১৬ এপ্রিল, ২০২৪
"A first in the jury selection process: a man who says he read 'The Art of the Deal' and..."
"... two other books published by Trump. Trump responds with a chuckle and an approving nod."
এতে সদস্যতা:
মন্তব্যগুলি পোস্ট করুন (Atom)
পোস্টগুলি
৪৯টি মন্তব্য:
Too bad they can't dismiss the unfair and partisan judge.
Seeing other people say they couldn’t be fair and impartial would motivate me to say I could be fair and impartial. Admittedly, I have no idea what motivates people.
Jury nullification is a real thing. I hope people learn more about it and exercise it more frequently in the 21st century.
We're gonna need it.
There are those who claim to be impartial enough to judge the trial and those who lie about being impartial enough to judge the trial. The odds so greatly favor the prosecution in this jury construction that I consider there is a less than 1% chance even one of the jurors will be biased in favor of Trump and a 99% chance the entire jury will be biased against him.
It is so bad that they could charge Trump with a murder and convict him without a body and with the victim sitting in the court eating lunch with a sign around his neck saying "I am not dead".
RideSpaceMountain said...
"Jury nullification is a real thing. I hope people learn more about it and exercise it more frequently in the 21st century. We're gonna need it."
------------------
Jury nullification is a two-edged sword. It can also be used to falsely convict an innocent person based on the prejudices of the jury.
Blogger Yancey Ward said...
It is so bad that they could charge Trump with a murder and convict him without a body and with the victim sitting in the court eating lunch with a sign around his neck saying "I am not dead".
Did he shoot him on 5th Avenue?
He still would not lose any supporters.
John Henry
I read the list of jury selection questions. Not sure I would care to answer some of them. Does refusing to answer cause you to be dismissed or does that fall in to contempt of court territory? Never been called for jury duty but not sure how those questions would ever get you to someone impartial. Maybe not supposed to?
If I were up for jury selection here, asked if I were biased against Trump, I would turn to the Judge and say, No I never have donated to the Republican and none of my relatives work in Republican party fund raising. Both statements are true, and I would like to see the judges reaction.
I was selected for the jury in a weird legal malpractice suit in Federal court. The only question to me was whether or not I had ever lost money in the stock market, my answer was, sure, almost every day at some point. I did not particularly want to be on the jury.
Trump is a 1990s-style moderate and NYC Democrat who had film cameos, light interviews, and success in hosting the apolitical The Apprentice TV show for 14 years.
If not for the 2016 election, he'd have a hard time losing a jury trial in NYC. I suspect that NYC's voters tilt 80%/20% or 90%/10% against Trump now (in private), but 20% is surely enough for a mistrial. Beware of jurors who go against stereotypes.
This continues New York's self-imposed self-destruction. The $500M fine trial drove away the real estate developers, and this one will drive away more pragmatic people. NY will become a Woke Paradise full of rainbows, lollipops, and state-dependent immigrants living in tents.
It’s nice he happened to be awake to hear that.
I've posted this before, but it certainly applies here. Mark Twain wrote about jury trials over 150 years ago:
The men who murdered Virginia's original twenty-six cemetery-occupants were never punished. Why? Because Alfred the Great, when he invented trial by jury and knew that he had admirably framed it to secure justice in his age of the world, was not aware that in the nineteenth century the condition of things would be so entirely changed that unless he rose from the grave and altered the jury plan to meet the emergency, it would prove the most ingenious and infallible agency for defeating justice that human wisdom could contrive. For how could he imagine that we simpletons would go on using his jury plan after circumstances had stripped it of its usefulness, any more than he could imagine that we would go on using his candle-clock after we had invented chronometers? In his day news could not travel fast, and hence he could easily find a jury of honest, intelligent men who had not heard of the case they were called to try-- but in our day of telegraphs and newspapers his plan compels us to swear in juries composed of fools and rascals, because the system rigidly excludes honest men and men of brains.
I remember one of those sorrowful farces, in Virginia, which we call a jury trial. A noted desperado killed Mr. B., a good citizen, in the most wanton and cold-blooded way. Of course the papers were full of it, and all men capable of reading, read about it. And of course all men not deaf and dumb and idiotic, talked about it. A jury-list was made out, and Mr. B. L., a prominent banker and a valued citizen, was questioned precisely as he would have been questioned in any court in America:
"Have you heard of this homicide?"
"Yes."
"Have you held conversations upon the subject?"
"Yes."
"Have you formed or expressed opinions about it?"
"Yes."
"Have you read the newspaper accounts of it?"
"Yes."
"We do not want you."
A minister, intelligent, esteemed, and greatly respected; a merchant of high character and known probity; a mining superintendent of intelligence and unblemished reputation; a quartz mill owner of excellent standing, were all questioned in the same way, and all set aside. Each said the public talk and the newspaper reports had not so biased his mind but that sworn testimony would overthrow his previously formed opinions and enable him to render a verdict without prejudice and in accordance with the facts. But of course such men could not be trusted with the case. Ignoramuses alone could mete out unsullied justice.
When the peremptory challenges were all exhausted, a jury of twelve men was impaneled--a jury who swore they had neither heard, read, talked about nor expressed an opinion concerning a murder which the very cattle in the corrals, the Indians in the sage-brush and the stones in the streets were cognizant of! It was a jury composed of two desperadoes, two low beer-house politicians, three bar-keepers, two ranchmen who could not read, and three dull, stupid, human donkeys! It actually came out afterward, that one of these latter thought that incest and arson were the same thing.
The verdict rendered by this jury was, Not Guilty. What else could one expect?
The jury system puts a ban upon intelligence and honesty, and a premium upon ignorance, stupidity and perjury. It is a shame that we must continue to use a worthless system because it was good a thousand years ago. In this age, when a gentleman of high social standing, intelligence and probity, swears that testimony given under solemn oath will outweigh, with him, street talk and newspaper reports based upon mere hearsay, he is worth a hundred jurymen who will swear to their own ignorance and stupidity, and justice would be far safer in his hands than in theirs.
All you need to know is in the jury questionnaire. Very biased. Laughable.
In a twist, Trump will throw his book at the prosecution?
Someone who is being questioned for jury selection and actually volunteers that he read "Art of the Deal"(he book that Trump didn't really write, he just put his name on) deserves not to be on the jury based on bad taste in books more than anything. ho ho ho
God, you right-wingers are all in a tizzy because you think your boy is being unjustly put on trial. Grow up. He's slime, always has been slime and will never be anything but slime. He whines and complains about things that don't even exist, like the lame rant about not being able to attend his son's graduation, which is in 2 months. Sheesh, what a baby he is. Lock him up, Lock him up for stupidity and babiness alone. And his adults sons are more worthless and much less interesting than he is. And you complain about Hunter Biden? He has a double dose of Hunter. Ew. Hunter is no prize, to be sure.
UGH.
Vicki from Pasadena
If the first case goes Trumps way… are we talking domino effect?
This case is the case that will determine Trump’s future.
Have they managed to seat anyone yet? I'm wondering if they may go through all 96 in the pool and come up with nobody they can seat.
UGH.
Vicki from Pasadena
My thoughts exactly. Another stupid post by a drooling, snarling twit.
Ugh.
Interesting.
victoria of pasadena, a strong defender of joe biden showering with and sexualizing his adolescent daughter, (psycho victoria literally called this "normal") and a long time supporter of Hunter Biden transporting underage hookers across the nation for illegal drug fueled sexcapades which Hunter videoed, also all "normal" according to psycho victoria, suddenly declares the elder adult Trump children a "double dose of Hunter".
psycho victoria, does that mean you consider the adult Trump children twice as normal as Hunter?
Most people would probably argue the Trump children are about 1000 times more normal than your Heroically "normal" Hunter.
Exit question: what are the odds the Secret Service is currently actively procuring and providing the drugs and underage hookers (all perfectly "normal" according to victoria) to Hunter simply to maintain the coverup?
Vickie from Pawsadena:
Someone who is being questioned for jury selection and actually volunteers that he read "Art of the Deal"(he book that Trump didn't really write, he just put his name on) deserves not to be on the jury based on bad taste in books more than anything. ho ho ho
God, you right-wingers are all in a tizzy because you think your boy is being unjustly put on trial. Grow up. He's slime, always has been slime and will never be anything but slime. He whines and complains about things that don't even exist, like the lame rant about not being able to attend his son's graduation, which is in 2 months. Sheesh, what a baby he is. Lock him up, Lock him up for stupidity and babiness alone. And his adults sons are more worthless and much less interesting than he is. And you complain about Hunter Biden? He has a double dose of Hunter. Ew. Hunter is no prize, to be sure.
UGH.
Vicki from Pasadena
Not a thing you said indicates any good faith belief that Trump committed the particular crime for which he is on trial here, but he should be locked up anyhow. And we are the bad guys...
Have they managed to seat anyone yet? I'm wondering if they may go through all 96 in the pool and come up with nobody they can seat.
=================
as Trump may put it > is that y'are hired or y'are fired
I am a lurker but rarely write anything. I don't recall seeing Vicki prior to this week.
From context, I am guessing a lot of boxed wine went into the above post.
No doubt that the jury pool in NYC will end up consisting 100% of unbiased jurors with opinions identical to our little decrepit miss vicki.
"Jury nullification is a two-edged sword. It can also be used to falsely convict an innocent person based on the prejudices of the jury."
If a jury acquits an obviously guilty defendant (based on the evidence presented) via jury nullification, the acquittal must stand. If a jury purposely convicts a defendant who is obviously not guilty (under the evidence presented), the judge has the authority to void the guilty verdict.
Not a thing you said indicates any good faith belief that Trump committed the particular crime for which he is on trial here, but he should be locked up anyhow.
And that right there is the purpose of the 91 indictments. Look! It's working!
I'm open to things being done differently in NY but I'm on jury duty in KY right now, and the jury is not announced until voir dire is completed here.
If a jury purposely convicts a defendant who is obviously not guilty (under the evidence presented), the judge has the authority to void the guilty verdict.
The authority. Does the judge have the obligation to do so? And who's going to check up on that, especially in a situation such as has been described herein about the New York legal system, in which no one but the people in the room knows what's happened in a courtroom unless someone bothers to purchase a transcript?
IANAL nor even close, but it does seem to me that jury nullification is a dangerous tool to wield.
Immanuel Rant, she has posted hereabouts for a very long time, just not a lot. A consistent perspective which, even if I disagree with, I like anytime it seems less echo chambery
@Mason G.,
Wow, that excerpt from Twain was golden. Thanks for sharing.
I haven’t seen idiotic jurors in person, but obviously have read about numerous cases where all I could do was shake my head.
When I was called for jury duty, and going through the selection process, I remember the lawyers questioning us one by one. An attorney asked one man if he could judge the case impartially. The man replied, “Nah, I think he did it.” The lawyer was flustered. “But you haven’t heard any facts about the case! You don’t even know any details.” The man responded, “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire!” He was not called back. I think he was actually smarter than he let on.
I made it through the first round, but happened to hear two attorneys talking about the case and insulting the judge in the elevator. So I informed the judge’s assistant, and went home.
(he book that Trump didn't really write, he just put his name on)
You mean like Hilary's books? Except that unlike our president emeritus, she claimed that she personally wrote the book by herself. No credit originally for the actual author. Lots of books are written that way and nothing wrong with it. But instead of saying something like "my book", which would have been accurate, she kept using the clumsy "The book that I wrote"
PEDJT gave credit to the writer. He has said that if we want to know what he thinks, read the book so he apparently feels it got him right. What does it matter who did the typing?
I've "co-authored" a book, Secrets of Buying Packaging Machinery (Portal!) so am familiar with the process. We discussed what would be in the book frequently during the process, his wife helped with research and data but I wrote every word. It helps that he and I both have lots of experience in this, long friendship and tend to think alike on many things.
But it is very much his book explaining his methodology and process for buying packaging machinery. He also owns all rights.
So just one more example of you being full of shit, Vicki.
John Henry
"... you right-wingers are all in a tizzy because you think your boy is being unjustly put on trial. Grow up. He's slime, always has been slime and will never be anything but slime."
Talk about being in a tizzy. She sounds like the man killed her favorite cat.
For Trump haters, it is all about Trump. They're obsessed with him. And so they think that those who are against these bogus trials are equally obsessed. It's more accurate to say that even if it were the antichrist on trial we'd be just as concerned. We're obsessed with the corruption of our so-called justice system.
Those who irrationally hate Trump will never understand because they don't have principles; just emotions that are easily swayed by propaganda. To them Trump could be completely innocent and he still should be "tried" and thrown in jail because the media has told them over and over that his tweets are too mean.
They ignore the reality of his past presidency; they ignore the corruption of the Biden family; they ignore the mental decline of our so- called president; they ignore the weaponization of our government agencies and the current two tiered system of "justice".
None of that matters because Trump said in private that certain types of women will let rich men grab them by their private parts. Oh yeah and he might have teased a disabled reporter once.
See, Night Owl, you miss the point completely. It is your people who are obsessed with Trump, not me. You all are in a tizzy? Darn right. And for the whole principles thing, he's even admitted he has no principles, or decency or concern for anyone but himself.
Trust me, i am not obsessed wit the man, you right wingers are because you have no one to look up to... so you pick the one person who you all feel deserves your allegiance. Pick someone better, please.
And, as usual,like lame John Henry, i am not comparing him to ANYONE else. That's whay your people do. Someone says something totally accurate about DJT and his lack of human credentials and you say, "what about Hillary? What about crooked Joe?" So not the point.
Its not a comparison. At all. I could care less about either Joe or Hillary when i am talking about the orange one. I am talking about him and him alone. T/he right wing likes to throw shade on everyone else as if it makes it all better when you attack someone else. It doesn't. it just proves how shallow your arguments are, how reactionary your thinking is.
BTW, i may be full of shit but at least i have a brain.
Like i said before, grow up.
Vicki from Pasadena
It's more accurate to say that even if it were the antichrist on trial we'd be just as concerned. We're obsessed with the corruption of our so-called justice system.
Exactly what it took me roughly a million words to try to say, and not even on the proper thread! Thanks, Night Owl.
Again, it needs to be pointed out that psycho victoria strongly defended the biden clan as "normal" long, long after the truth was out on Joey Dementia showering with and sexualizing his adolescent daughter along with Hunter's bizarre relationship Beau's ex-wife AND his niece in addition to the drug-fueled underage hookers "events".
Even Inga bailed on calling the Biden's normal after all that came out.
But not psycho "Believe All Women" victoria!
Nope. She is fully on-board with ALL of it. Every bit.
As she again demonstrated irrefutably on this very thread today.
Vicki,
He's slime, always has been slime and will never be anything but slime.
Slime whose wedding the Obamas attended? Interesting, nyet? Of course, maybe they were just there for the hors d'oeuvres.
Yes shes stark raving mad or evil tomato tomatoe
Josephbleau said...
If I were up for jury selection here, asked if I were biased against Trump, I would turn to the Judge and say, No I never have donated to the Republican and none of my relatives work in Republican party fund raising. Both statements are true, and I would like to see the judges reaction.
***********
The thing is, Supreme Court judges in NY are elected from partisan districts with known political leanings.
So...such a judge donating to a political party that helped elect him isn't(theoretically) per se evidence he's hopelessly partisan in all cases.
BUT if that judge is hip deep in political activism , including having a direct family member fund-raising for a particular party, a party notoriously trying to "get" Trump---then yeah, it stinks like a week-old mackerel in the noonday sun.
Too bad the potential juror is so dumb that he never investigated the fact that Trump never ever wrote a book in his life. Trump's first published book in 1987 was "Trump: The Art of the Deal", written by ghostwriter Tony Schwartz.
Of course, Trump is laughing because he believes his lies are unquestioned.
Trust me, i am not obsessed wit the man
Oh, okay then! It's just that you believe we should "Lock him up for stupidity and babiness alone." And we "miss the point completely. It is your people who are obsessed with Trump, not me," because you say we are.
Well, fair enough, actually, up to a point. I am in a tizzy. But not about Trump the man, whom I often wish would keep his trap shut - except that today it seems we need loose cannons in order to expose the stinking corruption that is the formerly liberal Left, by inciting then to shoot off their own mouths. I'm in a tizzy about the abuse of power that you think is totes fine, even needful - because we should, I quote again, "Lock [someone you don't like] up for stupidity and babiness alone."
You add, apropos of nothing, "And for the whole principles thing, he's even admitted he has no principles, or decency or concern for anyone but himself."
You add this because you have zero understanding of what those of us who value and want to preserve civil liberties are talking about. It has nothing to do with Trump's principles or lack thereof, nor of Biden's, nor of H. Clinton's - though it is instructive to compare these three with regard to how each is or was treated by our supposedly even-handed legal system. The subject is the American justice system, entirely separate from the moral rectitude of any individual or group.
You talk like a parody of a feelings-driven progressive. Just in case you're not a Titania McGrath performance-art classical liberal whom we've just not recognized yet (but I've got to say, if you are, you need to step up the funny), I'll ask you the same question I asked Chuck on another thread: what would it take to make you nervous about the selective nature of the legal actions, up to and including prosecutions, we've all been seeing since, oh, at least 2020, when lone surfers were cited for surfing without a mask (you should know all about this, California girl) but mobs could gather with their weeks-unwashed cloth masks hanging below their noses and burn business districts to the ground because protesting spurious "officer-involved death" statistics magically didn't spread COVID, or something?
What would it take to make you question the probity of what you're so proud to call your side?
BTW, i may be full of shit but at least i have a brain.
Best own-goal I've seen in awhile. Thanks for the laugh.
BTW, you ARE obsessed with him. You act every bit as if he's someone who spurned you on a date and cannot get over it. Because he's just not that into you.
It is interesting that apparently you can't stream The Apprentice in 2024 through any of the major commercial streaming services in the US, though you can find obviously unlicensed episodes posted here and there by individuals.
Ironically, the first words spoken by Trump in the first episode's intro were "New York. My city."
As an aside, I read The Art of the Deal shortly after it came out, while I was in college, when members of the New York establishment were falling all over themselves trying to get photographed with him. Was it a great book? No, but it wasn't bad. If I recall correctly, it was very readable and entertaining. I also recall that I was by no means the only person on Yale University's campus reading it at the time, and carrying it around was not seen as a mark of shame.
"What would it take to make you question the probity of what you're so proud to call your side?"
Agreed.
The only point I care about in this discussion is that it's wrong to corrupt the legal system to go after people you disagree with politically or simply just don't like. No principled person would be cheering that on, no matter how they feel about Trump.
And yes, I'm obsessed with this issue because it directly affects what kind of country we will have going forward, if the legal system is perverted into a tool used to suppress political opposition.
Breezy said... they will come to see why we back the very imperfect, but nonetheless necessary, Trump.
4/16/24, 7:58 PM
Donald Trump has had the weight of the world's Intelligence Community conspiring to frame him for years- USA, UK, AUS, UKR, NZ, etc are countries whose governments conspired to entrap and frame Donald Trump for crimes committed by Obama, Biden, Clinton, et al.
The Meuller Investigation was a witch hunt smearing Donald Trump with the crimes committed by Hillary Clinton, Obama, and numerous other co-conspirators including the previous two losing republican party presidential candidates, John McCain and Mitt Romney. After three years and millions of dollars and despite the daily deceits of the MSM and Adam Schiff and his ilk, they came up with nothing on him.
Donald Trump was unjustly impeached twice by the most disgraceful, and corrupt congresses in the history of our nation. The second "impeachment" was not even legal, no member of the Supreme Court would participate, and Trump was not even president then, but the democrats and republicans went through with that Soviet Show Trial just to humiliate the man. And just last week the Party member who brought the accusations against Trump has now registered as a foreign agent working on behalf of Ukraine.
He's been convicted of a crime which his accuser can't remember, been fined $500 Million for a business transaction which has no complaining party or injury, and he's been targeted by the DOJ and raided by the FBI. And still, they have not brought a single legitimate charge or accusation against this man. Nothing!
Could you, perfect guy Breezy, endure what Trump has, the pressure knowing that some of the most powerful people in the world are really out to get you? Could you endure the ceaseless attacks on your character like Trump has on his actually very excellent character?
Personally, I'm proud to support such a man, that shows such strength and spirit and indomitable will against unjust, evil and mighty enemies.
I don't know where you fucking nobodies like Breezy the rando get off saying anything about Trump except to express your admiration and support. "Imperfect"? Who the fuck are you, loser? Tell us all the perfect man who should be president? Which man would not be found guilty of something if he were probed as Trump has been? Which man would keep his temper in check through years of harassment, slander, and defamation? Which man can stand up to the Party, to the world's most evil people like Trump has?
You and everyone else reading this ain't fit to kiss Trump's ass.
RideSpaceMountain said...
Jury nullification is a real thing. I hope people learn more about it and exercise it more frequently in the 21st century.
We're gonna need it.
MAGA hitters cannot catch up with curve balls. Rule of Law must prevail if America is to survive our former gangster president. Otherwise, the Trump version of the Beer Hall Putsch will be foisted upon us after the November 5th votes are counted.
He's not going to date you Vicki, no matter how smart you think you are. Get over yourself, and YOU grow up little girl. You sound like a child having a tantrum, because you didn't get you way...
Hate makes you ugly, inside and out.
So Vicki, I'm assuming we can put you in the undecided category in the upcoming election?
Otherwise, the Trump version of the Beer Hall Putsch will be foisted upon us after the November 5th votes are counted.
So, like the Trump version of an insurrection, in which no one on the insurrectiony side was armed, grandmas took selfies, people picked up their trash, everyone dispersed within a few hours, and the man who supposedly incited all this lawlessness in service of his burning desire not to relinquish power walked out the door of the White House on schedule without, you know, needing to be handcuffed or anything?
Or, like the Trump version of authoritarianism in which the federal system of government is upheld, States' right are strengthened, and executive orders might be filed but are willingly reversed if ruled against in court?
Or is it like the Trump version of blind Justice, in which the governor of New York says the quiet part out loud - that no one doing business in New York - New York, historic capital of shady dealings - need fear prosecution under the previously unused provision of the statute under which Trump was prosecuted, because they're not Trump?
Try harder, gadfly. The more times your side breathlessly predicts Trump's future dictatorial actions while Biden keeps acting like a dictator, the dumber it all sounds.
By now there is not one person in the USA who can truthfully say they are impartial about Trump. Just nobody. This isn't going to go well.
"The authority. Does the judge have the obligation to do so?"
No.
"And who's going to check up on that, especially in a situation such as has been described herein about the New York legal system, in which no one but the people in the room knows what's happened in a courtroom unless someone bothers to purchase a transcript?"
The lawyer for the defendant was in the courtroom and is aware of what transpired. If a jury voted to convict a defendant in cases when the evidence presented fails to demonstrate his/her guilt, or even obviously exonerates him, it is likely the judge would void the verdict, and if not, the defendant's lawyer(s) would very likely pursue further action.
"IANAL nor even close, but it does seem to me that jury nullification is a dangerous tool to wield."
Yes, it can be. Blacks in the south were often convicted of crimes with little or no evidence in the post-Civil War era, (and at times during the Civil Rights era). It probably occurs to some degree still today. If it makes you sleep easier, jury nullification is exercised relatively rarely. This is part of the purpose of voir dire: so the lawyers can get a read on the temperament and beliefs of the potential jurors, so they can reject those who appear to be unsuitable.
একটি মন্তব্য পোস্ট করুন