagine a white man charged with lynching a black person, and only having KKK members on the jury because they were "truly his peers"

I think your last sentence was kind of the whole point.

[Shazam/TPP]

Two testimonies admitted the conspiracy was manufactured and passed through Hillary.

nothing to see here, just put these rose colored glasses on and it'll be clear as ....

[mkd]

I'm not sure what you mean by that? Juries come out of a random pool of people within the county where we live and are charged with a crime. Do you mean they were truly his peers because they "knew" each other? or because they voted the same? hung around in the same circles? that points to jury bias not fairness.

Imagine a white man charged with lynching a black person, and only having KKK members on the jury because they were "truly his peers"

good points for sure.
The constitution doesn't say tried by a random assortment of welfare bums that got nothing better to than show up to court for $6/day. Or what happened in this sussman trial of hand selected ringers.  It says jury of your PEERS.
 i don't have all the answers, but a better peer based jury selection process would be a nice check of insane prosecutor power that we have now. Maybe the defense/prosecution gets to call an even ratio of hand selected jurors? This seems workable, no?