Trump Investigations Thread

[strunkenwhite]

If almost everyone you could grab off the street comes in believing Trump is guilty then he by definition can not have an impartial jury. If 50% said "guilty" and 50% said "innocent" that would be better, but frankly even that would be a miscarriage of justice because it's innocent before being proven guilty, not the other way around. Proving your innocence is nearly impossible, so no. You are fucking wrong.

Not every denizen of a place perfectly reflects the overall opinion held by people of that place. For example, if 80% are so biased as to be unfit to serve on Trump's jury, that leaves 20% of the population that is not unfit (for that reason).

It is reasonable to worry about the composition of the jury. It is not reasonable to declare that no jury of DC citizens can fairly evaluate the trial.

edit: I mean, you know there's a fairly extensive weeding-out process, right? I don't know too much about it, but I think there's no limit to the number of people they can exclude "for cause" (such as insuperable bias).

 

[Megadeath]

If almost everyone you could grab off the street comes in believing Trump is guilty then he by definition can not have an impartial jury. If 50% said "guilty" and 50% said "innocent" that would be better, but frankly even that would be a miscarriage of justice because it's innocent before being proven guilty, not the other way around. Proving your innocence is nearly impossible, so no. You are fucking wrong.

You're implying that no one should stand trial unless a jury can be found that all share an initial belief of the defendants innocence. Regardless of how targeted a subset of the general population that would have to be. That's idiotic. Whilst an entirely uninformed and unaware jury can be reasonably hoped for and achieved in general cases, any case that's at all in the public eye will result in a jury having preformed opinions. The purpose of the jury selection process is to eliminate that small percentage of people for whom reasoned argument and demonstrated evidence can't outweigh existing bias. In other words, there is already mechanisms for dealing with the issue you're exaggerating out of all proportion, and there's no reason to extend trump special consideration and privilege in this case. Such is anathema to the basis of American law.

On an aside, I bet you didn't kick up such a fuss about the trial for the murder of Ahmaud Arbery, did you?

 

[bintananth]

If almost everyone you could grab off the street comes in believing Trump is guilty then he by definition can not have an impartial jury. If 50% said "guilty" and 50% said "innocent" that would be better, but frankly even that would be a miscarriage of justice because it's innocent before being proven guilty, not the other way around. Proving your innocence is nearly impossible, so no. You are fucking wrong.

*sigh*

Jury selection isn't "let's grab 12 random people and call it a day". If it was, you'd have a point. The selection process is meant to weed out everyone who can't or won't set aside whatever preconceived notions and/or outside information they have because a jury is supposed to consider what's presented in court and only what's presented in court when returning a verdict.

Is our system perfect? No, because nothing is perfect. Is it fairer than practically everything else that's been tried, ever? Almost certainly.

 

[Blasterbot]

yeah no saying 80% of the DC pop is firmly anti Trump out the gate is being very generous. Lawyers can only strike so many potential jurors so when dealing with that the prosecution will strike the minority wherever they can and the defense will only be able to remove the worst most obvious TDS cases. you can't get an unbiased jury in D.C. They will vote their politics.

 

[Vyor]

Biden got 92% of the vote in DC.

 

[Vyor]

On an aside, I bet you didn't kick up such a fuss about the trial for the murder of Ahmaud Arbery, did you?

What? I honestly don't know what you're accusing me of there.

 

[strunkenwhite]

yeah no saying 80% of the DC pop is firmly anti Trump out the gate is being very generous. Lawyers can only strike so many potential jurors so when dealing with that the prosecution will strike the minority wherever they can and the defense will only be able to remove the worst most obvious TDS cases. you can't get an unbiased jury in D.C. They will vote their politics.

Are you sure that lawyers can only strike a limited number of potential jurors even when there is good reason to dismiss them? I thought it was that each side got a limited number of "preremptory" dismissals: that is, they can't come up with a good reason but they have a bad feeling about that person that cannot be articulated (or is not a legitimate reason to dismiss but they want to to improve their odds).

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

It's also an unconstitutional thing to do.



One would think that a candidate for president would have spent the 30-45 minutes it takes to read the damn thing, but, no, apparently that's too much of a burden.

DC is full of traitors, literally everyone who lives in that city belongs in a blacksite.

There is no conceivable way the constitution can be applied to DC denizens without them subverting it to do harm against it.

And frankly the constitution shouldn't really apply to public employees the way it does to private citizens. No one who works for the federal government for example should be allowed to vote in an election until they've been working in the private sector for an election cycle.

And public sector unions should be criminalized via constitutional amendment. So yeah the notion that a city where everyone works for the Federal bureaucracy has the right to destroy the lives of people trying to reform it via a rigged trial is fundamentally antithetical to our way of life.

 

[stephen the barbarian]

so, google is your friend,
Motion for Change of Venue | Federal Criminal Defense Attorneys
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/change-venue-criminal-case.html#:~:text=To%20get%20a%20venue%20change,to%20presume%20that%20there's%20prejudice.
if Trumps lawyer's can prove that the jury pool is tainted then they can make the motion, but it may or may not be accepted.
Biased jury claims rarely convince judges to change venue | Legal Current
https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3167&context=ndlr
and if a jury is seated then they point is considered moot.
tl;dr is that during the juries voir dire Trumps lawyer's would have to prove that they can not find 12 persons capable of being impartial.

 

[Bear Ribs]

No judge is going to change venue in a Trump case willingly. Trying Trump is going to be a huge media circus and everybody involved is going to get a lot of publicity and influence, and massive opportunities down the line ranging from book deals to speaking gigs to interviews. Note that it doesn't even need to involve the Trump case or even his name directly, the names of the attorneys and Judge involved are going to be plastered all over the news for months or even years so they will get a ton of free space in the public mind that will pay off big later.

Changing venue means the judge is passing all that up and letting some other judge, almost certainly one with opposed political viewpoints, benefit instead. Intended to be neutral or not, judges always have a strong personal incentive to keep the cases for themselves and that's an exponentially stronger incentive on cases of great national interest.

 

[King Arts]

You're implying that no one should stand trial unless a jury can be found that all share an initial belief of the defendants innocence. Regardless of how targeted a subset of the general population that would have to be. That's idiotic. Whilst an entirely uninformed and unaware jury can be reasonably hoped for and achieved in general cases, any case that's at all in the public eye will result in a jury having preformed opinions. The purpose of the jury selection process is to eliminate that small percentage of people for whom reasoned argument and demonstrated evidence can't outweigh existing bias. In other words, there is already mechanisms for dealing with the issue you're exaggerating out of all proportion, and there's no reason to extend trump special consideration and privilege in this case. Such is anathema to the basis of American law.

On an aside, I bet you didn't kick up such a fuss about the trial for the murder of Ahmaud Arbery, did you?

And you are far too trusting towards Americas legal system. Yes jury selection is supposed to weed out bias. But here is the thing jurors can lie when the lawyers ask “Are you able to put aside your personal feelings and judge impartially based on the facts presented?” If the juror says yes the lawyer has to accept that answer.

 

[LordsFire]

The purpose of the jury selection process is to eliminate that small percentage of people for whom reasoned argument and demonstrated evidence can't outweigh existing bias.

Most people will take their prejudices and biases over reasoned argument and demonstrated evidence.

And it's not a small 'most' either.

The best you can hope for with a Jury, is that the trial is on a matter they don't care much about yet, so they don't have prejudices and biases.

 

[strunkenwhite]

And you are far too trusting towards Americas legal system. Yes jury selection is supposed to weed out bias. But here is the thing jurors can lie when the lawyers ask “Are you able to put aside your personal feelings and judge impartially based on the facts presented?” If the juror says yes the lawyer has to accept that answer.

I suspect the questioning can be more sophisticated than that.

 

[Vyor]

I suspect the questioning can be more sophisticated than that.

The best you can do is show that they're willing to lie to the court about, as an example, their political activism.

 

[Blasterbot]

I suspect the questioning can be more sophisticated than that.

having watched multiple trials jury selection over the past few years you are vastly overestimating what they can do. Jury selection is incredibly important and many lawyers don't seem to grasp just how ideological some people are now and how that influences them in the jury room.

 

[Sir 1000]

Personally i suspect this is theatre, red team vs blue team shit, i think Trump cut a deal behind the scenes already. I think that after a long and horrifically unfair appearing ordeal he will end up in the Whitehouse. Coincidentally having an ''yuge'' comeback arc and restoring ''faith'' in the system for boomers and fools just in time for (insert conflict here) so white men can die for Jews and butt sex. Screen cap this and weep

 

[Rocinante]

Personally i suspect this is theatre, red team vs blue team shit, i think Trump cut a deal behind the scenes already.

Utter nonsense.

 

[Cherico]

Utter nonsense.

Honestly, I don't think that's really the case.

The left has more or less left the plot behind on a lot of things, and I don't see the current establishment as being one that really wants to compromise or is able to.

Which is a shame for them because Trumps and the next person to take up his flag are the establishments shot at solving the issues of our age with compromise. Its a narrow window but it is possible.

But I don't think that will happen and decades from now hence they will weep for the days of trump.

 

[Megadeath]

Honestly, I don't think that's really the case.

The left has more or less left the plot behind on a lot of things, and I don't see the current establishment as being one that really wants to compromise or is able to.

Which is a shame for them because Trumps and the next person to take up his flag are the establishments shot at solving the issues of our age with compromise. Its a narrow window but it is possible.

But I don't think that will happen and decades from now hence they will weep for the days of trump.

That doesn't really make any sense as a response to the post it's purportedly responding too. But, I guess you gotta hit that monthly quota for that particular claim, huh? If we round them all up, how many similar such posts do you think we'd find?

 

[Rocinante]

That doesn't really make any sense as a response to the post it's purportedly responding too. But, I guess you gotta hit that monthly quota for that particular claim, huh? If we round them all up, how many similar such posts do you think we'd find?

I sometimes wonder if cherico is a bot, but all the typos and bad spelling indicate otherwise. (I'm half way joking, I know he's not a bot because I have known him and been in PMs with him for years)

But yeah he's a broken record.

It's to the point and a lot of times when just scrolling, I don't read names, but I know when I'm reading a cherico post.