Judge pressing jurors to see if they are impartial

[Luvnit2]

(04-15-2024, 02:24 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: LOL those questions aren't targeting anyone..... 

How can prosecutors ask about all of these far-right groups? Trump is not a member of any of them, but it makes it appear he is just by the reference. 

[*pally*]

(04-15-2024, 04:39 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: How can prosecutors ask about all of these far-right groups? Trump is not a member of any of them, but it makes it appear he is just by the reference. 

because you can be biased towards someone as much as you can be biased against someone.

The prosecution wants a jury that is free of Trump supporters

The defense will be asking those same types of questions from the left perspective.  They don't want a jury full of Bernie Sanders supporters.

This type of back and forth is totally normal

[Luvnit2]

(04-15-2024, 03:28 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I believe it, but I also believe that Trump and his supporters would equate being "relaxed enough to nod off during a criminal trial" as evidence of guilt if anyone else did it.  Sort of like that whole taking the 5th thing.

But as I said, this ain't a true representative US jury if there isn't at least 1 of those 12 jurors who will confess to the crime and do time for Trump on it.

93% voted for Biden in Manhattan. Finding a Trump supporter in Manhattan is like finding a needle in a haystack. Manhattan was chosen for a reason. They waited 7 years to indict him for a reason (too late after he was POTUS), then wait for 3 years so in trial all day and can't campaign like he did in 2016 and 2020. 

[Belsnickel]

I was listening to one of the attorneys for Johnny Depp talk a little about jury selection in cases with high profile clients. While that was civil rather than criminal and Trump and Depp have different types of notorieties, there are some similarities. There will be the obvious exclusions, of course, but just being a MAGA supporter or a Dem doesn't mean automatic disqualification. Either side can potentially set those preconceived notions aside to adjudicate a case fairly. It is a certain mindset, but those folks do exist. The number of times I have had to let a kid who I 100% knew committed sexual misconduct get away with it because the evidence wasn't there to support the finding would astonish you. It's all about going with the head and the law, not with the heart.

Also, they will be looking to weed out anyone, whichever side, who follows these things closely. When they get a panel of jurors they will ask open ended questions to get an idea of how much they may know about not just this case, but all the legal cases for Trump. Someone who follows that news closely will be bad for the jury.

There is obviously a lot more to it, but this is standard stuff. I remember when I was chosen for jury duty one of the questions was if we had someone in our lives with mental illness. Well, the case was for a lady the state was trying to commit involuntarily. Some of us that raised our hand for that stuck around because of answering other things that indicated we could remain impartial and follow the facts of the case. Others were dismissed. It is how these things go.

[*Nately120*]

(04-15-2024, 04:44 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: 93% voted for Biden in Manhattan. Finding a Trump supporter in Manhattan is like finding a needle in a haystack. Manhattan was chosen for a reason. They waited 7 years to indict him for a reason (too late after he was POTUS), then wait for 3 years so in trial all day and can't campaign like he did in 2016 and 2020. 

You know, if you don't break the law you don't have to worry about the political leanings of a jury.

[*pally*]

(04-15-2024, 04:44 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: 93% voted for Biden in Manhattan. Finding a Trump supporter in Manhattan is like finding a needle in a haystack. Manhattan was chosen for a reason. They waited 7 years to indict him for a reason (too late after he was POTUS), then wait for 3 years so in trial all day and can't campaign like he did in 2016 and 2020. 

 There are plenty of people who didn't didn't vote.  But even if they did, there are also plenty of Americans who take their jury obligations seriously and that includes listening to the evidence and passing judgement on that

[*Nately120*]

(04-15-2024, 04:49 PM)pally Wrote:  There are plenty of people who didn't didn't vote.  But even if they did, there are also plenty of Americans who take their jury obligations seriously and that includes listening to the evidence and passing judgement on that

Again, I'm not saying I'm some sort of persecuted type, but it's amazing seeing white conservatives realize that "minding your P's and Q's when you are in certain parts of the country, lest they find a reason to take you in and judge ya" is something that only exists now that it's being applied to Donald Trump.

Same thing with "the powers that be" keeping candidates off the ballot.  Happens all the time, and they don't notice.  Happens to Trump and suddenly it's some brand new thing that is totally never happened before and is suddenly a sign our country magically turned into a 3rd world shithole.

Oh and prisoners have it too good and are treated too nicely...that was something that was true until the whole 1/6 thing where suddenly the GOP has a reason to let everyone know that being incarcerated sucks and isn't easy and it's totally unfair and reform is needed finally now that the problem magically came to our attention.  Lordy loo, perspective people.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-15-2024, 04:46 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I was listening to one of the attorneys for Johnny Depp talk a little about jury selection in cases with high profile clients. While that was civil rather than criminal and Trump and Depp have different types of notorieties, there are some similarities. There will be the obvious exclusions, of course, but just being a MAGA supporter or a Dem doesn't mean automatic disqualification. Either side can potentially set those preconceived notions aside to adjudicate a case fairly. It is a certain mindset, but those folks do exist. The number of times I have had to let a kid who I 100% knew committed sexual misconduct get away with it because the evidence wasn't there to support the finding would astonish you. It's all about going with the head and the law, not with the heart.

Also, they will be looking to weed out anyone, whichever side, who follows these things closely. When they get a panel of jurors they will ask open ended questions to get an idea of how much they may know about not just this case, but all the legal cases for Trump. Someone who follows that news closely will be bad for the jury.

There is obviously a lot more to it, but this is standard stuff. I remember when I was chosen for jury duty one of the questions was if we had someone in our lives with mental illness. Well, the case was for a lady the state was trying to commit involuntarily. Some of us that raised our hand for that stuck around because of answering other things that indicated we could remain impartial and follow the facts of the case. Others were dismissed. It is how these things go.

All true.  For the sake of discussion, is Manhattan a venue in which Trump can expect a fair trial?  I think a definite argument could be made to move the trial to a more rural setting.  Not that I think it matters, as this is, IMO a very weak case that should never have seen the light of day.  Especially given the highly unusual move of charging him with felonies.

[*Nately120*]

(04-15-2024, 04:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: All true.  For the sake of discussion, is Manhattan a venue in which Trump can expect a fair trial?  I think a definite argument could be made to move the trial to a more rural setting.  Not that I think it matters, as this is, IMO a very weak case that should never have seen the light of day.  Especially given the highly unusual move of charging him with felonies.

I think it's amusing that Trump is from NYC and has been a fixture of the place and done business there for what, 50-some years and that just so happens to be the place where can least find people who don't hate him.  I feel like that really says something about you when you can admit that your chances of finding people who don't hate you in your home town are nearly nil. Can I live in your town? Everyone back home wants to kill me.

The Trump wackiness is real.  Imagine telling someone 25+ years ago that Donald Trump can't get a fair trial in his hometown, but people in Searcy Country Arkansas would love him and let him walk all over them.  This reality makes my head spin.

[*pally*]

(04-15-2024, 04:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: All true.  For the sake of discussion, is Manhattan a venue in which Trump can expect a fair trial?  I think a definite argument could be made to move the trial to a more rural setting.  Not that I think it matters, as this is, IMO a very weak case that should never have seen the light of day.  Especially given the highly unusual move of charging him with felonies.

there are a 1.4 million people living in Manhattan.  I'm sure they can find 12 people who will keep an open mind on the jury

[*Nately120*]

(04-15-2024, 05:15 PM)pally Wrote: there are a 1.4 million people living in Manhattan.  I'm sure they can find 12 people who will keep an open mind on the jury

Perhaps.  This trial is the most over the top combo of the OJ trial, the Michael Jackson trial, and the Clinton/Lewinsky thing rolled into one.  

The OJ effect comes in the idea that this rich and famous person is a victim because the justice system is out to get him, aka Johnny Cochran was able to use Mark Fuhrman as an example that the LA PD was basically the KKK with badges and therefore the more evidence they had (2 dead bodies and DNA) turned into a case of "more evidence, more evidence it was set up." Put the system on trial, most systems aren't very popular and they'll lose against a charismatic defendant who is successfully presented as simultaneously powerful and a victim.  Anyone I've met who says OJ is innocent (not even not guilty, which is the legal term for how he was found) completely forgets the physical and DNA evidence and says it was "circumstantial" and that Marcia Clark is a *****.

The Michael Jackson trial comes into play where the play is going to be to just say that Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen, like the parents alleging MJ diddled their kids, are just money-grubbing liars.  Put them on trial in the public court, complain the media is out to get you, and maybe like MJ Trump could play the "I'm old and frail and harmless" routine to help curry sympathy, but I doubt he has the ego to play weak for the cameras.

The one thing I will admit is that Trump does has some political acumen, because in 2016 his margins were so thin and his hold on the GOP was so new that he couldn't have afforded to let the info that he cheated on his pregnant wife get out there until after the election.  No denying the Comey letter hurt Hillary, so Trump was wise to keep his own scandal a secret until he was powerful enough for it not to matter.

And that brings me to my comparison to the Clinton/Lewinski scandal where a lot of people (including a 16 year old me who also thought Trump was as total badass at the time) just brushed off the Clinton thing as the media going after him, it not being a big deal because he was a "good president" and affairs being something powerful men just did and we all know it and aspire to be them. Clinton was so good at politics that "they" had to "go after his personal life" after all, right?

This case has it all.


And yes, I was mowing the lawn for 2 hours and had time to think and this is what I came up with instead of inventing the next Snuggie or something. 

[HarleyDog]

(04-15-2024, 07:23 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Perhaps.  This trial is the most over the top combo of the OJ trial, the Michael Jackson trial, and the Clinton/Lewinsky thing rolled into one.  

The OJ effect comes in the idea that this rich and famous person is a victim because the justice system is out to get him, aka Johnny Cochran was able to use Mark Fuhrman as an example that the LA PD was basically the KKK with badges and therefore the more evidence they had (2 dead bodies and DNA) turned into a case of "more evidence, more evidence it was set up." Put the system on trial, most systems aren't very popular and they'll lose against a charismatic defendant who is successfully presented as simultaneously powerful and a victim.  Anyone I've met who says OJ is innocent (not even not guilty, which is the legal term for how he was found) completely forgets the physical and DNA evidence and says it was "circumstantial" and that Marcia Clark is a *****.

The Michael Jackson trial comes into play where the play is going to be to just say that Stormy Daniels and Michael Cohen, like the parents alleging MJ diddled their kids, are just money-grubbing liars.  Put them on trial in the public court, complain the media is out to get you, and maybe like MJ Trump could play the "I'm old and frail and harmless" routine to help curry sympathy, but I doubt he has the ego to play weak for the cameras.

The one thing I will admit is that Trump does has some political acumen, because in 2016 his margins were so thin and his hold on the GOP was so new that he couldn't have afforded to let the info that he cheated on his pregnant wife get out there until after the election.  No denying the Comey letter hurt Hillary, so Trump was wise to keep his own scandal a secret until he was powerful enough for it not to matter.

And that brings me to my comparison to the Clinton/Lewinski scandal where a lot of people (including a 16 year old me who also thought Trump was as total badass at the time) just brushed off the Clinton thing as the media going after him, it not being a big deal because he was a "good president" and affairs being something powerful men just did and we all know it and aspire to be them. Clinton was so good at politics that "they" had to "go after his personal life" after all, right?

This case has it all.


And yes, I was mowing the lawn for 2 hours and had time to think and this is what I came up with instead of inventing the next Snuggie or something. 

I was listening to a Jon Justice podcast the other day and he was playing a clip from one of the jurors in the OJ case. They all thought he was guilty, but voted not guilty because they were afraid of more riots. This came shortly after the Rodney King riots. In case anyone wants to listen, his podcast was dated 4-12. Last Friday, and found on IHeart radio.

As for Clinton, I felt the same way you did and I couldn't figure out why people gave a damn about his personal life. I don't care if a POTUS bangs half the planet. What I do care about is if he has our country in his best interest and works hard to makes us better, which he did. Great president IMO. And, before someone chimes in and says, "but he was banging her in the WH." Again, who cares? America can afford a set of blue curtains. 

[*Nately120*]

(04-15-2024, 07:57 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: I was listening to a Jon Justice podcast the other day and he was playing a clip from one of the jurors in the OJ case. They all thought he was guilty, but voted not guilty because they were afraid of more riots. This came shortly after the Rodney King riots. In case anyone wants to listen, his podcast was dated 4-12. Last Friday, and found on IHeart radio.

As for Clinton, I felt the same way you did and I couldn't figure out why people gave a damn about his personal life. I don't care if a POTUS bangs half the planet. What I do care about is if he has our country in his best interest and works hard to makes us better, which he did. Great president IMO. And, before someone chimes in and says, "but he was banging her in the WH." Again, who cares? America can afford a set of blue curtains. 

I think the OJ verdict may have, cynically speaking, been a bit of a "sorry for Rodney King, we'll let OJ go and call it a fresh start ok?"  As for Bill Clinton, he ran for president 30+ years ago, in that low information age it was less known how much of a sleazebag he was so there was an amount of surprise that people aren't showing for Trump, because Trump was openly sleazy and sexually predatory before we shrugged and said "Meh, you can be president anyways" rather with Clinton where for most folks he was on his second term before the veil was lifted.

As a means to show how the way people perceive Trump has shifted, he  at one time committed a crime to prevent this affair from getting out there, where now it getting out there that he did it and that he committed a crime to cover it up is damn near a source of pride.  I suppose there is a sort of "that's our Slick Willie!" to the Bill Clinton mythos, though.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(04-15-2024, 07:57 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: I was listening to a Jon Justice podcast the other day and he was playing a clip from one of the jurors in the OJ case. They all thought he was guilty, but voted not guilty because they were afraid of more riots. This came shortly after the Rodney King riots. In case anyone wants to listen, his podcast was dated 4-12. Last Friday, and found on IHeart radio.

As for Clinton, I felt the same way you did and I couldn't figure out why people gave a damn about his personal life. I don't care if a POTUS bangs half the planet. What I do care about is if he has our country in his best interest and works hard to makes us better, which he did. Great president IMO. And, before someone chimes in and says, "but he was banging her in the WH." Again, who cares? America can afford a set of blue curtains. 

hard to blame him. see what he had to work with at home?  

And like it or not, some women are turned on by powerful men. But like Trump, he had scandals before he set foot in the WH. 

[*Nately120*]

(04-15-2024, 09:34 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: hard to blame him. see what he had to work with at home?  

Hmm, I think Bill and Hillary were within the same general area looks and personality wise, really.  I wouldn't look at that couple and think, wow she outkicked her coverage snagging that rugged lothario.

(04-15-2024, 09:34 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: And like it or not, some women are turned on by powerful men. But like Trump, he had scandals before he set foot in the WH. 

A lot of men seem pretty turned on by Trump's power, too.  I mean, we can call it admiration or envy, but it seems a little ghey sometimes, bro.  Actually, it's a bit amusingly juvenile.  When I was a kid I liked Billy Joel when the rest of my classmates were into Milli Vanilli and the New Kids On the Block and what not.  And when Billy Joel married Christie Brinkley I remember personally feeling a sense of pride as if I were married to her in a sense.  It's like...the guy I like just married a super model, that validates me and my support of him.

Milli Vanilli didn't marry supermodels that I know of.  Check mate, normal kids of the 80s!

[Mike M (the other one)]

(04-15-2024, 10:21 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Hmm, I think Bill and Hillary were within the same general area looks and personality wise, really.  I wouldn't look at that couple and think, wow she outkicked her coverage snagging that rugged lothario.



A lot of men seem pretty turned on by Trump's power, too.  I mean, we can call it admiration or envy, but it seems a little ghey sometimes, bro.  Actually, it's a bit amusingly juvenile.  When I was a kid I liked Billy Joel when the rest of my classmates were into Milli Vanilli and the New Kids On the Block and what not.  And when Billy Joel married Christie Brinkley I remember personally feeling a sense of pride as if I were married to her in a sense.  It's like...the guy I like just married a super model, that validates me and my support of him.

Milli Vanilli didn't marry supermodels that I know of.  Check mate, normal kids of the 80s!

I disagree, he wasn't all that bad looking and had a pleasant personality (which Hills personality was an acquired taste, her jokes just weren't that amusing). 

[*Nately120*]

(04-15-2024, 11:39 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: I disagree, he wasn't all that bad looking and had a pleasant personality (which Hills personality was an acquired taste, her jokes just weren't that amusing). 

Well, you point out that powerful men can be attractive I guess whether we like Hillary or not critique of her is that she's a pretty ruthless over achieving *****, so I guess that can turn folks on, too.  There is a certain type of "successful but unpleasant" that men can spin as attractive that doesn't usually carry over to women, for sure.

I guess the fact that we are talking about a couple where the cheating scumbag husband is seen as "the catch" of the pair sort of adds some credence to that.  Alas, we do have to ask what Hillary, Ivana, Marla, and Melania did to make their powerful awesome husbands betray they god-sanctioned sacramental oaths to their wives, eh?

[Dill]

(04-15-2024, 04:44 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: 93% voted for Biden in Manhattan. Finding a Trump supporter in Manhattan is like finding a needle in a haystack. Manhattan was chosen for a reason. 

I'd phrase it this way: Finding a juror who will disregard law and fact to help Trump will be harder in Manhattan. That won't stop some from trying.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/wing-broadcaster-asks-trump-fans-183107043.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAKa4z9g4yoTzriqyrjHj3EndDc8aViKTfB-j5XhFHFjOqLXDyiM8sxUYJ-VGn_9PoK-w8MSFsG3hEQQs1clK-zlekKit9uMq0P9LJvn8rAqfK9zng7ugZo4kCrqD9Qf4N_xkaFykeGf_oxX2yFTHbbCS28Wkl2adpURljjz1KTho

(04-15-2024, 04:44 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: They waited 7 years to indict him for a reason (too late after he was POTUS), then wait for 3 years so in trial all day and can't campaign like he did in 2016 and 2020. 

There may be a better explanation as to why they waited, "they" being Trump and his DOJ. 

The key reason the DOJ didn’t prosecute Trump’s hush money case[/color]
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/key-reason-doj-didnt-prosecute-trumps-hush-money-case-rcna75887

. . . they actually found . . . Cohen acted at Trump’s direction and to Trump’s benefit. Why didn’t prosecutors pursue the matter further? According to Geoffrey Berman — the Trump-appointed U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York, who wrote a book about his experiences — it’s because there was political interference from other Trump appointees who ordered prosecutors to end their investigation.

Indeed, according to Berman’s book, then-Attorney General Bill Barr not only intervened in the case, he tried to kill the ongoing investigation and even suggested that Cohen’s conviction should be reversed.

The GOP committee chairs wrote yesterday that federal prosecutors “determined that no additional people would be charged alongside Cohen,” but they conveniently overlooked why they made that determination.

It wasn’t because of a thorough review of the law; it was because Trump’s attorney general told them to stop — because in the previous administration, the brazen politicization of federal law enforcement was the norm.
Were Jordan, Comer, and Steil unaware of these details, or did they simply choose not to care?

Barr was a very busy DOJ. 
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/25/nyregion/geoffrey-berman-william-barr-michael-cohen.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/justice-department-lends-its-firepower-to-defend-trump-in-investigations-into-his-private-finances/2019/10/03/e05c65f4-e542-11e9-b403-f738899982d2_story.html

[*Nately120*]

(04-15-2024, 11:56 PM)Dill Wrote: I'd phrase it this way: Finding a juror who will disregard law and fact to help Trump will be harder in Manhattan. That won't stop some from trying.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/wing-broadcaster-asks-trump-fans-183107043.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAKa4z9g4yoTzriqyrjHj3EndDc8aViKTfB-j5XhFHFjOqLXDyiM8sxUYJ-VGn_9PoK-w8MSFsG3hEQQs1clK-zlekKit9uMq0P9LJvn8rAqfK9zng7ugZo4kCrqD9Qf4N_xkaFykeGf_oxX2yFTHbbCS28Wkl2adpURljjz1KTho


There may be a better explanation as to why they waited, "they" being Trump and his DOJ. 

The key reason the DOJ didn’t prosecute Trump’s hush money case[/color]
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/key-reason-doj-didnt-prosecute-trumps-hush-money-case-rcna75887

. . . they actually found . . . Cohen acted at Trump’s direction and to Trump’s benefit. Why didn’t prosecutors pursue the matter further? According to Geoffrey Berman — the Trump-appointed U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York, who wrote a book about his experiences — it’s because there was political interference from other Trump appointees who ordered prosecutors to end their investigation.

Indeed, according to Berman’s book, then-Attorney General Bill Barr not only intervened in the case, he tried to kill the ongoing investigation and even suggested that Cohen’s conviction should be reversed.

The GOP committee chairs wrote yesterday that federal prosecutors “determined that no additional people would be charged alongside Cohen,” but they conveniently overlooked why they made that determination.

It wasn’t because of a thorough review of the law; it was because Trump’s attorney general told them to stop — because in the previous administration, the brazen politicization of federal law enforcement was the norm.
Were Jordan, Comer, and Steil unaware of these details, or did they simply choose not to care?

Barr was a very busy DOJ. 
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/25/nyregion/geoffrey-berman-william-barr-michael-cohen.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/justice-department-lends-its-firepower-to-defend-trump-in-investigations-into-his-private-finances/2019/10/03/e05c65f4-e542-11e9-b403-f738899982d2_story.html

The thing is, if you lie and say you have no feelings about Trump and they look at your social media and see you are a MAGA fan lying to get on the jury and save Trump, isn't that a felony?  I guess the idea is that you'd save Trump and he'd pardon you when he wins in 2024, or something?

Maybe I'm over-generalizing here, but I feel like Trump is the first presidential candidate where people might be thinking "I can do illegal things to help him, and he'll pardon me after he wins."

[Dill]

(04-15-2024, 11:43 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Well, you point out that powerful men can be attractive I guess whether we like Hillary or not critique of her is that she's a pretty ruthless over achieving *****, so I guess that can turn folks on, too.  There is a certain type of "successful but unpleasant" that men can spin as attractive that doesn't usually carry over to women, for sure.

I have to say, I was quite impressed with Hilary's 9-hours of coolly managing the direct questioning of a shrill GOP Benghazi committee.  Used to be, that's exactly whom Americans would want sitting across the table from Putin. Not someone whose lawyers don't EVER want cross examined given the higher-than-usual lack of focus and risk of self-incrimination.

So yeah, kind of sexy to older type voters.  New kind of voter out there now, though.

(04-15-2024, 11:43 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I guess the fact that we are talking about a couple where the cheating scumbag husband is seen as "the catch" of the pair sort of adds some credence to that.  Alas, we do have to ask what Hillary, Ivana, Marla, and Melania did to make their powerful awesome husbands betray they god-sanctioned sacramental oaths to their wives, eh?

That's how I see it. Why are people always blaming the poor guy?  Trump had finally found the right trophy wife and settled down to start a new family. Suddenly i'm supposed to believe he's just a bad guy who bangs playmates and porn stars while his wife's home pregnant? Trump haters need to look a little deeper, maybe remember how uncooperative their own wives could be when with child.  Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.