NY: Convicted Felon Donald Trump!

[Ljube]

Have you considered being normal about juries?

I don't understand what you are trying to say.

The defendant and his people simply choosing not to threaten the physical safety of the jurors trying him would be a good start.

There were two anti-Trump plants in the jury. Should they just let them stay?

"Plants"?  You do understand that people are randomly selected for jury duty?  They don't volunteer for it?

Grow up.

Yes. But if they are biased, they should excuse themselves. They shouldn't need encouragement from their friends and family to realize that, or investigation by the DA.

These people weren't "biased," they were understandably scared of their lives being ruined by this (or worse). I would never agree to be on this jury for that reason. We already know what the MAGA cult will do to innocent people who were just doing their jobs correctly.

I already posted this, but I will repeat for you.

Any person who is not anti-Trump will not feel threatened.

Wrong.  Any person who is even open to the possibility of convicting Trump (and any fair juror should be open to either conviction or acquittal going in!) knows they have the possibility of being threatened if they vote to convict.

Now ask the next question: why should any potential juror -- anti-Trump or otherwise -- feel threatened?  Do you think it's okay that anti-Trump jurors would feel threatened?

Whether you intended it or not, you just put your finger on a fundamental problem with Trump and his followers: they're willing to threaten, intimidate, and engage in violence against any threat to their leader!  If you don't see this as the enormous threat to democracy that it is, I don't know what to say.

You are completely missing the point.
Anti-Trump jurors feel threatened even when there are no threats because they are aware of their bias, and they know that any potential future intimidation directed at them would actually be justified. That is why they decide to quit after "further reflection".

A fair-minded person would not even consider a possibility that they would be a target of intimidation.

Therefore, for jury integrity, and to root out Tramp haters, it is imperative that they be under impression that they would be targeted by MAGA fanatics.

[7,052,770]

A fair-minded person would not even consider a possibility that they would be a target of intimidation.

A "fair-minded person" would look at what happened to the poll workers who literally did NOTHING WRONG and had their lives ruined by the Trump cult and had to go into hiding over legitimate and justified fears they would be murdered, and know that they want nothing of that. The people agreeing to be on this jury are either secretly Trump superfans determined to acquit him, or otherwise pay so little attention to politics that they never heard about the poll worker abuse stories.

[Florida Man for Crime]

A fair-minded person idiot would not even consider a possibility that they would be a target of intimidation.

ftfy

Trump has a documented history of fomenting threats and violence against people who are merely doing there jobs out of civic duty, such as polling place workers.

[Ljube]

A fair-minded person would not even consider a possibility that they would be a target of intimidation.

A "fair-minded person" would look at what happened to the poll workers who literally did NOTHING WRONG and had their lives ruined by the Trump cult and had to go into hiding over legitimate and justified fears they would be murdered, and know that they want nothing of that. The people agreeing to be on this jury are either secretly Trump superfans determined to acquit him, or otherwise pay so little attention to politics that they never heard about the poll worker abuse stories.

I hope you are right.
But a friend of mine who recently escaped from New York tells me that the average New Yorker hates Trump and that they tell themselves that they would be unbiased, but in the end, their dislike for Trump will prevail and they will all vote to convict.

[emailking]

You are completely missing the point.
Anti-Trump jurors feel threatened even when there are no threats because they are aware of their bias, and they know that any potential future intimidation directed at them would actually be justified. That is why they decide to quit after "further reflection".

A fair-minded person would not even consider a possibility that they would be a target of intimidation.

Therefore, for jury integrity, and to root out Tramp haters, it is imperative that they be under impression that they would be targeted by MAGA fanatics.

I have a question. What if an anti-Trump juror votes to acquit and Trump is acquitted? Should they feel threatened right now?

And along those lines, what if a pro-Trump juror votes to convict and Trump is convicted? Should they feel threatened right now?

[Ljube]

You are completely missing the point.
Anti-Trump jurors feel threatened even when there are no threats because they are aware of their bias, and they know that any potential future intimidation directed at them would actually be justified. That is why they decide to quit after "further reflection".

A fair-minded person would not even consider a possibility that they would be a target of intimidation.

Therefore, for jury integrity, and to root out Tramp haters, it is imperative that they be under impression that they would be targeted by MAGA fanatics.

I have a question. What if an anti-Trump juror votes to acquit and Trump is acquitted? Should they feel threatened right now?

And along those lines, what if a pro-Trump juror votes to convict and Trump is convicted? Should they feel threatened right now?

The possibility that a pro-Trump juror will vote to convict is Zero.

[GeorgiaModerate]

You are completely missing the point.
Anti-Trump jurors feel threatened even when there are no threats because they are aware of their bias, and they know that any potential future intimidation directed at them would actually be justified. That is why they decide to quit after "further reflection".

A fair-minded person would not even consider a possibility that they would be a target of intimidation.

Therefore, for jury integrity, and to root out Tramp haters, it is imperative that they be under impression that they would be targeted by MAGA fanatics.

I have a question. What if an anti-Trump juror votes to acquit and Trump is acquitted? Should they feel threatened right now?

And along those lines, what if a pro-Trump juror votes to convict and Trump is convicted? Should they feel threatened right now?

The possibility that a pro-Trump juror will vote to convict is Zero.

So you're saying that a pro-Trump juror can't be fair?  They'll put their loyalty to Trump above the rule of law?  If true, then they should all be excluded, no?

[Ljube]

You are completely missing the point.
Anti-Trump jurors feel threatened even when there are no threats because they are aware of their bias, and they know that any potential future intimidation directed at them would actually be justified. That is why they decide to quit after "further reflection".

A fair-minded person would not even consider a possibility that they would be a target of intimidation.

Therefore, for jury integrity, and to root out Tramp haters, it is imperative that they be under impression that they would be targeted by MAGA fanatics.

I have a question. What if an anti-Trump juror votes to acquit and Trump is acquitted? Should they feel threatened right now?

And along those lines, what if a pro-Trump juror votes to convict and Trump is convicted? Should they feel threatened right now?

The possibility that a pro-Trump juror will vote to convict is Zero.

So you're saying that a pro-Trump juror can't be fair?  They'll put their loyalty to Trump above the rule of law?  If true, then they should all be excluded, no?

Yes, I am saying that. And yes, they should be excluded.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

You are completely missing the point.
Anti-Trump jurors feel threatened even when there are no threats because they are aware of their bias, and they know that any potential future intimidation directed at them would actually be justified. That is why they decide to quit after "further reflection".

A fair-minded person would not even consider a possibility that they would be a target of intimidation.

Therefore, for jury integrity, and to root out Tramp haters, it is imperative that they be under impression that they would be targeted by MAGA fanatics.

I have a question. What if an anti-Trump juror votes to acquit and Trump is acquitted? Should they feel threatened right now?

And along those lines, what if a pro-Trump juror votes to convict and Trump is convicted? Should they feel threatened right now?

The possibility that a pro-Trump juror will vote to convict is Zero.

If any juror goes in with zero possibility of convicting regardless of the evidence, they aren’t unbiased and obviously should exclude themselves from the jury.

[emailking]

You are completely missing the point.
Anti-Trump jurors feel threatened even when there are no threats because they are aware of their bias, and they know that any potential future intimidation directed at them would actually be justified. That is why they decide to quit after "further reflection".

A fair-minded person would not even consider a possibility that they would be a target of intimidation.

Therefore, for jury integrity, and to root out Tramp haters, it is imperative that they be under impression that they would be targeted by MAGA fanatics.

I have a question. What if an anti-Trump juror votes to acquit and Trump is acquitted? Should they feel threatened right now?

And along those lines, what if a pro-Trump juror votes to convict and Trump is convicted? Should they feel threatened right now?

The possibility that a pro-Trump juror will vote to convict is Zero.

That's not an answer.

[Penn_Quaker_Girl]

You are completely missing the point.
Anti-Trump jurors feel threatened even when there are no threats because they are aware of their bias, and they know that any potential future intimidation directed at them would actually be justified. That is why they decide to quit after "further reflection".

A fair-minded person would not even consider a possibility that they would be a target of intimidation.

Therefore, for jury integrity, and to root out Tramp haters, it is imperative that they be under impression that they would be targeted by MAGA fanatics.

I have a question. What if an anti-Trump juror votes to acquit and Trump is acquitted? Should they feel threatened right now?

And along those lines, what if a pro-Trump juror votes to convict and Trump is convicted? Should they feel threatened right now?

The possibility that a pro-Trump juror will vote to convict is Zero.

So you're saying that a pro-Trump juror can't be fair?  They'll put their loyalty to Trump above the rule of law?  If true, then they should all be excluded, no?

Yes, I am saying that. And yes, they should be excluded.

Not to pile on you, Ljube, as I do get your anxieties that Trump can't get a truly impartial jury on relatively liberal turf.  

But if pro-Trump jurors should be excluded and anti-Trump jurors should be excluded, that doesn't leave very much in the middle.  Changing the venue to a more "balanced" precinct wouldn't decrease the difficulty in finding truly independent-minded individuals who have no pre-loaded political opinions. I'd argue that these people don't really exist in today's political climate.  

The best we can do is utilizing the jury selection process where -- as far as I know -- Trump's legal team has been afforded the same privileges and opportunities to question/survey potential jurors as the prosecution.  

[Ferguson97]

I already posted this, but I will repeat for you.

Any person who is not anti-Trump will not feel threatened.

That sounds like you're making a threat.

[Yoda]

I think some of you fail to understand a core principle of the jury system: jurors are allowed to have opinions about people involved in the case -- whether it's the defendant, the defense lawyers, the prosecutors, the judge, the arresting officer, or the person running the security checkpoint at the courthouse entrance.  Jurors are supposed to (and they swear to, at least in the jury oath in some jurisdictions) put aside any such opinions and reach a verdict solely on the evidence presented.  Their opinions get left outside on the courthouse steps.  

Most people, I think, are pretty good at this.  Some are not.  If a juror feels they cannot put aside their opinions, then they should be excused -- which is something that is routinely asked in jury questioning.  If the prosecutors or defense believe that a juror can't be fair for some reason, they can move to have the juror excused for cause; failing that, they can use one of their peremptory strikes if they just have a bad feeling about a particular juror.  But simply having an opinion about the defendant -- whether favorable or unfavorable -- or a political leaning is not sufficient cause by itself to remove them; there needs to be some other indication that they can't render a fair verdict.

If you think it's impossible to find a fair jury even for a famous defendant, then you really don't believe in the jury system (and, I suspect, you don't have much faith in people at all).  Believing that jurors shouldn't have opinions or political leanings is as misguided and unrealistic as believing that police officers, judges, or prosecutors shouldn't either.  Their opinions don't matter as long as they can do their job fairly.  Most of them do, and those that don't should be removed from their jobs.  Being a juror is just another job (a short-term, low-paying one) in the same category.

If that is so, then let's move the trial to a 50-50 jurisdiction somewhere upstate.
The opinions of jurors don't matter as long as they can do their job fairly.

Or better yet, let's move the trial to rural Texas.

The trial is being held in NY b/c the crimes trump is charged with were allegedly committed there. That's how trials work, since you clearly don't know - you're charged in the venue where the alleged crime took place. Holding the trial in rural Texas would make no more sense than holding it in the Vatican. trump is not entitled to more of his voters potentially being on a jury. No criminal defendant is.

If you're pissy about this fact, the solution is for your Cheeto cult leader to stop committing crimes in jurisdictions full of people who despise him. Go pay a porn star to sleep with him while his wife is pregnant, tell a local publisher of a rag tabloid to buy the story from said lady and not run it to cover it up b/c 1) it looks bad for him and 2) it's a campaign expense he's trying to hide, and then write a check to his lawyer so he can turn around pay off the porn star with that exact amount (falsification of records), and do it all in West Texas. Voila, you'll have his trial there.

Edit: come to think of it, the MAGA local prosecutor would not even charge the crime, if it's even a felony in Texas to begin with, out of loyalty to trump. Which is, of course, the real reason you want rural Texas to be the jury pool. You want nothing but people who place loyalty to trump above the law.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Shouldn't the fact that this ljube fellow is essentially condoning jury intimidation and violence have some consequences? He is literally acting like a Trump goon ("nice life you have there, would be a shame if  anything happened to it because you don't love Trump").

[Progressive Pessimist]

I found it amusing that Trump complained that he couldn'tcampaign in New Hampshire and South Carolina. He really thinks he needs to spend time there? If so, his campaign is going to be the mess it always looked like it would be. Or he thinks he is still running in the primary.

I think some of you fail to understand a core principle of the jury system: jurors are allowed to have opinions about people involved in the case -- whether it's the defendant, the defense lawyers, the prosecutors, the judge, the arresting officer, or the person running the security checkpoint at the courthouse entrance.  Jurors are supposed to (and they swear to, at least in the jury oath in some jurisdictions) put aside any such opinions and reach a verdict solely on the evidence presented.  Their opinions get left outside on the courthouse steps.  

Most people, I think, are pretty good at this.  Some are not.  If a juror feels they cannot put aside their opinions, then they should be excused -- which is something that is routinely asked in jury questioning.  If the prosecutors or defense believe that a juror can't be fair for some reason, they can move to have the juror excused for cause; failing that, they can use one of their peremptory strikes if they just have a bad feeling about a particular juror.  But simply having an opinion about the defendant -- whether favorable or unfavorable -- or a political leaning is not sufficient cause by itself to remove them; there needs to be some other indication that they can't render a fair verdict.

If you think it's impossible to find a fair jury even for a famous defendant, then you really don't believe in the jury system (and, I suspect, you don't have much faith in people at all).  Believing that jurors shouldn't have opinions or political leanings is as misguided and unrealistic as believing that police officers, judges, or prosecutors shouldn't either.  Their opinions don't matter as long as they can do their job fairly.  Most of them do, and those that don't should be removed from their jobs.  Being a juror is just another job (a short-term, low-paying one) in the same category.

If that is so, then let's move the trial to a 50-50 jurisdiction somewhere upstate.
The opinions of jurors don't matter as long as they can do their job fairly.

Or better yet, let's move the trial to rural Texas.

The trial is being held in NY b/c the crimes trump is charged with were allegedly committed there. That's how trials work, since you clearly don't know - you're charged in the venue where the alleged crime took place. Holding the trial in rural Texas would make no more sense than holding it in the Vatican. trump is not entitled to more of his voters potentially being on a jury. No criminal defendant is.

If you're pissy about this fact, the solution is for your Cheeto cult leader to stop committing crimes in jurisdictions full of people who despise him. Go pay a porn star to sleep with him while his wife is pregnant, tell a local publisher of a rag tabloid to buy the story from said lady and not run it to cover it up b/c 1) it looks bad for him and 2) it's a campaign expense he's trying to hide, and then write a check to his lawyer so he can turn around pay off the porn star with that exact amount (falsification of records), and do it all in West Texas. Voila, you'll have his trial there.

Edit: come to think of it, the MAGA local prosecutor would not even charge the crime, if it's even a felony in Texas to begin with, out of loyalty to trump. Which is, of course, the real reason you want rural Texas to be the jury pool. You want nothing but people who place loyalty to trump above the law.

Ironically he is getting what he wants in the Florida trial. Trump's saving grace is that he committed those crimes in West Palm Beach rather than DC or New York.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I have no problem with that. But the press believes the public has the right to know.

Why should that matter?

[brucejoel99]

https://twitter.com/klasfeldreports/status/1781303677275226622https://twitter.com/tylermcbrien/status/1781308531905310749

[GeorgiaModerate]

https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/1781311716367761633

[Sir Mohamed]

It's about time Trump finally pays a price for violating his gag orders.

[emailking]

Shouldn't the fact that this ljube fellow is essentially condoning jury intimidation and violence have some consequences? He is literally acting like a Trump goon ("nice life you have there, would be a shame if  anything happened to it because you don't love Trump").

I don't think he's trying to condone it but clarifying that might help.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Shouldn't the fact that this ljube fellow is essentially condoning jury intimidation and violence have some consequences? He is literally acting like a Trump goon ("nice life you have there, would be a shame if  anything happened to it because you don't love Trump").

I don't think he's trying to condone it but clarifying that might help.

He wasn't expressing concern. He was giddy because a couple of "Democratic plants" were intimidated and forced to resign.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Do anyone else think that Bragg is leaving a much stronger case on the table by concentrating on this election interference stuff?

The basic facts of this case are that Trump falsified business records to cover up affairs.  In order for the falsification to be a felony, it needs to be in furtherance of another crime.  So to do this, Bragg for some reason thinks he needs to think of some convoluted way in which the hush money payments constitute election interference or campaign finance violations.  This part of the case has always struck me as incredibly weak.

But he shouldn't need to do this.
Adultery in New York is a crime.  If you are falsifying records to cover up an affair, it can be prosecuted as a felony because the affair itself in the underlying crime.
Trump might not be guilty of adultery with Stormy Daniels, because my impression was the affair was not conducted in New York.  But he almost certainly did commit adultery in New York with Karen McDougal.

So why not concentrate this case on the payments to McDougal to cover up the crime of adultery, and just leave out any feeble connection to election interference?

I know the adultery law in New York might not be popular, but an unbiased jury would be expected to uphold the law whether they like it or not, and this seems like an ironclad case if judged by the letter of the law.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/1781311716367761633

Again, this is not about Trump "misunderstanding" the gag order, or somehow being stupid, or failing to see his hypocrisy. This is tinder. This is reinforcement for his cult (that includes most Republicans). This is laying the groundwork for his own later claims that the trial was rigged, the election was rigged, and for claiming to justify future Republican lawbreaking and treason.

[7,052,770]

Do anyone else think that Bragg is leaving a much stronger case on the table by concentrating on this election interference stuff?

The basic facts of this case are that Trump falsified business records to cover up affairs.  In order for the falsification to be a felony, it needs to be in furtherance of another crime.  So to do this, Bragg for some reason thinks he needs to think of some convoluted way in which the hush money payments constitute election interference or campaign finance violations.  This part of the case has always struck me as incredibly weak.

But he shouldn't need to do this.
Adultery in New York is a crime.  If you are falsifying records to cover up an affair, it can be prosecuted as a felony because the affair itself in the underlying crime.
Trump might not be guilty of adultery with Stormy Daniels, because my impression was the affair was not conducted in New York.  But he almost certainly did commit adultery in New York with Karen McDougal.

So why not concentrate this case on the payments to McDougal to cover up the crime of adultery, and just leave out any feeble connection to election interference?

I know the adultery law in New York might not be popular, but an unbiased jury would be expected to uphold the law whether they like it or not, and this seems like an ironclad case if judged by the letter of the law.

My first thought is that no politician in either party wants to start prosecuting over adultery.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Do anyone else think that Bragg is leaving a much stronger case on the table by concentrating on this election interference stuff?

The basic facts of this case are that Trump falsified business records to cover up affairs.  In order for the falsification to be a felony, it needs to be in furtherance of another crime.  So to do this, Bragg for some reason thinks he needs to think of some convoluted way in which the hush money payments constitute election interference or campaign finance violations.  This part of the case has always struck me as incredibly weak.

But he shouldn't need to do this.
Adultery in New York is a crime.  If you are falsifying records to cover up an affair, it can be prosecuted as a felony because the affair itself in the underlying crime.
Trump might not be guilty of adultery with Stormy Daniels, because my impression was the affair was not conducted in New York.  But he almost certainly did commit adultery in New York with Karen McDougal.

So why not concentrate this case on the payments to McDougal to cover up the crime of adultery, and just leave out any feeble connection to election interference?

I know the adultery law in New York might not be popular, but an unbiased jury would be expected to uphold the law whether they like it or not, and this seems like an ironclad case if judged by the letter of the law.

My first thought is that no politician in either party wants to start prosecuting over adultery.

Sure, I understand that.  But he wouldn't be prosecuted for adultery. He'd be prosecuted with business fraud to cover up adultery.  Which is exactly what Trump did in this case.  Just like Clinton wasn't impeached for the affair, he was impeached for the cover up.  And Republican politicians seemed to have no problem with that.