- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Jury Acquits the man who called for Trump’s assassination on BlueSky.
Posted on 10/30/25 at 9:46 am
Posted on 10/30/25 at 9:46 am
This will be an ongoing occurrence with cases that go to trial in Washington, DC and Virginia.
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here. 
21
Posted on 10/30/25 at 9:47 am to Major Dutch Schaefer
unanimously too 
Bunch of puds up there in NoVA and DC
Bunch of puds up there in NoVA and DCPosted on 10/30/25 at 9:48 am to Major Dutch Schaefer
Hard to form an opinion without seeing what he wrote.
Posted on 10/30/25 at 9:49 am to Major Dutch Schaefer
DC is 90% dem. Something needs to be done to locate trials to areas that are well balanced on political leanings.
Posted on 10/30/25 at 9:51 am to Azkiger
quote:
Hard to form an opinion without seeing what he wrote.
Some of the statements reportedly posted by Stinson include:
“There must be somebody who can take care of this. Just end this chapter. And we’ll start fresh. Just. Do. It. Please. I’ll drive.”
“I’d pull the trigger. But I’m not a good enough shot.”
“Can we crowd source a contract hit?”
Posted on 10/30/25 at 9:51 am to Major Dutch Schaefer
He pled the affirmative defense of "Orange Man Bad" which a DC/NOVA ran with.
Posted on 10/30/25 at 9:52 am to Auburn1968
quote:
DC is 90% dem. Something needs to be done to locate trials to areas that are well balanced on political leanings.
A threat against our President is a threat against every American. There is no compelling reason to justify local jurisdiction.
Posted on 10/30/25 at 9:55 am to Azkiger
quote:
Hard to form an opinion without seeing what he wrote.
Highly doubt they took him to court over saying something like, "I wish Trump would die" or something.
Sounds like he called for the death of a sitting president.
You need to see exactly what he wrote? Which words are acceptable and which are not when calling for the death of a sitting president?
This post was edited on 10/30/25 at 9:56 am
Posted on 10/30/25 at 9:55 am to Major Dutch Schaefer
Some politicians got together and decided, if we pay for all their food and rent, they will vote for our causes regardless. Other, more brilliant, politicians got together and said if we pay their rent and food bill, they might not hate us and call us racist.
Posted on 10/30/25 at 9:57 am to shinerfan
quote:
There is no compelling reason to justify local jurisdiction.
Except.for the fact that the jury was of local jurisdiction....you assclown
This post was edited on 10/30/25 at 10:02 am
Posted on 10/30/25 at 9:58 am to i am dan
quote:
You need to see exactly what he wrote?
To form an opinion? Yes, I'm not a sheep.
quote:
Highly doubt they took him to court over saying something like, "I wish Trump would die" or something.
Same. I'd still need to see the comments, though.
Posted on 10/30/25 at 9:59 am to ChatGPT of LA
quote:
Except.for the fact that they jury was of local jurisdiction....clown
Did this sentence make sense in your head? Moving the jurisdiction would obviously mean a different jury. You're not a smart one, are you?
Posted on 10/30/25 at 10:01 am to Major Dutch Schaefer
Has MSNBC announced his job offer yet?
Posted on 10/30/25 at 10:05 am to Azkiger
quote:
Hard to form an opinion without seeing what he wrote
Oh f*cking puhleez.
This is about biased and politicized juries.
They could’ve had the same exact trial going on in the courtroom right next door, where the same words were used, except the defendant called for the assassination of Barry Insane Odumbf*ck and the guy would’ve been unanimously convicted in less than five minutes and gotten 30 years plus an enhancement for committing a hate crime.
AND YOU F*CKING KNOW IT!
Posted on 10/30/25 at 10:09 am to Major Dutch Schaefer
“The solicitation statute requires that kind of proof to distinguish idle chatter and protected speech from communications strongly corroborating the speaker’s intent to have the president killed,” said Jon Jeffress, a criminal defense attorney with Kaiser PLLC, who wasn’t involved in the case. “Here, the jury concluded that the tweets did not corroborate criminal intent.”
In Stinson’s case, such evidence would’ve included the defendant communicating with someone he felt was “capable and willing” to assassinate Trump, Jeffress added.
In Stinson’s case, such evidence would’ve included the defendant communicating with someone he felt was “capable and willing” to assassinate Trump, Jeffress added.
Posted on 10/30/25 at 10:11 am to Patato Salad
quote:
In Stinson’s case, such evidence would’ve included the defendant communicating with someone he felt was “capable and willing” to assassinate Trump, Jeffress added.
I think the enirety of the internet more than meets that description. That jury wasn't going to convict, period.
Posted on 10/30/25 at 10:11 am to MMauler
quote:
Oh f*cking puhleez.
This is about biased and politicized juries.
They could’ve had the same exact trial going on in the courtroom right next door, where the same words were used, except the defendant called for the assassination of Barry Insane Odumbf*ck and the guy would’ve been unanimously convicted in less than five minutes and gotten 30 years plus an enhancement for committing a hate crime.
AND YOU F*CKING KNOW IT!
So you can form an opinion without knowing what he wrote? How does that work?
Posted on 10/30/25 at 10:16 am to Major Dutch Schaefer
What is worse is that there are no Democrats in the Senate that sees a problem letting people with violent emotions escape accountability. No Democrats that see a problem with judges using the bench for activism to excuse criminal acts.
Posted on 10/30/25 at 10:17 am to Azkiger
quote:
To form an opinion? Yes, I'm not a sheep.
If he called for the assassination of any POTUS, why do you need to know what he wrote? He broke the law correct?
Wouldn't that be the same logic as when someone who murders a person? They broke the law by murdering the person, but you would seem to need to know if it was a gun or a knife that was used to form your opinion on the murder.
Sounds like you may just be another type of sheep.
This post was edited on 10/30/25 at 10:35 am
Posted on 10/30/25 at 10:20 am to shinerfan
Assuming you are correct, then a jury would convict half this board - there are daily posts here calling for executions, death, violence, etc.against various people.
Page 1 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News