Politics & News

Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

A Request to. All Americans

A message to all Americans:
Regardless of what side of the political spectrum you reside, let's agree on 1 thing.
Demand that when the day comes and this DC trial begins, it must be televised live from start to finish.
Why is this important? It will allow every American to see and hear every word spoken and every action taken. It will remove the media from the equation and any bias that may come in their reporting of this important event that would be closed from public view.

We The People deserve to see this trial. The result will decide the fate of our democracy, the republic, and the rule of law.

I am asking you to contact Chief Justice John Roberts and demand that he allow this trial to be seen by the American people live and unedited from start to finish.

Update: Many have asked what must be done in order to have the trial televised. I have done some additional research and have found that: Justice Roberts could rule to allow cameras in the courtroom...or Congress could pass a law to allow cameras to be present, called the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2023, which was written by several Senators from both sides. ....or the Judicial Conference could change the rules to allow cameras in.

Again, please let your voice be heard.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

samueltyler2 · 80-89, M

the various indictments should be required reading for anyone planning to vote in 2024!

1-25 of 38

eli1601 · 70-79, M

@samueltyler2 🤣

samueltyler2 · 80-89, M

@eli1601 what is so funny? if you are a US citizen, you should always be an informed voter! In some places, they are trying to require a test before you can register to vote!

eli1601 · 70-79, M

@samueltyler2 Indictments are a prosecutions biased wish list. People should ignore the indictments until the actual trial when BOTH SIDES have their say.

samueltyler2 · 80-89, M

@eli1601 Wrong, they are listing of the evidence which plans to be presented at trial. They may be biased, because there really is no evidence the prosecutor uses to prove the charges in correct, that is up to the defense. Notice, so far, that no defense lawyer or person indicted, has claimed the evidence is incorrect!

eli1601 · 70-79, M

@samueltyler2 All the defendents have said the evidence is incorrect. Thats why we have trials instead of just taking the prosecutions word.

samueltyler2 · 80-89, M

@eli1601 Not a single one has used those terms! No one has refuted the actual evidence, they try to dance around that, but, unfortunately for them, the evidence consists of emails, voice recordings, etc. read the indictments and see for yourself!

eli1601 · 70-79, M

@samueltyler2 Indictments are a prosecutions biased wish list. People should ignore the indictments until the actual trial when BOTH SIDES have their say.

samueltyler2 · 80-89, M

@eli1601 can't you do better than just repeat your incorrect statement?

eli1601 · 70-79, M

@samueltyler2 It's all that matters. If indictments proved anything we wouldn't have trials.

samueltyler2 · 80-89, M

@eli1601 that is irrelevant. But, indictments require the prosecutor to show the evidence they plan to present. Yes, everyone is entitled to a speedy and fair trial, before a jury of ones peers. Yes, everyone is innocent until proven guilty. But, the prosecutor's evidence, as presented in the indictment, is what people should read, if they want to be informed.

JSul3 · 70-79

@eli1601 An "indictment" is the written statement of a grand jury accusing a person therein named of some act or omission which, by law, is declared to be an offense.

When a person is indicted in a criminal court in the United States, it means that a grand jury composed of residents chosen at random believed there was enough evidence to charge that person with a crime.

“Being charged” with a crime means the prosecutor filed charges. An indictment means the grand jury filed charges against the defendant. Regardless of how the state moves forth with filing charges, the results are the same for the defendant: an arrest and formal charges.

An indictment is when a person is formally accused and charged with committing a crime. While there are other ways a person can be accused of committing a crime, an indictment is used in the United States to formally accuse a person, especially in cases of federal crimes.

samueltyler2 · 80-89, M

@JSul3 well said.

eli1601 · 70-79, M

@samueltyler2 The indictments are one side of the story. Until the defense is allowed to cross examine all evidence presented it merely one side of the story.

samueltyler2 · 80-89, M

@eli1601 give up, loser. I agreed that it is the government's case, as heard by a grand jury and who decided the evidence was strong enough to likely win a conviction. I simply said, you should read the documents and stop flapping your lips about what you believe is included in the documents, without reading them.

eli1601 · 70-79, M

@samueltyler2 🤣

SevIsPamprinYouAlways · 56-60, F

@eli1601 @eli1601

You’re right, Eli. And then, once that voluminous amount of concrete evidence is introduced and defense attorneys make their best effort to convince jurors not to believe their lying ears or eyes, a verdict of “Guilty” will be returned, at which point they will be convicted!

🤣🤣🤣

JSul3 · 70-79

@SevIsPamprinYouAlways Only takes 1 juror to say, 'Nope...he's innocent '

SevIsPamprinYouAlways · 56-60, F

@JSul3 True!

carpediem · 61-69, M

@samueltyler2 Two things to say.

1. Innocent until proven guilty
2. Everyone should and will read the Biden bribery case because his son laid it out so well.

samueltyler2 · 80-89, M

@carpediem nice try, why do you have to divert your responses.

1. no one has argued that every citizen is presumed innocent until proven guilty, that has never been an issue, also, no one is above the law, that is also not an issue.
2. there is NO Biden bribery case, yet, and who can predict if there will ever be? There is also no connection between the son and the father in any of the illegal actions. if an indictment is dropped, I will read it, as a coitizen, I feel it is my obligation.

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

Zeusdelight · 61-69, M

@carpediem It was such a big issue that Trump didn't do anything about it.

samueltyler2 · 80-89, M

@carpediem where is your proof, and or your crystal ball? Who has the largest record of twister ng the law, actually not even twisting, but actually breaking it? Would you care to look back 50 years, and compare Democratic administrations with Republican administrations as to number of prosecutions, resignations under pressure, and pardons!

carpediem · 61-69, M

@samueltyler2 LOL... what a nut. Proof? How about whistler blower testimony, Hunter's laptop documents, and more. All this is enough to generate an inquiry from the DOJ, but it's corrupted and now used for political purposes.

I am not interested in your other silliness. I have a life. Get one.

carpediem · 61-69, M

@Zeusdelight A president, well a credible one, does not run the DOJ. This administration does for political purposes. The Biden bribery issues were unsubstantiated until very recently. Now we need an honest DOJ, which we do NOT have.

1-25 of 38