Jump to content

Whitmer Fednapping Plot: Two defendants NOT GUILTY; Two NO VERDICT (GUILTY in re-trial)


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, aristocrat said:

 

what’s the about elections? How bout defund the police? No bail? 

 

The above is why I tell people to shut it when they bring up Repubs challenging the results of 2020.  And when they bring up J6, I ask them how that ever could have been planned and/or an insurrection if they didn't bring weapons and left before finishing the job?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • BillsFanNC changed the title to Whitmer Fednapping Plot: Two defendants NOT GUILTY; Two NO VERDICT (jury deliberating in re-trial)

Search of CNN and MSNBC on current trial = bupkis.

 

NYT = last coverage 8/10.

 

WaPo to their somewhat credit has current coverage.  Then you read the article and they go to the tired  "pounce" language.  It would be nice if they could come up with a novel rhetorical device every now and then.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/deliberations-start-for-2-men-charged-in-gov-whitmer-plot/2022/08/23/c8aff026-22e1-11ed-a72f-1e7149072fbc_story.html

 

Prosecutors said some of the best evidence against Adam Fox and Barry Croft Jr. came from their own words, either written by them or secretly recorded by FBI agents and informants during weeks of surveillance in three states.

Defense lawyers, meanwhile, pounced on the FBI in their closing arguments, linking any scheme to rogue operatives, not a band of anti-government rebels.

  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:

Search of CNN and MSNBC on current trial = bupkis.

 

NYT = last coverage 8/10.

 

WaPo to their somewhat credit has current coverage.  Then you read the article and they go to the tired  "pounce" language.  It would be nice if they could come up with a novel rhetorical device every now and then.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/deliberations-start-for-2-men-charged-in-gov-whitmer-plot/2022/08/23/c8aff026-22e1-11ed-a72f-1e7149072fbc_story.html

 

Prosecutors said some of the best evidence against Adam Fox and Barry Croft Jr. came from their own words, either written by them or secretly recorded by FBI agents and informants during weeks of surveillance in three states.

Defense lawyers, meanwhile, pounced on the FBI in their closing arguments, linking any scheme to rogue operatives, not a band of anti-government rebels.


YOU CHANGED THE TITLE OF THIS THREAD AGAIN - per Julie?
 

lmao

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:

Search of CNN and MSNBC on current trial = bupkis.

 

NYT = last coverage 8/10.

 

WaPo to their somewhat credit has current coverage.  Then you read the article and they go to the tired  "pounce" language.  It would be nice if they could come up with a novel rhetorical device every now and then.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/deliberations-start-for-2-men-charged-in-gov-whitmer-plot/2022/08/23/c8aff026-22e1-11ed-a72f-1e7149072fbc_story.html

 

Prosecutors said some of the best evidence against Adam Fox and Barry Croft Jr. came from their own words, either written by them or secretly recorded by FBI agents and informants during weeks of surveillance in three states.

Defense lawyers, meanwhile, pounced on the FBI in their closing arguments, linking any scheme to rogue operatives, not a band of anti-government rebels.


Meanwhile on Fox - cringe:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • BillsFanNC changed the title to Whitmer Fednapping Plot: Two defendants NOT GUILTY; Two NO VERDICT (GUILTY in re-trial)
2 hours ago, BillStime said:


YOU CHANGED THE TITLE OF THIS THREAD AGAIN - per Julie?
 

lmao

 

 

i mean - to be fair ....Julie has an extensive backgound as a ....housewife...to back up her points.

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, TH3 said:

i mean - to be fair ....Julie has an extensive backgound as a ....housewife...to back up her points.

I have wondered “who is this Julie Kelly that our Trumpy posters seem obsessed with?”

So I finally took a few minutes and discovered that she is, in fact, a proud “stay at home mom” and sometime food writer. 
Good enough to be some people’s Svengali I guess. Now I see she’s opining on jury instructions. Should I add some fresh cracked black pepper to those instructions, Julie?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Frankish Reich said:

This thread didn’t age well. 

It depends on your perspective.  If justice was served, it was served. 

 

Still, lots of people have lots of complaints about the police, law enforcement tactics, systemic and widespread issues in the criminal justice system.   It's not uninteresting that the defendants were not convicted the first time around by THAT jury of peers, and the government opted to load up and try again.  Eventually, when the weight of the government is coming for you, it seems logical it will eventually win.  People seem worried only about overreach and injustice when they don't like the defendants. 

 

I haven't followed this story all that closely for a couple reasons.  First, this whole concept of entrapment always makes me wonder.  I can't imagine a time when a reasonable person would find themselves entangled in anything that can be referred to as a "plot" absent a reasonable explanation of innocent activity.  If your buddy, we'll call him Sam, calls and asks if you can stop by the auto shop to pick up an alternator because you drive by, you do, and it turns out it's a bag of plutonium, I can see how you might have thought it was an alternator.  Much beyond that, words like "kidnapping", "storming", and "zip ties for Gretchen" would be off-putting.   Second, anyone who would voluntarily enter into a kidnapping type relationship resulting in hearing this crazy authoritarian woman yammering on and on should be imprisoned on on principle alone.   She's a nut. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

I have wondered “who is this Julie Kelly that our Trumpy posters seem obsessed with?”

So I finally took a few minutes and discovered that she is, in fact, a proud “stay at home mom” and sometime food writer. 
Good enough to be some people’s Svengali I guess. Now I see she’s opining on jury instructions. Should I add some fresh cracked black pepper to those instructions, Julie?

So you're saying a mere "housewife" is incapable of sharing an informed educated opinion on events? Seems to me she is well informed on these issues despite having to do dishes and cook supper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, wnyguy said:

So you're saying a mere "housewife" is incapable of sharing an informed educated opinion on events? Seems to me she is well informed on these issues despite having to do dishes and cook supper.

I am saying that here she is clearly out of her depth. She also says she worked as a political consultant (I haven’t checked her references, but I assume she’s not making it up), so I imagine her take on campaigns, elections, etc, may be worth listening to. But jury instructions? The application of the federal rules of evidence? Umm, no. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

I am saying that here she is clearly out of her depth. She also says she worked as a political consultant (I haven’t checked her references, but I assume she’s not making it up), so I imagine her take on campaigns, elections, etc, may be worth listening to. But jury instructions? The application of the federal rules of evidence? Umm, no. 

And yet here you are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again in chigoose fashion we have morons like @The Frankish Reich attacking the messenger.

 

This is why I've provided updates of what other media outlets have done in this trial. It's overwhelmingly been silence from them. I'm sure that will change now that the desired verdict has been reached.

 

If you wanted daily coverage from someone who listened to the entire trial then Julie Kelly was your source on a national level. There were no other options.

 

And now the clowns come out as expected.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

True. Because: I am a lawyer. I have proposed and objected to jury instructions. And I have other relevant experience. 
You’re welcome. 
(but please, keep listening to your proud housewife instead!)

Ooooh a lawyer you say? Let me ask you thIs is there anything that this lowly stay at home mom has tweeted that is factually or legally incorrect?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

I have wondered “who is this Julie Kelly that our Trumpy posters seem obsessed with?”

So I finally took a few minutes and discovered that she is, in fact, a proud “stay at home mom” and sometime food writer. 
Good enough to be some people’s Svengali I guess. Now I see she’s opining on jury instructions. Should I add some fresh cracked black pepper to those instructions, Julie?

Haha... I always google the tweeters that these guys post here ALL THE TIME...You know who most of them are?....NOBODIES with no relevant educational, life, or professional experience...hell half of them go by a nickname....And clowns like Bman and DR post them like they came out of a buring bush chiseld onto a brick...

 

Julie - FFS - she is just a spigot for the same old taking points she gets in her email....

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, TH3 said:

Haha... I always google the tweeters that these guys post here ALL THE TIME...You know who most of them are?....NOBODIES with no relevant educational, life, or professional experience...hell half of them go by a nickname....And clowns like Bman and DR post them like they came out of a buring bush chiseld onto a brick...

 

Julie - FFS - she is just a spigot for the same old taking points she gets in her email....

Again has she tweeted anything factually inaccurate? Have you followed this trial? If so, please enlighten us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, wnyguy said:

Again has she tweeted anything factually inaccurate? Have you followed this trial? If so, please enlighten us.

 

They wouldn't know one way or the other because they're clowns who know zero about what happened at the trial.  Unlike Julie Kelly.

 

 

@The Frankish Reich with the I'm a lawyer!!!   

 

:lol::lol:

 

Ummm yeah double barreled middle finger on those credentials.

 

After two plus years of people online telling me that THEY are the experts in vaccine development and molecular diagnostics your credentials mean nothing.  Absolutely nothing.

 

 

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, TH3 said:

Haha... I always google the tweeters that these guys post here ALL THE TIME...You know who most of them are?....NOBODIES with no relevant educational, life, or professional experience...hell half of them go by a nickname...

 

 

This is false.

 

 

I would invite everyone to click on the tweet's author and see if they have more credibility than T3.

 

 

It's an easy choice.

 

.

  • Haha (+1) 2
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:

 

They wouldn't know one way or the other because they're clowns who know zero about what happened at the trial.  Unlike Julie Kelly.

 

 

@The Frankish Reich with the I'm a lawyer!!!   

 

:lol::lol:

 

Ummm yeah double barreled middle finger on those credentials.

 

After two plus years of people online telling me that THEY are the experts in vaccine development and molecular diagnostics your credentials mean nothing.  Absolutely nothing.

 

 

DRG, didn’t you just say in the Fauci thread that you have training in molecular biology? So you think you may know more about COVID than, say, a proud housewife and former political consultant?

It’s fine and dandy for Julie to comment on testimony at trial, etc. But evidentiary rulings and jury instructions? No. I would ask a lawyer, not a food writer (not even one that may be bankrolled by big Ag). 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

DRG, didn’t you just say in the Fauci thread that you have training in molecular biology? So you think you may know more about COVID than, say, a proud housewife and former political consultant?

It’s fine and dandy for Julie to comment on testimony at trial, etc. But evidentiary rulings and jury instructions? No. I would ask a lawyer, not a food writer (not even one that may be bankrolled by big Ag). 
 

 

 

I'm sure that your credentials take you wherever they should in your professional endeavors. Just as mine do.

 

Here they mean nothing nor do mine.

 

I'm only playing by the rules that are in place online and the wild west that is PPP.

 

Heck, in real life we even have numerous examples of well credentialed scientists, lawyers etc. being silenced and scoffed at because they don't tow the line of thinking approved by the narrative shapers. 

 

Julie Kelly in this instance is more than qualified to opine mainly because she is the only source that actually covered and watched the entire trial.  You can be Alan Dershowitz, but if you watched 0.0 minutes of the trial I'm still going to defer to the layman's coverage.

  • Dislike 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record, Julie Kelly was not the only source that actually covered and watched the entire trial. She may have been the only source that actually covered and watched the entire trial while high on #TrumpCrack, however there are plenty of local Michigan reporters, such as Rachel Louise Just, and national reporters, such as Ken Bensinger of the New York Times, who covered the entire trial in full. 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
  • Dislike 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:

she is the only source that actually covered and watched the entire trial. 

Watching a trial means you are qualified to report on what was said, how the parties were dressed, whether the jury seemed bored or interested, etc. See Depp v Heard. It doesn’t make you qualified to opine on whether a judge’s evidentiary rulings or jury instructions are legally correct/flawed, etc. 

 

20 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:

being silenced and scoffed at because they don't tow the line

Toe. 
 

 

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

Watching a trial means you are qualified to report on what was said, how the parties were dressed, whether the jury seemed bored or interested, etc. See Depp v Heard. It doesn’t make you qualified to opine on whether a judge’s evidentiary rulings or jury instructions are legally correct/flawed, etc. 

 

 Among your professional colleagues in the legal world the above is all true.  Just as it is with my fellow immunologists and virologists.

 

Online all bets are off.  Especially at PPP.

 

Your credentials and how you use them to determine who is/isn't qualified mean squat here.

 

 

52 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

 

Toe. 
 

 

 

Correct.  Phone auto correct as I'm sure you can appreciate.

 

Now I'm going to use this opportunity to give another bi-weekly-ish shout out to one of my admirers.  I ignore this poster with religious zeal, and since you love it when I call out those on my ignore list then there's no better place or time than now, right?

 

hey @716er  ***** off!

Edited by DRsGhost
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

I guess that closes the book on the whole FEDS CONSPIRED TO IMPRISON MICHIGAN BACKWOODS LOSERS ON FAKE POLITICAL KIDNAPPING CHARGES thing?

 

Well, they did.  Perhaps these useful morons should be punished for going along with it, but they did.

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DRsGhost said:

 

 Among your professional colleagues in the legal world the above is all true.  Just as it is with my fellow immunologists and virologists.

 

Online all bets are off.  Especially at PPP.

 

Your credentials and how you use them to determine who is/isn't qualified mean squat here.

 

 

 

Correct.  Phone auto correct as I'm sure you can appreciate.

 

Now I'm going to use this opportunity to give another bi-weekly-ish shout out to one of my admirers.  I ignore this poster with religious zeal, and since you love it when I call out those on my ignore list then there's no better place or time than now, right?

 

hey @716er  ***** off!

 

ThirstyScalyGalapagosdove-size_restricte

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said:

I guess that closes the book on the whole FEDS CONSPIRED TO IMPRISON MICHIGAN BACKWOODS LOSERS ON FAKE POLITICAL KIDNAPPING CHARGES thing?

 

 

It looks like the lawyer who followed this case in detail forgot about the two "kidnappers" who were acquitted by a jury in April based on an FBI entrapment defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:

 

It looks like the lawyer who followed this case in detail forgot about the two "kidnappers" who were acquitted by a jury in April based on an FBI entrapment defense.

Well, let’s think about that. 
A reasonable finder of fact (a jury, or two of them) could find that some of the accused had a pre-existing propensity to engage in a violent action (today’s guilty verdicts) but that others did not (the first trial acquittals). So there was a conspiracy to do grave harm to the Gov, but not all of the charged conspirators are guilty. 


 

Edited by The Frankish Reich
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, wnyguy said:

Again has she tweeted anything factually inaccurate? Have you followed this trial? If so, please enlighten us.

Dude….the post above this literally has her being ONE HUNDRED PERCENT WRONG

LOL

Edited by TH3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 men convicted in plot to kidnap Michigan Gov. Whitmer

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. (AP) — A jury on Tuesday convicted two men of conspiring to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer in 2020, delivering swift verdicts in a plot that was broken up by the FBI and described as a rallying cry for a U.S. civil war by anti-government extremists.

 

https://apnews.com/article/elections-presidential-michigan-gretchen-whitmer-grand-rapids-9ad8f100d32e7d5883b1be9d6c4cb8d5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...