Donald Trump

[stevebrooks]

Well, well, isn't that a surprise, another reason to attack the judge;

Donald Trump and his family have accused the judge in his hush money trial of being “heartless”, claiming he’s stopping the former US president from attending his youngest son’s high school graduation.

Let's be clear here, he has never attended any of his children's graduation ceremonies, not even Ivanka! There is no evidence that he actually intended to attend Barron's, although I suppose that may have been part of the pre-nuptial agreement between him and Melania, to actually at like a father to their son even if he didn't mean it!

Let's also understand that it was him and his lawyers who delayed the trial repeatedly, the fact that it is happening now is down to him!

https://www.news.com.au/world/north-ame ... 1adc3236d9

[stylofone]

Well, well, isn't that a surprise, another reason to attack the judge;

Donald Trump and his family have accused the judge in his hush money trial of being “heartless”, claiming he’s stopping the former US president from attending his youngest son’s high school graduation.

Let's be clear here, he has never attended any of his children's graduation ceremonies, not even Ivanka! There is no evidence that he actually intended to attend Barron's, although I suppose that may have been part of the pre-nuptial agreement between him and Melania, to actually at like a father to their son even if he didn't mean it!

Let's also understand that it was him and his lawyers who delayed the trial repeatedly, the fact that it is happening now is down to him!

https://www.news.com.au/world/north-ame ... 1adc3236d9

Imagine if it was a prominent black person seeking the same thing in a criminal trial. Trump's speech would go "when I'm President there'll be no more of these weak soft judges giving privileges to dangerous criminals, letting them off so they can go out and commit more terrible crimes."

[stevebrooks]

Well, well, isn't that a surprise, another reason to attack the judge;

Donald Trump and his family have accused the judge in his hush money trial of being “heartless”, claiming he’s stopping the former US president from attending his youngest son’s high school graduation.

Let's be clear here, he has never attended any of his children's graduation ceremonies, not even Ivanka! There is no evidence that he actually intended to attend Barron's, although I suppose that may have been part of the pre-nuptial agreement between him and Melania, to actually at like a father to their son even if he didn't mean it!

Let's also understand that it was him and his lawyers who delayed the trial repeatedly, the fact that it is happening now is down to him!

https://www.news.com.au/world/north-ame ... 1adc3236d9

Imagine if it was a prominent black person seeking the same thing in a criminal trial. Trump's speech would go "when I'm President there'll be no more of these weak soft judges giving privileges to dangerous criminals, letting them off so they can go out and commit more terrible crimes."

The thing is of course is that it was all lies anyway. The judge hasn't made any ruling on whether or not Trump can attend the graduation, just a statement that he will see what is happening during the trial as they get closer. That idiot lawyer Alina Habba also joined in and accused the judge of refusing to allow Jewish lawyers on both sides to attend Passover and other religious obligations, which was also a lie, just trying to set the judge up as an anti-Semite I guess, so essentially it's lies all the way down!

[Loki]

50 potential jurors in the upcoming hush money trial claim they can't be impartial toward Trump, or so the radio is reporting. Is there anyone in America that could honestly claim an impartial or neutral attitude toward the orange sputum? I'd not trust anyone who made such a claim, especially if it were true. I mean, if you live in 'merica and have 'no opinion' on Trump you're probably a lunatic.

Makes me wonder if a jury trial is entirely appropriate for someone like Trump.

I'm pretty sure i can think Trump is an putrid entitled dickhead and still objectively decide whether monies were used appropriately as set out in various legal acts and regulations.

This trial isn't about whether Trump is objectionable for paying hush money, it is about whether Trump was legally able to apply that money to that purpose in that manner and whether his actions were designed to deliberately obscure illegalities.

If simply liking or not liking a person or even having heard of them before was enough to exclude you from their jury a lot of trials would be simply impossible.

[pipbarber]

50 potential jurors in the upcoming hush money trial claim they can't be impartial toward Trump, or so the radio is reporting. Is there anyone in America that could honestly claim an impartial or neutral attitude toward the orange sputum? I'd not trust anyone who made such a claim, especially if it were true. I mean, if you live in 'merica and have 'no opinion' on Trump you're probably a lunatic.

Makes me wonder if a jury trial is entirely appropriate for someone like Trump.

I'm pretty sure i can think Trump is an putrid entitled dickhead and still objectively decide whether monies were used appropriately as set out in various legal acts and regulations.

This trial isn't about whether Trump is objectionable for paying hush money, it is about whether Trump was legally able to apply that money to that purpose in that manner and whether his actions were designed to deliberately obscure illegalities.

If simply liking or not liking a person or even having heard of them before was enough to exclude you from their jury a lot of trials would be simply impossible.

Actually i don't think trial by jury is appropriate for significant public figures, or maybe even significant cases that have mass public profile. I'm just skeptical that bias can be reasoned into silence, no matter how determined the reasoner is.

But the argument against that, in this case, would be that this is pretty straightforward, as you say Loki. We are dealing here, not with legal ambiguities and complexities, but with what indeed seems like brute fact. Did he authorize hush money payments or not? So maybe with careful selection you could find the jurors.

The alternative to a jury trial is trial by a panel of judges, which is no solution at all because if i've concluded that juries can't be objective in public interest cases, because they're human and the biases of lived experience impacts reason, then the same is true of judges.

The reality in most legal systems is that money hence great lawyers significantly increase the chance of winning. All legal systems are riddled with inequalities and injustices, i accept that it's imperfect and all you can do is trust in the process of jury selection. My fear though is that a maga sleeper finds their way onto the jury and Trump wins, conviction must be unanimous, in spite of all the evidence against him. I think it's a legitimate concern, in this case.

[Loki]

50 potential jurors in the upcoming hush money trial claim they can't be impartial toward Trump, or so the radio is reporting. Is there anyone in America that could honestly claim an impartial or neutral attitude toward the orange sputum? I'd not trust anyone who made such a claim, especially if it were true. I mean, if you live in 'merica and have 'no opinion' on Trump you're probably a lunatic.

Makes me wonder if a jury trial is entirely appropriate for someone like Trump.

I'm pretty sure i can think Trump is an putrid entitled dickhead and still objectively decide whether monies were used appropriately as set out in various legal acts and regulations.

This trial isn't about whether Trump is objectionable for paying hush money, it is about whether Trump was legally able to apply that money to that purpose in that manner and whether his actions were designed to deliberately obscure illegalities.

If simply liking or not liking a person or even having heard of them before was enough to exclude you from their jury a lot of trials would be simply impossible.

Actually i don't think trial by jury is appropriate for significant public figures, or maybe even significant cases that have mass public profile. I'm just skeptical that bias can be reasoned into silence, no matter how determined the reasoner is.

But the argument against that, in this case, would be that this is pretty straightforward, as you say Loki. We are dealing here, not with legal ambiguities and complexities, but with what indeed seems like brute fact. Did he authorize hush money payments or not? So maybe with careful selection you could find the jurors.

The alternative to a jury trial is trial by a panel of judges, which is no solution at all because if i've concluded that juries can't be objective in public interest cases, because they're human and the biases of lived experience impacts reason, then the same is true of judges.

The reality in most legal systems is that money hence great lawyers significantly increase the chance of winning. All legal systems are riddled with inequalities and injustices, i accept that it's imperfect and all you can do is trust in the process of jury selection. My fear though is that a maga sleeper finds their way onto the jury and Trump wins, conviction must be unanimous, in spite of all the evidence against him. I think it's a legitimate concern, in this case.

I read somewhere that the system Trump is being tried under allows for jurors who get themselves selected purely in order to hang a trial and who demonstrably won't participate in discussions in good faith can be removed and open themselves to perjury charges.

Worked so well for Luke Shaw i still remember the pricks name.

[joele]

One of the jury exclusion questions is below, answering yes would mean immediate dismissal..

"Do you have any strong opinions or firmly held beliefs about former president Donald Trump, or the fact that he is a current candidate for president, that would interfere with your ability to be a fair and impartial juror?"

I doubt many Americans could really answer "no" to that exclusion question, or many Australians for that matter.

I agree with Loki we all should be able to put bias aside and judge the case on legal merit, but trump being trump, I just wouldn't trust myself to be impartial.

[Irrev-Black]

You snooze... here's hoping you lose.

The only feature not mentioned was drool.

On his second day in court, charged with multiple felonies, the putative leader of the free world once more fell asleep. The man who has called the current president, “Sleepy Joe Biden,” cannot keep his eyes open in the midst of a trial that may put him behind bars and end any aspirations of retaking the White House. Journalistic observers described his “chin on his chest” and “jerking awake” while appearing “slack jawed” and “slumped forward” during the proceedings in the Manhattan courtroom. There is a chance that he drooled, though, and maybe those trained observers of men and events did not take note, distracted as they were by their mutual giggling. If there were cameras allowed in the courtroom, his desultory time before the bar might be the end of his dreams of political restoration.

The man who falsifies his face each morning with artificial coloring has worked even longer and harder at falsifying his life. Outside the courtroom, where he lectures without taking questions, he whined about the judge refusing to let him attend his son’s high school graduation, an important event for any father. The judge said nothing remotely close to Trump’s claim and refused to rule on the request, telling the defendant’s attorneys that he will decide at the time of the graduation based upon progress the trial has achieved.

https://theaimn.com/a-ghost-in-the-machine/

[stevebrooks]

he has complained loudly he only has 10 pr-emptive recusals to use against jurors and he thinks it should be unlimited. 10 is New York law, because if they gave him unlimited he and his legal team would just pre-emptively object to every single juror and the juror selection process would have to start all over again, thus delaying the trial. Fortunately New York laws aren't that stupid they would allow a loophole like that!

[Loki]

If i had to sit through that I'd be asleep too.

Just sayin




Shit, even if i was the judge I'd probably still nod off at about the third potential juror.

"Right, mz, ah, (rustle rustle) Smith, it says here you are a (rustle) bookkeeper, now I'm going to ask you the same 34 questions i asked everyone else, are you sitting comfortably, firstly (rustle rustle) do you watch the news?"