I came across this is little story today, it's not breaking news. I suspect that a member of the housekeeping staff knows something about the bomb threat that required the sweep for weapons.
According to police in Secaucus, the bomb threat — which later was determined to be bogus — was called in to Hudson Regional Hospital on July 18. During a search, bomb detection dogs led investigators to an unlocked office closet containing dozens of firearms.
Among the weapons were 11 handguns and 27 rifles or shotguns, according to police. The closet also contained a .45 caliber semi-automatic rifle with a high-capacity magazine that was determined to be an assault rifle, and a 14-round high-capacity handgun magazine.
The arrested the guy the next day.
What the heck do you think this guy was doing? It sounds very ominous that he was keeping those weapons there.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Roitrn said:
No
She is an irresponsible person selected to be a jury forman who may compromise the entire case. Her "star struck" status means she does not have the ability to be objective.
They are not scarred. Trump's legal team were just handed a means for mistrial. And so they should. IMO, this person has no business being on any jury.
Trump's team will certainly try to use this for mistrial or other procedural complaints. That's right, she may not have been objective, that is the nature of juries.
I don't agree that she's said anything that may compromise the entire case. It seems to me that she simply broke some traditions around secrecy without discussing the recommendations in detail. Her excited generalizations and nonverbal communication is theater from an unexpected front in a widespread and confusing web of investigations. Now that she's clarified that her remarks in no way indicate that Trump is vindicated, she may find herself targeted for harassment.
Roitrn said:
Well technically he has not been exposed yet. The Fox/Dominion trial has not even started yet. Or was there a judgment that you only are only privy to? I think that's your personal opinion and/or feelings about Fox and Tucker. You can have feelings but feelings are not fact. We have yet to know the facts regarding this case.
However left wing media sources will propagate that not yet proven claim through their propaganda as fact. Much as you do.
Technically, we can read Carlson's own words which flat out state that he knew the election fraud claims were lies...yet he planted doubt and fanned embers of anxiety about stolen electing and other cheating by democrats over and over again. That's propaganda. They were intentionally suppressing facts and promoting a divisive and dangerous message. Carlson wasn't the only member of the FOX team to engage in that way. They shared private communications about it.
The Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe said Dominion Voting Systems' brief requesting summary judgment against Fox News for defamation – and $1.6bn – is "likely to succeed and likely to be a landmark" in the history of freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
"I have never seen a defamation case with such overwhelming proof that the defendant admitted in writing that it was making up fake information in order to increase its viewership and its revenues,” Tribe told the Guardian. "Fox and its producers and performers were lying as part of their business model.”
Quote
Tribe said the filing "establishes that Fox was not only reckless" but also that producers, owners and personalities were "deliberately lying and knew they were lying about the nature of Dominion's machines and the supposed way they could be manipulated".
It will be interesting to see how the trial and ruling in this case are received by the public.
Has anyone in this thread read the substantial Dominion filing?
She is an irresponsible person selected to be a jury forman who may compromise the entire case. Her "star struck" status means she does not have the ability to be objective.
This person has no business being on any jury.
Forepersons are elected by the other jurors; they are not selected.
What sort of person, in your opinion, has business being on a jury?
Trump's team will certainly try to use this for mistrial or other procedural complaints. That's right, she may not have been objective, that is the nature of juries.
I don't agree that she's said anything that may compromise the entire case. It seems to me that she simply broke some traditions around secrecy without discussing the recommendations in detail. Her excited generalizations and nonverbal communication is theater from an unexpected front in a widespread and confusing web of investigations. Now that she's clarified that her remarks in no way indicate that Trump is vindicated, she may find herself targeted for harassment.
Technically, we can read Carlson's own words which flat out state that he knew the election fraud claims were lies...yet he planted doubt and fanned embers of anxiety about stolen electing and other cheating by democrats over and over again. That's propaganda. They were intentionally suppressing facts and promoting a divisive and dangerous message. Carlson wasn't the only member of the FOX team to engage in that way. They shared private communications about it.
Forepersons are elected by the other jurors; they are not selected.
What sort of person, in your opinion, has business being on a jury?
She is a irrispnsiblr forperson elected by the other jurors then.
A juror or forperson on a jury should be responsible and impartial as much as possible. They shouldn't go on news shows gushing about her fantasy of having "60 seconds speaking with Trump swearing him in". Nor should she be giving details about any information regarding the case that isn't concluded yet. It can be argued this person was personally interested for other purposes than ruling on a court case.
Trump's team will certainly try to use this for mistrial or other procedural complaints. That's right, she may not have been objective, that is the nature of juries.
I don't agree that she's said anything that may compromise the entire case. It seems to me that she simply broke some traditions around secrecy without discussing the recommendations in detail. Her excited generalizations and nonverbal communication is theater from an unexpected front in a widespread and confusing web of investigations. Now that she's clarified that her remarks in no way indicate that Trump is vindicated, she may find herself targeted for harassment.
Technically, we can read Carlson's own words which flat out state that he knew the election fraud claims were lies...yet he planted doubt and fanned embers of anxiety about stolen electing and other cheating by democrats over and over again. That's propaganda. They were intentionally suppressing facts and promoting a divisive and dangerous message. Carlson wasn't the only member of the FOX team to engage in that way. They shared private communications about it.
It will be interesting to see how the trial and ruling in this case are received by the public.
Has anyone in this thread read the substantial Dominion filing?
You and all the Havard this and that can speculate all you want. The idea of a court case is to determine if defemation occurred. It has not concluded yet. Not all evidence has be heard.
So you may determine the case as you feel you should, fortunately the court system doesn't operate that way.
Private messages do not always tell the entire story. It could be that they were a continuation of a conversation these people had in person. Thus not knowing the full context. That is why all evidence is presented before a conclusion is made. Or there would be no point.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Speculate? It's easy to just talk about what is currently available for review... and that evidence appears pretty straightforward... if we just take them at their word. It will be interesting to see what defense Carlson and Fox employ.
Speculate? It's easy to just talk about what is currently available for review... and that evidence appears pretty straightforward... if we just take them at their word. It will be interesting to see what defense Carlson and Fox employ.
Speculate? It's easy to just talk about what is currently available for review... and that evidence appears pretty straightforward... if we just take them at their word. It will be interesting to see what defense Carlson and Fox employ.
Yes. We can talk about what we know but all the facts are not available. I'm not saying I do not agree with your assessment. If going by the private messages alone, it does seem they believed something other than what they said on air.
I just think calling it the biggest scandal in modern history and assigning motive before all the evidence is known is speculation and foolish.
Yes it will be interesting to know what the defence is. As of yet we do not know.
I feel minds are made up already and it doesn't matter to some what the outcome will be.
heron said:
Hope they have better lawyers than trump.
Hope they have a better forperson for their jury than in Geogia.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
Roitrn said:
Yes. We can talk about what we know but all the facts are not available. I'm not saying I do not agree with your assessment. If going by the private messages alone, it does seem they believed something other than what they said on air.
I just think calling it the biggest scandal in modern history and assigning motive before all the evidence is known is speculation and foolish.
Yes it will be interesting to know what the defence is. As of yet we do not know.
I feel minds are made up already and it doesn't matter to some what the outcome will be.
Hope they have a better forperson for their jury than in Geogia.
As I said, I'm not aware of another more salacious case of media lies and corruption. There have been some big stories that were made up out of thin air... but none to my knowledge had the effect of creating ideological and angry division that encouraged Americans into storming the Capitol and trying to overthrow the government. It's hard to beat a scandal of that magnitude, IMV.
Correct. The trial results won't matter to some and there are definitely some people who will believe that the 2020 election was not free and fair no matter the lack of evidence of fraud or the evidence of secure voting. They have simply had too much doubt inserted into their thinking now by the voices on Fox and other right wing media platforms..
As I said, I'm not aware of another more salacious case of media lies and corruption. There have been some big stories that were made up out of thin air... but none to my knowledge had the effect of creating ideological and angry division that encouraged Americans into storming the Capitol and trying to overthrow the government. It's hard to beat a scandal of that magnitude, IMV.
Correct. The trial results won't matter to some and there are definitely some people who will believe that the 2020 election was not free and fair no matter the lack of evidence of fraud or the evidence of secure voting. They have simply had too much doubt inserted into their thinking now by the voices on Fox and other right wing media platforms..
Or people can believe what they want and the government in power cannot control that.
Was it Trump who encouraged the rioters to enter the capital or was it FOX news? Are you aware of the ratio of peaceful protesters vs rioters that day? Over 2000 rioters are estimated.
Quote
the department estimates that between 2,000 and 2,500 people entered the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021....."
How many peaceful protesters ? I had a hard time finding a number of peaceful protesters. However as you can clearly see, there were many people there that day who did not partake in any violence.
What do you propose we do with these people who will still believe it was stolen? Criminally charge them for their thoughts? Now that is tyrannical thinking.
People will believe what they will. Unless they do something illegal with those beliefs, you just have to get over your emotions about people who believe the 2020 election was stolen. It wasn't. Move on.
She is a irrispnsiblr forperson elected by the other jurors then.
A juror or forperson on a jury should be responsible and impartial as much as possible. They shouldn't go on news shows gushing about her fantasy of having "60 seconds speaking with Trump swearing him in". Nor should she be giving details about any information regarding the case that isn't concluded yet. It can be argued this person was personally interested for other purposes than ruling on a court case.
She has reportedly not violated Georgia law or any of the judge's guidelines.
I have no idea what this phrase means : "her fantasy of having '60 seconds speaking with Trump swearing him in'."
And she was not ruling on a court case. This was a special grand jury that was recommending whether indictments should be made. The final decision on whether to issue indictments is up to the DA.
If Georgia laws about jury duty are similar to my state, then voter registration and the ability to render an unbiased opinion are the only requirements. She reportedly wasn't even aware of the so-called perfect phone call, nor did she vote in the 2020 election. It seems to me she was very qualified. Lack of bias is important, wouldn't you say?
She has reportedly not violated Georgia law or any of the judge's guidelines.
I have no idea what this phrase means : "her fantasy of having '60 seconds speaking with Trump swearing him in'."
And she was not ruling on a court case. This was a special grand jury that was recommending whether indictments should be made. The final decision on whether to issue indictments is up to the DA.
If Georgia laws about jury duty are similar to my state, then voter registration and the ability to render an unbiased opinion are the only requirements. She reportedly wasn't even aware of the so-called perfect phone call, nor did she vote in the 2020 election. It seems to me she was very qualified. Lack of bias is important, wouldn't you say?
Her statement.
Quote
But she also may have crossed the line. She revealed, for instance, that the grand jury decided not to invite Trump to testify because it wasn't worth the fight that he would put up. (Though she also wanted to swear him in: "I thought it'd be really cool to get sixty seconds with President Trump, of me looking at him and being like, 'Do you solemnly swear,’” she told NBC News.) She disclosed some of the evidence, including that the grand jury heard lots of recordings of Trump. She also revealed that their final report recommended indictments for over a dozen individuals and she strongly hinted that Trump was among them. (“You're not going to be shocked,” she told the Times. "It's not rocket science.”) Some of these revelations do seem like they could be in the category of grand jury deliberations.
— She seemed genuinely giddy about the experience and the chance to talk to the press about it. Most of the coverage emphasized her occasional giggling in the TV interviews and her awe at her brush with history. "Do you know,” she told her boyfriend one day, according to the AJC, "that if I was in a room with Donald Trump and [President JOE] BIDEN and they knew who I was, they would both want to speak to me.”
Would you want someone who presents and makes comments like this as this person being a forperson for a court case about you? How she imagined being in a room with Biden and Trump and how they "both would want to talk to her"?. Sounds like a bad Mediao script.
She may not have broken laws but she most certainly did not help the case against Trump.
toomuchbaloney
16,213 Posts
Trump's team will certainly try to use this for mistrial or other procedural complaints. That's right, she may not have been objective, that is the nature of juries.
I don't agree that she's said anything that may compromise the entire case. It seems to me that she simply broke some traditions around secrecy without discussing the recommendations in detail. Her excited generalizations and nonverbal communication is theater from an unexpected front in a widespread and confusing web of investigations. Now that she's clarified that her remarks in no way indicate that Trump is vindicated, she may find herself targeted for harassment.
Technically, we can read Carlson's own words which flat out state that he knew the election fraud claims were lies...yet he planted doubt and fanned embers of anxiety about stolen electing and other cheating by democrats over and over again. That's propaganda. They were intentionally suppressing facts and promoting a divisive and dangerous message. Carlson wasn't the only member of the FOX team to engage in that way. They shared private communications about it.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2023/feb/20/fox-news-dominion-voting-systems-defamation-case-analysis
It will be interesting to see how the trial and ruling in this case are received by the public.
Has anyone in this thread read the substantial Dominion filing?