1st:....
It is not my fault if you can't follow the logic as to how an unrelated purchase you made might be something which you would want to be protected by the 4th Amendment while not hiding evidence relevant to the case..
I can follow logic. The issue is that your counter examples are so vaguely relatable to this specific situation that thye dont make sense to use as counter examples. An
unrelated marital aide/murder is not really a sensible counter example to EP that is hiding
related documents.
See the difference?
2nd: If that murder was performed with a gun, it is unlikely that the marital aid would be relevant.
Right... Marital aid = not relevant.
3rd: It might be relevant from the perspective of a prosecutor, if the victim were black. They could work the angle of the color of the purchase, depending on the malleability of the jurors.
If the murder was with gun, marital aid still = not relevent. (PS, Im not going down the 'race' road so drop it. Its a bad ex.)
The question asked was about how a jury would act if they were only provided selected portions of information. The proper actions where then described to them, and then all of a sudden the argument is a "distraction" now that it directly contradicts the intended point. If jury decision making is a distraction, why didn't you address that after the one in which Old Fuff brought it up rather than at the point where I use it?
1st, I was having a conversation with you; not Oldfluff. I quoted you; not Oldfluff.
You're the one that is countering to me in regards to what other people say as if I said it.
Do you remember saying the following two quotes to me?
Sorry, I have been using you as the stand in for those who are unable to otherwise defend their rationale of the executive privilege as an indicator of guilt
.
Again, sorry for using you as the stand in for others in this thread who have given up trying to support their argument.
The system is deliberately intended to minimize the influence of prejudices by having the jurors selected rule directly based on the available evidence.
If you have jurors who are willing to disobey those instructions(given how Old Fuff indicates that obeying would prevent an informed decision), then there are absolutely going to be failures in the system caused by human error
.
Its not that binary.
You're right on the 1st part but only partially right on the 2nd part. Another flaw could be if there is relevent info to a case but it isnt allowed because of a technicality of say a date on a form had 2013 instead of 2012. In that ex., the jurors are not allowed to make their decision on the full evidence. Now we can debate whether or not the evidence not allowed because of a technicality to death but lets not and try to keep on topic.( In this ex., the laws are binary and 2013 probably wouldnt be allowed but it should because life isnt binary.)
Of course, I may be wrong about what Old Fuff would do on a jury. He should tell you himself as to whether he would follow jury instructions rather than contribute to incorrect verdicts.
You're right... he should tell me... IF I asked him. But I didnt ask him because its not relevent to me in this topic.
Multiple posters asked about why their presumption about the president being directly involved would not be true and how the invocation of executive privilege demonstrates how that must be the case.
So reply to them! I didnt ask that so you sticking that reply topic in a response to me just doesnt make sense an alludes to me saying/asking something that I didnt.
Please refer back to you realizing that YOU'RE using me as a stand in for other people.
There's citation explaining otherwise, and seems to be yet another instance where a counterexample is written off as a "diversion" merely because having to
The difference between EP and DP isnt relevent because they both accomplishing the same thing which is hiding RELATIVE documents. EP or DP is used to hide RELATIVE documents. Thats the purpose of EP/DP.
Its not to hide marital aides not relevent in a murder case. Its not used to hide documents regarding world trade strategies/policies when documents relating to gunrunning are requested.
SO when you use such odd ball counter examples, it only undermines any valid points you may have,
And when Holder sends emails after the CBS story, attempting to confirm that gunwalking isn't occurring, his subordinates' response denying it were all merely an illusion meant to disguise the fact that Holder received policy from Obama about making sure guns are going into Mexico.
I didnt say Obama. You assumed it and replied in such a way that alluded that I did say that.
But I didnt say it.
You see how you do that?
So one of 2 things is happening.
1) Youre either totally unaware of your own assumptions when you reply.
Or
2) You are trying to allude that I said something that I didnt for the purpose of undermining me a falsely bolstering your position.