Judge pressing jurors to see if they are impartial

[*Nately120*]

(04-16-2024, 12:24 AM)Dill Wrote: 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.

Yep, without sounding like I'm all gung ho for Hillary or anything, a woman is in a no-win situation there.  She either shows "too much emotion" and isn't fit for office, or she handles it calmly and is a "smug, frigid *****" who get criticized, too.  

[Mike M (the other one)]

(04-16-2024, 12:15 AM)Nately120 Wrote: 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."

Probably, once they are selected someone will try to dig into their social media and play that card later. 

Wouldn't find much on me, i don't post political stuff anywhere but here. 

[*Nately120*]

(04-16-2024, 02:01 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Probably, once they are selected someone will try to dig into their social media and play that card later. 

Wouldn't find much on me, i don't post political stuff anywhere but here. 

If you used an email to sign up I assume that could be traced. I'd say everyone who posts here regularly would be too in or out on Trump to be considered clean. I don't post about politics on social media or put signs in my yard but I wouldn't assume under oath that my posting on here wouldn't count or wouldn't be found out. I'm just assuming though. 

[HarleyDog]

(04-15-2024, 10:21 PM)Nately120 Wrote: 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. 

I would bet more than most people who support Trump don't like him. His personality is arrogant, asinine, and narcissistic. This is why all the "but Trump this, but Trump that," retoric falls on deaf ears. Until they are given a better choice, they have no choice and most are not going to throw away their vote in protest on an independent and risk another Biden/Harris term.

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

Are you lip-syncing? 

[HarleyDog]

(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). 

Monica was no barn burner either. So, I guess he didn't cheat up. More of a lateral cheat. What fun is that? Especially when you're the POTUS. BUT, cheat or not, I bet he's not the first President to have sex in the oval.

[*Nately120*]

(04-16-2024, 09:25 AM)HarleyDog Wrote: I would bet more than most people who support Trump don't like him. His personality is arrogant, asinine, and narcissistic. This is why all the "but Trump this, but Trump that," retoric falls on deaf ears. Until they are given a better choice, they have no choice and most are not going to throw away their vote in protest on an independent and risk another Biden/Harris term.

There were primaries where multiple "not Trump" Republicans were offered. That's the danger of letting Trump convince enough of your base that he's chosen by god or the only person who can fix things. Many conservatives are trapped in a bad marriage with Trump just riding it out until he dies, like Melania is. 

[Luvnit2]

(04-15-2024, 04:44 PM)pally Wrote: 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

So they are attempting to weed out anyone who may side with Trump that watches Fox News or read NY Post, but do not weed out jurors that watch CNN, MSBNC, NBC, CBS and others who like NY Times and WAPO who are far left.

How is that fair?

[Luvnit2]

(04-15-2024, 04:47 PM)Nately120 Wrote: You know, if you don't break the law you don't have to worry about the political leanings of a jury.

I missed Trump being convicted of any crime, get back to me he is actually convicted and has exhausted all of the appeals. 

[*pally*]

(04-16-2024, 10:22 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: So they are attempting to weed out anyone who may side with Trump that watches Fox News or read NY Post, but do not weed out jurors that watch CNN, MSBNC, NBC, CBS and others who like NY Times and WAPO who are far left.

How is that fair?

It is the defense's job to weed out people who might be biased against them not the prosecution's.  Both sides get an equal shot at choosing the jury.  That is fair

[*Nately120*]

(04-16-2024, 10:23 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: I missed Trump being convicted of any crime, get back to me he is actually convicted and has exhausted all of the appeals. 

Trump's broken a buttload of laws, this is just the first time he's faced an actual criminal trial rather than his myriad of civil trials.  As an adult I've personally lived in two very red counties and two very blue counties and I never had to think about the demographic or political nature of any of the juries or judges I'd face in those places because I don't break the law.

If you have to stop and think "Hmm, will a judge and jury in this jurisdiction be sympathetic to my case, or out to get me?" before you do something, don't do it.

Now, I personally live on a few acres in a red county in PA.  Trump should give me $100,000,000 and build Trump tower here and the folks around here would literally let him get away with murder. And yes, I think Trump tower being a huge golden monument to excess sitting on a dirt road would be an excellent way for Trump to show that he is simultaneously gaudy rich, but totally down with the rural "real Americans" that live in ultra rural areas, like me. Well, not me for long if that check actually clears.

[XenoMorph]

(04-16-2024, 11:01 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Trump's broken a buttload of laws, this is just the first time he's faced an actual criminal trial rather than his myriad of civil trials.  As an adult I've personally lived in two very red counties and two very blue counties and I never had to think about the demographic or political nature of any of the juries or judges I'd face in those places because I don't break the law.

If you have to stop and think "Hmm, will a judge and jury in this jurisdiction be sympathetic to my case, or out to get me?" before you do something, don't do it.

Now, I personally live on a few acres in a red county in PA.  Trump should give me $100,000,000 and build Trump tower here and the folks around here would literally let him get away with murder.  And yes, I think Trump tower being a huge golden monument to excess sitting on a dirt road would be an excellent way for Trump to show that he is simultaneously gaudy rich, but totally down with the rural "real Americans" that live in ultra rural areas, like me.  Well, not me for long if that check actually clears.

Why now though?

This judge is likely another Soros backed judge

[Stewy]

Good. It's what the judge should be doing.

[Belsnickel]

(04-16-2024, 11:19 AM)XenoMorph Wrote: Why now though?

This judge is likely another Soros backed judge

This is a bit of a tangent, but can we stop with the Soros thing? That whole conspiracy theory is rooted in anti-Semitism and really should just end.

[*pally*]

(04-16-2024, 11:19 AM)XenoMorph Wrote: Why now though?

This judge is likely another Soros backed judge

what does that even mean? Besides of course pushing an anti-semantic right-wing talking point?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-16-2024, 11:24 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is a bit of a tangent, but can we stop with the Soros thing? That whole conspiracy theory is rooted in anti-Semitism and really should just end.

I don't think that's a fair statement to make at all.  For some it is rooted in antisemitism, but I doubt their numbers are significant.  But it is well known that Soros backs "progressives" and has been targeting district attorney and judicial races in recent years.  Gascon was heavily backed by Soros.  It's literally no different than the complaining the left did about the Koch brothers for years.  Ascribing a dislike for Soros and his politics to antisemitism is no different than doing so for any criticism of the Israeli government.

[*Nately120*]

(04-16-2024, 11:19 AM)XenoMorph Wrote: Why now though?

This judge is likely another Soros backed judge

When do you think was the right time to do this?  The act occurred in October of 2016 when Trump was the GOP nominee for president and the election less than a month away. When his lawyer, Michael Cohen, was sentenced for his role in this it was December of 2018 and Trump was president, now the complaint is that they're going after him while he's running for president, and in 2025 he's either going to be president or he's going to be running for president in 2028.

Trump has either been running for president or the president since this hush money payment occurred 7.5 years ago, and he' s going to be some form of president or running for president for the next 4+ years.  When would you say is the right time to go after him?

Again, this is the wacky thing about Trump...the guy is an outlier in the sense that he has massive legal baggage, and to top it off he's found a way to be politically relevant for what could end up being 12+ years where every other candidate (this side of the FDR days either runs and wins and serves for 8 years, or loses and stops being the face of the party.

Maybe he's enough of a "regular guy" to go after if he runs in 2024 and loses and legimately just stops with the political stuff, which I'm seeing no reason to believe he would do.  Even then, it'll be uncool to go after a former president who is nearing his 80s.

[Belsnickel]

(04-16-2024, 11:49 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't think that's a fair statement to make at all.  For some it is rooted in antisemitism, but I doubt their numbers are significant.  But it is well known that Soros backs "progressives" and has been targeting district attorney and judicial races in recent years.  Gascon was heavily backed by Soros.  It's literally no different than the complaining the left did about the Koch brothers for years.  Ascribing a dislike for Soros and his politics to antisemitism is no different than doing so for any criticism of the Israeli government.

This is why I say the theories are "rooted" in anti-Semitism. I know not everyone intends that angle with it, but the basis of them, the origin, is rooted in that and is what really propagated the theories. Also, I am not saying that disliking Soros or his politics is anti-Semitic, I am saying that the conspiracy theories are rooted in it. There is a difference there. If you have evidence of someone like Soros or Koch backing someone or something, then point it out. But just throwing around the conspiratorial stuff is not good.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-16-2024, 12:00 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This is why I say the theories are "rooted" in anti-Semitism. I know not everyone intends that angle with it, but the basis of them, the origin, is rooted in that and is what really propagated the theories. Also, I am not saying that disliking Soros or his politics is anti-Semitic, I am saying that the conspiracy theories are rooted in it. There is a difference there. If you have evidence of someone like Soros or Koch backing someone or something, then point it out. But just throwing around the conspiratorial stuff is not good.

On that we agree, also I get what you're saying about the conspiracy angle.  I don't think the distinction was clear in your original post though, I certainly didn't pick up on it.

[Belsnickel]

(04-16-2024, 12:28 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: On that we agree, also I get what you're saying about the conspiracy angle.  I don't think the distinction was clear in your original post though, I certainly didn't pick up on it.

I get that. I like to point out the Koch funding when there is some astroturf organization they are behind, because that is a common thing for that group. Otherwise, billionaires of all stripes support these folks. I mean, think of all the heat on SCOTUS right now. There is a reason why the opinions coming out of that court related to narrowing the definition of political corruption are unanimous: they're all on the take. I think the whole Soros thing is just treated so much differently and, for those that don't know the history, it really stems from some folks turning his name into a synonym for globalism and the Jewish conspiracy that has been perpetuated for centuries.

I just wish people would recognize this problem exists all around and the way our officials have been making sure they can continue this grift.

[*Nately120*]

Everyone is just jelly Soros worked hard and is smart and is a billionaire, or something.