Georgia’s Geoff Duncan Must Be Disqualified for Anti-Trump Bias

[Truth7t7]

Georgia’s Geoff Duncan Must Be Disqualified for Anti-Trump Bias

by JEFFREY LORD

August 14, 2023

Will Duncan look the jurors in their eyes and tell them up front that anything he says needs to be considered in light of the fact that he has a quite decidedly anti-Trump bias? That he has not only spoken out against the ex-president repeatedly but has in fact written an entire book detailing his Trump loathing? And since that Trump hatred of Duncan’s is a much on-the-record case, any and everything Duncan says against Trump in his testimony should be taken with a grain of salt precisely because it is tainted with his anti-Trump zealotry? Which in an honest world would instantly disqualify him from testifying to the jury.

And speaking of corruption in the Fulton County District Attorney’s office — here was the headline today from National Review:

Which is to say, Geoff Duncan has a bias.

A huge, obvious bias that should have no place in a court of law. He should not testify or be within a country mile of a jury put together by a viscerally corrupt Trump-hating prosecutor.

There is nothing honest about any of this.

Nothing.

 

[A2SG]

Georgia’s Geoff Duncan Must Be Disqualified for Anti-Trump Bias

by JEFFREY LORD

August 14, 2023

Will Duncan look the jurors in their eyes and tell them up front that anything he says needs to be considered in light of the fact that he has a quite decidedly anti-Trump bias? That he has not only spoken out against the ex-president repeatedly but has in fact written an entire book detailing his Trump loathing? And since that Trump hatred of Duncan’s is a much on-the-record case, any and everything Duncan says against Trump in his testimony should be taken with a grain of salt precisely because it is tainted with his anti-Trump zealotry? Which in an honest world would instantly disqualify him from testifying to the jury.

And speaking of corruption in the Fulton County District Attorney’s office — here was the headline today from National Review:

Which is to say, Geoff Duncan has a bias.

A huge, obvious bias that should have no place in a court of law. He should not testify or be within a country mile of a jury put together by a viscerally corrupt Trump-hating prosecutor.

There is nothing honest about any of this.

Nothing.

Just so you know, if a witness, any witness, is determined to offer untruthful or false testimony, the defense can cross examine, and even treat them as a hostile witness, if necessary. If their testimony can be shown to be untruthful or false, it's the defense's job to make that clear to the judge and jury.

That's what Trump pays them for.

(Assuming they have been paid, that is.)

-- A2SG, sorry, but you're not going to get an all MAGA-faithful trial here, so just let the courts do the job they're there to do.....

 

[iluvatar5150]

Georgia’s Geoff Duncan Must Be Disqualified for Anti-Trump Bias

by JEFFREY LORD

August 14, 2023

Will Duncan look the jurors in their eyes and tell them up front that anything he says needs to be considered in light of the fact that he has a quite decidedly anti-Trump bias? That he has not only spoken out against the ex-president repeatedly but has in fact written an entire book detailing his Trump loathing? And since that Trump hatred of Duncan’s is a much on-the-record case, any and everything Duncan says against Trump in his testimony should be taken with a grain of salt precisely because it is tainted with his anti-Trump zealotry? Which in an honest world would instantly disqualify him from testifying to the jury.

And speaking of corruption in the Fulton County District Attorney’s office — here was the headline today from National Review:

Which is to say, Geoff Duncan has a bias.

A huge, obvious bias that should have no place in a court of law. He should not testify or be within a country mile of a jury put together by a viscerally corrupt Trump-hating prosecutor.

There is nothing honest about any of this.

Nothing.

Let me get this straight... His argument is that a prosecution witness should be disqualified because of their bias against the defendant?

lol wut?

That's idiotic. Jurors aren't supposed to be biased like that, but witnesses absolutely can be. How's a violent crime case supposed to go if you can only have testimony from witnesses not biased against a murderer? The argument is idiotic. If this is representative of the quality of most of what American Spectator publishes, it's no wonder they wound up at the bottom of GDI's trustworthy media list.

 

[durangodawood]

Georgia’s Geoff Duncan Must Be Disqualified for Anti-Trump Bias

by JEFFREY LORD

August 14, 2023

Will Duncan look the jurors in their eyes and tell them up front that anything he says needs to be considered in light of the fact that he has a quite decidedly anti-Trump bias? That he has not only spoken out against the ex-president repeatedly but has in fact written an entire book detailing his Trump loathing? And since that Trump hatred of Duncan’s is a much on-the-record case, any and everything Duncan says against Trump in his testimony should be taken with a grain of salt precisely because it is tainted with his anti-Trump zealotry? Which in an honest world would instantly disqualify him from testifying to the jury.

And speaking of corruption in the Fulton County District Attorney’s office — here was the headline today from National Review:

Which is to say, Geoff Duncan has a bias.

A huge, obvious bias that should have no place in a court of law. He should not testify or be within a country mile of a jury put together by a viscerally corrupt Trump-hating prosecutor.

There is nothing honest about any of this.

Nothing.

So, by your principle, a crime victim cannot take the stand against a defendant because they are biased against the defendant.

Do you really want to go there?

 

[Fantine]

The credibility of witnesses is always evaluated by jurors.

In any case, he is only one of dozens of witnesses who will be called, and there will be defense witnesses as well

 

[essentialsaltes]

Duncan was endorsed by Georgia Right to Life, the NRA, got 80%-90% ratings from the American Conservative Union, and so on.

You have to wonder what this poster boy for conservatism must have personally witnessed to have such an opinion of the former president. The jury will get a chance to find out from his testimony.

 

[Arcangl86]

I've seen some... interesting legal takes from Trump supporters, but I have to say suggesting that somebody be disqualified as a witness is a new one.

 

[Fantine]

Duncan was endorsed by Georgia Right to Life, the NRA, got 80%-90% ratings from the American Conservative Union, and so on.

You have to wonder what this poster boy for conservatism must have personally witnessed to have such an opinion of the former president. The jury will get a chance to find out from his testimony.

Interestingly, almost all the witnesses in all of the cases he is currently being indicted for are conservative Republicans. Why? Because they were the people who interacted with Trump and the 18 other co-defendants at the time when he allegedly tried to overthrow the election.

In the Georgia case, it's been noted that there were actually 49 potential co-defendants. 31 of the co-conspirators were not charged. It's possible they were not charged because they cooperated with the prosecution, but 31 co-conspirators are an awful lot to try to get disqualified.

Are all 31 "prejudiced" against Trump? Well, who knows? If he led them down the primrose path, coercing them and deceiving them into cooperating with his nefarious plans, they probably are.

Or maybe they know his reputation for throwing others under the bridge for his own misdeeds and are acting in self-defense.

 

[Truth7t7]

So, by your principle, a crime victim cannot take the stand against a defendant because they are biased against the defendant.

Do you really want to go there?

Looks like you read post #3 and reposted it

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Looks like you read post #3 and reposted it

Looks like you're avoiding the question

 

[durangodawood]

Looks like you read post #3 and reposted it

Yes, but I tried to make the problem with your position even more obvious.

He dimed the obviousness at 10. But mine went to 11.

He's right tho, right?

 

[The IbanezerScrooge]

I've seen some... interesting legal takes from Trump supporters, but I have to say suggesting that somebody be disqualified as a witness is a new one.

Makes one wonder what is it about this Duncan guy that's so scary they don't even want him testifying?

 

[durangodawood]

......The argument is idiotic. If this is representative of the quality of most of what American Spectator publishes, it's no wonder they wound up at the bottom of GDI's trustworthy media list.

This^^^ is the headline for me, as usual: how Americans are coming to (wrongly) determine for themselves what is reasonable, and what is real.