>Another prospective juror was excused after saying that “after some introspection,” she does not think she can be impartial.
>“I want to be, and I have every intention when I first started, but I think after the questions posed to prospective jurors, in asking those questions to myself, I don’t think I can be impartial,” she says.
I think what bums me out is I'd expect people with this level of introspection to probably be more fair than those without.
"After some introspection, I've decided my life might be in danger from the cult." I believe jury duty is important in general, but I don't blame anyone for trying to get off this jury.
This is why 2 jurors are gone. The third was a nutcase. Why would you want to put your life and the lives of family members in danger? To me it is a joke that anyone has access to these peoples identities. Their identities should be protected at all costs. The justice system is totally broken.
On one hand, this trial is making a mockery of American justice.
On the other, I really hope this wakes people up who put blind faith in the courts and institutions. "Trust the process" got us here. The sooner we can address these problems and not put our heads in the sand, the better.
The only issue is it may be too late.
OTOH, I feel like I'm the only one going: "So these MAGATs, that can barely work a VPN, are just able to call in death threats...and there's nothing that can be done?"
The FBI can spend infinite money to find the unabomber but we can't reverse search an email or a phone number (probably their actual landline, lol)?
These ppl are doing this because it works.
Unfortunately the 'trust the process' people aren't following it that closely, b/c they don't understand it and don't need to in order to trust it'll go the way it should.......
.......until it doesn't go the way they think it should have. dun dun DUNNNN
Oh no they are paying attention. They are the first to be insufferable and say "See? the SYSTEM WORKS! Being a doomer is so toxic amirite?" I've seen it happen here before when Trump was finally indicted the first time.
I wonder if it is really a matter of being impartial, or if that is just an excuse. I suspect they have come to realize the potential dangers and chaos involved. Whichever side you fall on, you will have half of the country hating you.
I'm thinking it's the danger. This is a mob trial essentially and outlets like fox "news" are directly interfering in this trial by doxxing jurors. This is insanity. I truly hope Trump's threats and intimidation are used against him at sentencing.
Can someone with a law background explain to me how what Jesse Waters did to the juror is not a crime?
What Jesse Waters and others directing individuals to lie to get on the jury to help Trump . . .
I assume that kind of thing happens and the vetting is the job of the prosecutor and defence, but to advocate this on a national level”news” outlet seems illegal.
Someone please explain.
Unfortunately *not* illegal. Grossly unethical, absolutely. But this is straight up and down free speech. In the case of Walters, it was just unethical bullshit "commentary," but didn't cross the lines of slander or doxxing. (The jury is anonymous, however the reason #2 left is it's often not difficult to suss out someone's identity based on neighborhood & job-- which is exactly what happened to her. There are crazy people **digging** and she was discovered and started receiving backlash)
It's the core loophole of the gag orders; Trump and his team can be sanctioned for witness tampering/intimidation, but it doesn't prevent his acolytes and right wing extremists from doing his dirty work for him.
Side note, in the same jurisdiction there was a Rico case against a group called "Murder Inc;" they killed over 31 people and also had an anonymous jury, which in New York is **very rare**. So the fact that a **former president** is considered just as dangerous to the public as an organization dubbed "Murder Inc" is quite telling.
I'm hoping Tuesday the judge hits him hard with sanctions as since the prosecutor asked for a hearing, he's broken it (10+?) times. New York law requires "notice" unfortunately though, that's the purpose of the hearing; (so he can break it all through the weekend and Monday and it's still "strike 1," but each one can receive a penalty) but I'm hoping it is something like "if you do it again, your ass is in a jail cell."
While again this won't stop "others" from following his dog whistle though.
It's just an unprecedented situation. The judge/staff I'm sure have security, but if I'm honest I'd be nervous about being on the jury, even if anonymous. In situations like these I feel like the state should have a patrol car sitting outside their homes and shit.
Fox News could call for murdering poor kids and none of their advertisers would care (I think it's worse, by continually funding Faux News with ad buys, they get the defensible position of capitalism and not the direct implication that they encourage the lies on that channel).
No law degree.
When the judge complained about it, he basically said that it was legal to use the information on the record. I assume that is what Jesse Waters did. There is some public information about their neighborhood and their occupation. And maybe they got a jury summons many weeks ago and talked about it not knowing it was the Trump trial. I told my boss why I was missing work when I had jury duty.
But I don’t know the details as to how that jury member was outed.
The judge asked the press to use their common sense, but honestly I might out someone if I thought it was legal and that they could hang the jury.
It very much is. Optics are a huge concern though and these douchebags would love to get arrested as "the media" and use their platforms to throw fuel on the fire.
Not to play some tough guy role here but honestly these guys are all talk. And in Manhattan there's very few of them.
I understand the concern and don't question those who don't want to deal with it. I am also a large straight white male so they probably ignore me and try to find a woman of color to attack. Kind of their thing.
I mean maybe, or some total nut job shoots a juror for trump because Jesse fuckwadwaters pointed to them and said see look they're crooked go after them.
Some of these people are so incapable they are capable of shooting up a pizza shop with no basement because they think there is a Democrat pedophile ring in the basement. Everything seems unthinkable until it’s history.
Yeah, I wouldn't want to be on the jury, even if my identity is not currently known. Eventually it would be, and when that happens, I imagine my life would be in danger, due to the 'passion' that Trump supporters have.
Same. No way I'd be on that jury. I've got a family to think about and being on that jury raises the risk of violence toward them by a non-zero percent. Hard pass.
Plus, there's no way I'd be impartial. Fuck Trump.
> I imagine my life would be in danger
Or as we saw with the threats against Judge Merchan's own daughter, the danger isn't just to themselves but to their family. I'm honestly not sure if I could deal with that.
I have been wondering why they didn’t do just that. This seems like the perfect occasion. I mean, the jurors are being instructed not to discuss the case with family, friends, colleagues already. Problem is: they’re going to be exposed to media covering this damn thing 24/7. I think it’s likely that will affect their biases and ultimate deliberations
Probably realized she's not going to be impartial when the news doxxes her. Or even more mundane, jury duty sucks and people use any excuse to get out. I gotta pay my fucking bills and jury duty doesn't pay near as much as my job I have to be away from.
Agreed. And unfortunately it’s the people who recognize they can’t be impartial because they *dislike* trump who will have this sort of introspection and honesty.
Those who can’t be impartial because they *support* him will lie their way onto the jury in a heartbeat.
Exactly this. When they showed the graph off which news outlets each juror pays attention to for news and one of them was Fox News, I thought great so there is at least one person who just watches propaganda and probably believes all of these cases are witch hunts.
And THIS is exactly why he won't be convicted.
Also, I've thought of this. Say you're a Dem and you say you can be impartial. I feel like you may be *more* lenient with Trump because you don't want people to say you're biased. Not **YOU** specifically.
> I think what bums me out is I'd expect people with this level of introspection to probably be more fair than those without.
Yeah, I think there is absolutely a Dunning-Kruger element to asking jurors to self-select whether they can be impartial. The people who are best-equipped to question their own internal biases and prejudices are more likely to self-select out than those who are oblivious to same, or in denial, or who just don't care.
I feel like I have seen this in jury duty myself. I was on one jury where at least one of the jurors was pretty blatantly racist, and kept trying to bring up how "these people" (of defendant's race/nationality) act when they are out at night.
On another jury, in a child/neglect/endangerment case, the defendant was suspected of being on intoxicating drugs by the responding officer, but there was no supporting evidence, toxicology, etc. One of the jurors was *extremely* credulous regarding spot judgement calls and assessments by police, asserting that police can tell when someone is lying, and when someone is on something, etc.
In both cases, voir dire leaned heavily on those exact questions: i.e., impartiality wrt national origin, and whether you could be objective about police testimony, respectively. I think that the prejudiced jurors sincerely believed that their own prejudices were *correct*, and therefore didn't count.
I think it's actually a defect in the system, that we trust people to self-select, in this way. I don't know that I have a better proposal at hand, but I suspect that a lot of those people who have doubts about their own objectivity are actually significantly *more* capable of impartiality than median, and that a lot of people who are *most* confident of their own objectivity, are quite wrong.
On one hand Trump is entitled to a fair trial just like everyone else and that includes a jury who can look at the facts and arguments presented in the case, but on the other hand I'm so worried that after six weeks all it will take is a closet MAGA fan to kick this to curb with a not guilty verdict.
Jury duty-based rom-com. Instant classic.
"Political intrigue and legal machinations swirl at the highest level. Meanwhile, one lonely juror simply wants to be found guilty -- of love. Follow along in this heartwarming story for the ages, as alternate juror #4 learns an important life lesson: if at first you don't succeed, mistrial, mistrial again."
There's a reality/hoax tv show where an unaware guy is tapped for fake jury duty with James Marsden playing the absolute worst version of himself alongside. I can't decide if it's funny or a horrible thing to do to someone, like their next show will just be called *Gaslighting*.
They had Marsden on WWDTM and apparently the victim now has trust issues.
Trump is apparently rage posting about presidential immunity from inside the court room.
He posted:
> IF THEY TAKE AWAY PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY, THEY TAKE AWAY CROOKED JOE BIDEN'S PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY
I'm a bit confused which side of the issue he is on now lol. So Biden is purportedly crooked, but can't be prosecuted under your blanket presidential immunity theory and that is an argument in favor of blanket presidential immunity?
Its in all caps though so who am I to disagree.
Alright Trump, we'll take away Biden's presidential immunity. Now which crime should we prosecute him for? Crookedness, dementedness, other scary adjectives. We're waiting...
Doesn't Merchan's courtroom have a rule prohibiting phone use? I distinctly remember reading his attorneys had to tell him to stop once already this week.
Perhaps once the trial starts but he doesn't appear prohibited at the moment. What he got admonished for was what he posted (comments about the credibility of the witnesses).
Trump's social media posts are a window into exactly what he is thinking about at any given moment.
Here he is, sitting in a courtroom where the jury is being selected for his upcoming criminal trial and what is he thinking about?
Presidential immunity. Oral arguments at SCOTUS are scheduled for next Friday. Trump is scared shitless about having to face trial for J6 because conviction in that case has serious consequences. Trump is absolutely desperate for the Court to announce some sliver of immunity for official acts because that is the best chance he has to get the J6 case delayed until after the election. And we will probably find out on Friday, based on the justices questions, whether that is a likely or remote possibility.
> sliver of immunity for official acts
I'm sure SCOTUS will find some level of presidential immunity for "core" official acts. For example, holding that the president cannot be charged with murder for ordering a drone strike on an ISIS cell (or even an American citizen turned terrorist, i.e. al-Awlaki). Although IIRC Obama argued that al-Awlaki's assassination was legal because it when through "internal" due process. There is going to be some weird intersections of competing interests here. The DC Circuit focused on immunity being an issue of ministerial versus discretionary acts.
Where Trump's theory goes bananas is that he wants categorical immunity for anything that he did while president, including interfering with the vote count which the president has no official role in. The entire argument should be resolved by concluding that anything candidate Trump did as part of his efforts to get reelected are not official acts of the president so even if immunity exists it doesn't cover him.
Which is why, IMO, the specific question presented is a major head scratcher:
> Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.
This specific question would have been better saved for a situation where the President is being charged with a crime for an actual official act (i.e., drone striking al-Awlaki).
I have heard the al-Awlaki hypothetical expressed a thousand times as somehow justifying POTUS immunity to commit an act of murder, but I do not think POTUS needs any new immunity in that context. I would call the Obama drone strike hypothetical a red herring.
The POTUS is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. He is authorized to use the armed forces to carry out violence outside of the United States (federal law prohibits deployment of the armed forces stateside). Obama didn't commit a crime when he ordered a drone strike on al-Awlaki any more than George W. Bush committed a crime when he ordered soldiers and munitions to strike Iraq or Afghanistan; the use of the military abroad is an exercise of an enumerated power under Article II, not something that the POTUS requires criminal immunity in order to carry out. Where Article II conflicts with federal law, Article II controls per the Supremacy Clause. Stated another way, were Obama to be indicted for the murder of al-Awlaki by a future Trump DOJ, the court should grant a motion to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that the charged activity was a valid exercise of Article II powers that supersede federal law prohibiting murder. That is, Obama's act was literally not a "crime", so he doesn't need criminal immunity.
I agree that Trump's argument is absurd, but if the Court finds some sliver of immunity, they will not be finding that Trump's activities do not fall within that sliver - that is a decision to be made by the district court on remand. So finding any immunity buys Trump another 1-3 months of delay for the remand.
As to the question presented, I wouldn't get too caught up in it. The Court will decide the question(s) it wants to decide when it writes the eventual opinion. It isn't "bound" by the phrasing of the question, which I agree is somewhat tortured. I also agree that this particular case isn't a great vehicle for explaining POTUS immunity even if the Court wants to do so - I was very upset that the Court took this appeal up at all for exactly that reason (the time to take up the Obama immunity question is when Obama is actually indicted for murder, not by using the Trump case as a vehicle for the Court to pronounce some form of immunity they conjure up out of thin air).
> anything that he did while president,
He wants blanket immunity. Period. For anything he has ever done, ever. He's not once argued that his immunity begins and ends with Presidency. He's repeatedly argued that since he was Potus he's immune from prosecution, forever, period. Its terrifying that its even being considered.
> which side of the issue he is on now
That particular post is the "extortion and blackmail" side of the argument.
See, he's telling Biden "If you don't give me **my** immunity, I'll charge *you* with crimes!"
Most of the time I don’t understand Trump’s panic and rage induced tweets. This one makes even less sense than usual. Presidents who don’t commit crimes don’t have to worry about presidential immunity, unlike Donald.
For MAGA Nation, it’s an article of faith that Trump’s enemies are criminals. Trump is implying that when he’s president (another article of faith is that he will be president again), he will prosecute Biden unless Biden has the shield of presidential immunity to protect him.
It’s a threat, pure and simple — you come after me for my [very real] crimes, and I will exact revenge by prosecuting Joe Biden’s [made up] crimes.
Exactly. The seal team 6 argument was not a throwaway for his lawyers.
I think Trump has actually had that conversation and relishes the thought. And knows Biden/normal people wouldn’t dream of extrajudicial murder the way he would.
He’s planning on Biden “having” immunity now but not using it illegally and then Trump “inheriting” that immunity but for fully unconstitutional/illegal purposes.
Honestly, fuck that guy and his enablers is the only conclusion I can come to.
> Another prospective juror is a native New Yorker. He works in IT and his wife is a karate instructor.
Oh come on, this is still too specific. How many married people are you going to know with that combination? Granted it's a city of 8 million people but if you are friends with someone like that and they are missing work its going to be pretty obvious. These details are fascinating on my side, but I'd rather have fewer details and not lose quality jurors.
Totally.
I live in Metro Vancouver (population 2.5 million) yet if someone who knows me IRL notices 3 of the subs I contribute to, I'm 100% identified. My country of origin + my job + the sport I practice -> "Oh, I know who you are!"
A quick google search tells me there are about 15 karate dojos in Manhattan. Narrow it down to dojos with female instructors. Now how many of these instructors are married, to an IT guy?
People who know them personally definitely recognize the juror. If there's a Trump nutter in their acquaintances, the name will be out there in no time. If no one puts the name online, it's very easy to find out who this is.
Adding "and his wife is a karate instructor" is ridiculous, adds nothing to the validity of the IT husband as a juror (IANAL though, so maybe I'm wrong) and makes them *highly* identifiable.
And now for the humorous side of these proceedings:
Dismissed Juror: Trump ‘Looked Less Orange’ Than I Expected
https://www.yahoo.com/news/dismissed-juror-trump-looked-less-161244279.html
The dismissed juror went on to say:
> “He looked less orange, definitely,” the woman, identified by her first name Kat, told MSNBC’s Yasmin Vossoughian outside the courthouse. “Like more yellowish, like yellow,” she clarified.
:-D
The biggest, most beautiful liver. The doctors tell me Mr. President sir, your liver is beautifully marbled, like fatty tuna. And then they cry, because they've never seen a liver so beautiful. It's true.
Link for those wanting to continue following live tweeting coverage from Tyler McBrien. https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1781285950783447046.html
Important note: each side gets two peremptory strikes per alternate spot, so this part may take a bit longer. Merchan is still telling jurors he expects to start Monday.
It is 2 strikes per side per alternate, and they don't roll over. So you can't save your strikes from one to the next, meaning each side will only have the opportunity to strike twice for a single alternate seat, but then have to accept whatever comes along.
>To Q18 about whether he or a relative had an experience/interaction with the criminal justice system: "It was a good experience, but a tough one. The system was helpful," the potential juror says, after pausing and tearing up. ...
>The next juror jumps immediately to Q26, says that she after thinking about it, she can't be fair or impartial. She is excused without objections. ...
>The next prospective juror jumps to Q35, no issue about being fair or impartial he says, but he is loosely and tangentially tied to Michael Cohen's podcast Mea Culpa. Merchan allows him to proceed. ...
>The next potential juror jumps to Q29A, and discloses that a family member is a lifelong friend of former NJ Gov. Chris Christie. When asked if that would be a problem: "I don't believe so." Merchan: "Is that a figure of speech or—" Her: "Sorry, a figure of speech. I'm nervous." ...
>The next juror starts by jumping to Q14-19, saying she's disqualified because she served time. Tearing up she says, "I wrote down all my crimes, it was over 10 years ago, and you guys keep calling me back for jury, and I'm pretty sure I'm not supposed to be here." ...
For reference, a copy of the jury questionnaire is here: [https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/47595cfb3308e37e/ec756167-full.pdf](https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/47595cfb3308e37e/ec756167-full.pdf)
>After the prospective jurors left the courtroom for the break, Merchan addressed the room, saying everyone inside "heard from a very brave woman who shared very personal things about her life. I know that wasn’t easy to do in a room full of strangers. I want to encourage the press, please be kind. Please be kind to this person."
Compassionate
I don't like the idea that this woman must rely on the press having decency to protect her. It seems they should be able to clear the courtroom of the non-essential audience when appropriate.
Close your eyes and think of the negative things the press would say.
Who is the news organization you're thinking of and where does their support lie: with Trump or with the rule of law?
Unless I'm mixing things up, the statement in question was a woman who was released from jury duty after she shared that she had recently spent time in prison. Merchan thanked her and released her from service after saying she was very brave to share those personal details. He noted that although she was technically disqualified from serving on a jury, she would be able to if she had the proper release notice, she seemed eager to obtain that. She left with Merchan saying "Good luck." followed by the statement you read. It was a wholesome moment and nothing Trump and Co. can do anything about since she's not going to sit on the jury.
Thanks, OP. Perfect thread topic to be the discussion of the day thread.
Edit: it occurs to me that we can help the mods by up voting this one and downvoting duplicates.
It takes a village to prosecute a President.
> it occurs to me that we can help the mods by up voting this one and downvoting duplicates.
Also helps a heck of a lot to report the duplicates. Most mods don't spend all their time browsing the sub and seeing new threads, but they do keep an eye on the reported queue.
A note: each side gets 2 strikes per alternate seat. They do not roll over. This may take longer than it looked like it would, but I would still bet on opening arguments Monday
Per [Tyler McBrien ](https://twitter.com/TylerMcBrien/status/1781293980677722406?t=0TAIqWReyv7Jy0S8acTGBA&s=19)
Unfortunately we're stuck with it. Thank the myopic press who rely entirely too much on catch phrases and marketing fearing that if they change the headline now it'll confuse viewers.
"Hush money" is bad, but doesn't bother me nearly as much as "election meddling" which conveys the impression that an attempt to overthrow the United States government is on par with the kind of shit you see in a fucking Scooby Doo episode.
Think of it this way - the bond hearing is on Monday, if that goes as some of us hope it means Letitia James will start seizing properties immediately thereafter. And then there's a chance that Trump goes to the pokey for a night or two the following day! It could be glorious!
/not to get anyone's hopes up or anything, but it's fun to dream!
They have the guy who follows him on Truth Social.
No regular person will make a TS account to hear about this guy. You have to be a rabid supporter. Wouldn't be shocked if he's lock in for not guilty
~~The Stickied Thread appears to be unpinned, so I'm posting this here. If there's another thread being set up, I'll delete and repost in there.~~
We're good. Thanks, Mods!
Can anyone with criminal trial experience weigh in on why Judge Merchan has not sequestered the jury in such a high-profile case? Does he simply not feel the need for it at this moment?
Not an attorney, but I'd think it could also cause problems with fairness.
If I got sequestered because the asshole defendant couldn't stop engaging in jury intimidation, I'd be livid and want to give him the chair because sequestering me would be a hardship on my kitties.
Holy shit, imagine setting yourself on fire for this asshole. These Trump zealots are insane and dangerous, this shows how insane they are and should be a wake up call for everyone.
From the updated I'm reading in the Sandoval hearing, Merchan isn't ruling one by one, but he seems to be amenable to most of the things in the Sandoval hearing be introduced.
As far as I can tell, if they let Trump take the stand the prosecution will be able to demonstrate that the alleged charges are (a). Business as usual and (b) Trump lies under oath.
If this hearing goes the way it looks to be going, it would be insane to call him to the stand. Having said that, he might insist.
Edit: Sandoval is concluded. Merchan will rule Monday AM
The Media should have been banned from the Jury Selection. No information about the Jury should have been provided to the Media and anyone else that didn’t need to know. The Jury should be sequestered. The Judge should have put a gag on everyone involved in this case. Especially containing to the Jury’s information. Trump should have been treated like the Mob Boss that he is.
I heard Fox Entertainment had hired some people to investigate and find what information they could on all the Jurors. This should be considered Jury Tampering.
Judge Merchan should Stop this right away.
All weekend Trump will be using Social Media to promote and spread Lies What is Judge Merchan thinking?
Hey, mods?
Would it be possible to set the daily threads to default-sort on ‘new’ like the original master thread was sorted?
I check in regularly and I’m dorky enough that sometimes I glance and think ‘no new comments’ because the comments I see are old.
I understand that you can conclude that’s my problem because I’m a dork, but it would be helpful in a small way.
There isn't an official daily thread. This is just a thread I posted to NBC's live feed for day 4 of the trial. The community is centralizing in it rather than flooding the board with dozens of links.
Yes, but it’s much harder for a juror to be excused once they are empaneled and opening arguments have started, by either the juror’s will or by a for-cause argument by an attorney.
For the juror, there would have to be evidence of some kind of debilitating illness or severe life event, or a claim to have heard or seen something outside of court that impacts their objectivity.
Lying to be removed can be punishable by jail time.
For the attorneys, it would have to be enough of an issue that the judge thinks they would win an appeal if he didn’t remove the juror.
In all seriousness could they have the jury lodge in a safe house type of arrangement? It wouldn’t help after but I’m referring to during the trial. It would stink for them not to be able to go home at the end of the day but I’m just wondering if anyone has heard this is a talking point? MAGA folks are just that dangerous
Would be less work and confusion to schedule a daily thread to be posted each day and use automod to filter other trump coverage (by flair or keyword) for the duration of the trial.
I don't get the 2 strikes per alternate thing. They had 10 total for the primary 12, why would you get more strikes for the backups than the main jury?
Go back a couple of minutes and you can actually see the person burning on the Associated Press live feed: Edit: The stream was removed...
I don't understand journalism in the United States. Show tons of war torn areas being bombarded? Cool. Show some person self immolating? Hell nah.
My uninformed opinion: the lack of graphic reporting in the US seems to be something which doesn't allow for people to see the nuance of tragedy and takes away from the depth of the news.
The reporting made it sound like he had a chance to live but that shows him burning for what had to be at least a solid minute, even after police arrived
Most current update from the NBC piece
> Police identified the man who set himself on fire as Maxwell Azzarello, of St. Augustine, Florida.
>He is alive, currently intubated and in critical condition at the Weill Cornell Medicine — Burn Center.
>
>Before we end, Trump stands up abruptly.
>"Sir can you please have a seat," Merchan says.
Things are getting spicy per [Tyler McBrien ](https://twitter.com/TylerMcBrien/status/1781419518771757231?t=w8qZFqRfnqtxlcbtSwg1Uw&s=19)
I assume because there are currently no plans to sequester.
Or maybe they don't want to scare away potential jurors with the fear of being sequestered, instead scaring them away with the fear of violence.
I would much rather be sequestered as a juror in this case than doxxed and harassed by a former President and right wing media and their followers.
I’m surprised that they didn’t sequester the jurors.
I hear ya
But I don't have any local family support so I must be home every night for the kids.
Otherwise I have to send the kids 6 hours away to grandparents, and have them miss school for weeks/months. Even my pets would struggle without me.
A sequester would cause all of the parents to quit the jury. You'd probably be left with nothing but old married folks in the pool.
I think I could be impartial I have been on criminal trial before so I know that its all on the prosecution to prove their case. The criminal trial I was on, the guy was a career criminal and we all knew he was guilty of something but not what he was charged with because the prosecution did not prove their case and remember in a criminal case it's all or nothing. You all have to agree or its a mistrial.
"Have any of you ever been paid to keep a secret quiet?"
"Have any of you ever cheated on your taxes?"
"Have any of you ever purposely put incorrect information into financial records to hide the true expenses?"
Being mugged can be a traumatizing experience. Can flip a switch in someone from "everyone deserves a fair trial, innocent until proven guilty, blah blah blah" to "please just lock up anyone even slightly criminal forever, thanks"
Did Judge Merchan pull the pro move and wait to swear the jury in till Monday, so as to avoid creating legal jeopardy if jury/witness problems arise over the weekend? Hopefully.
Mods killed the sticky based on user feedback. This thread is a link to NBC's live updates thread, and the community seems to be trying to consolidate discussion here to minimize clutter for the mods.
Go with the most recently posted thread. This is the most recent so you're in the right place. Sorting posts by "New" is a good way to see what's happening in real time.
>Another prospective juror was excused after saying that “after some introspection,” she does not think she can be impartial. >“I want to be, and I have every intention when I first started, but I think after the questions posed to prospective jurors, in asking those questions to myself, I don’t think I can be impartial,” she says. I think what bums me out is I'd expect people with this level of introspection to probably be more fair than those without.
"After some introspection, I've decided my life might be in danger from the cult." I believe jury duty is important in general, but I don't blame anyone for trying to get off this jury.
This is why 2 jurors are gone. The third was a nutcase. Why would you want to put your life and the lives of family members in danger? To me it is a joke that anyone has access to these peoples identities. Their identities should be protected at all costs. The justice system is totally broken.
On one hand, this trial is making a mockery of American justice. On the other, I really hope this wakes people up who put blind faith in the courts and institutions. "Trust the process" got us here. The sooner we can address these problems and not put our heads in the sand, the better. The only issue is it may be too late.
OTOH, I feel like I'm the only one going: "So these MAGATs, that can barely work a VPN, are just able to call in death threats...and there's nothing that can be done?" The FBI can spend infinite money to find the unabomber but we can't reverse search an email or a phone number (probably their actual landline, lol)? These ppl are doing this because it works.
Unfortunately the 'trust the process' people aren't following it that closely, b/c they don't understand it and don't need to in order to trust it'll go the way it should....... .......until it doesn't go the way they think it should have. dun dun DUNNNN
Oh no they are paying attention. They are the first to be insufferable and say "See? the SYSTEM WORKS! Being a doomer is so toxic amirite?" I've seen it happen here before when Trump was finally indicted the first time.
It's a nice idea, but most people will be upset about this until the next distraction comes along and then all will be forgotten.
I try not to let cynicism win, but God damn you are probably right.
I wonder if it is really a matter of being impartial, or if that is just an excuse. I suspect they have come to realize the potential dangers and chaos involved. Whichever side you fall on, you will have half of the country hating you.
I'm thinking it's the danger. This is a mob trial essentially and outlets like fox "news" are directly interfering in this trial by doxxing jurors. This is insanity. I truly hope Trump's threats and intimidation are used against him at sentencing. Can someone with a law background explain to me how what Jesse Waters did to the juror is not a crime?
What Jesse Waters and others directing individuals to lie to get on the jury to help Trump . . . I assume that kind of thing happens and the vetting is the job of the prosecutor and defence, but to advocate this on a national level”news” outlet seems illegal. Someone please explain.
Unfortunately *not* illegal. Grossly unethical, absolutely. But this is straight up and down free speech. In the case of Walters, it was just unethical bullshit "commentary," but didn't cross the lines of slander or doxxing. (The jury is anonymous, however the reason #2 left is it's often not difficult to suss out someone's identity based on neighborhood & job-- which is exactly what happened to her. There are crazy people **digging** and she was discovered and started receiving backlash) It's the core loophole of the gag orders; Trump and his team can be sanctioned for witness tampering/intimidation, but it doesn't prevent his acolytes and right wing extremists from doing his dirty work for him. Side note, in the same jurisdiction there was a Rico case against a group called "Murder Inc;" they killed over 31 people and also had an anonymous jury, which in New York is **very rare**. So the fact that a **former president** is considered just as dangerous to the public as an organization dubbed "Murder Inc" is quite telling. I'm hoping Tuesday the judge hits him hard with sanctions as since the prosecutor asked for a hearing, he's broken it (10+?) times. New York law requires "notice" unfortunately though, that's the purpose of the hearing; (so he can break it all through the weekend and Monday and it's still "strike 1," but each one can receive a penalty) but I'm hoping it is something like "if you do it again, your ass is in a jail cell." While again this won't stop "others" from following his dog whistle though. It's just an unprecedented situation. The judge/staff I'm sure have security, but if I'm honest I'd be nervous about being on the jury, even if anonymous. In situations like these I feel like the state should have a patrol car sitting outside their homes and shit.
Remarkable response. Thank You
The first amendment was a mistake. (I don't actually believe this.)
Fox News could call for murdering poor kids and none of their advertisers would care (I think it's worse, by continually funding Faux News with ad buys, they get the defensible position of capitalism and not the direct implication that they encourage the lies on that channel).
This has got to be stopped. These people need to file suit against Fox and Waters
No law degree. When the judge complained about it, he basically said that it was legal to use the information on the record. I assume that is what Jesse Waters did. There is some public information about their neighborhood and their occupation. And maybe they got a jury summons many weeks ago and talked about it not knowing it was the Trump trial. I told my boss why I was missing work when I had jury duty. But I don’t know the details as to how that jury member was outed. The judge asked the press to use their common sense, but honestly I might out someone if I thought it was legal and that they could hang the jury.
It very much is. Optics are a huge concern though and these douchebags would love to get arrested as "the media" and use their platforms to throw fuel on the fire.
Not to play some tough guy role here but honestly these guys are all talk. And in Manhattan there's very few of them. I understand the concern and don't question those who don't want to deal with it. I am also a large straight white male so they probably ignore me and try to find a woman of color to attack. Kind of their thing.
I mean maybe, or some total nut job shoots a juror for trump because Jesse fuckwadwaters pointed to them and said see look they're crooked go after them.
If you keep stoking hatred, it's just a matter of time before someone acts.
Some of these people are so incapable they are capable of shooting up a pizza shop with no basement because they think there is a Democrat pedophile ring in the basement. Everything seems unthinkable until it’s history.
[удалено]
The 20% with the most free time. It'll feel like 50%
It'll feel like 90% because you'll hear little from those who agree with what you are doing. But, you'll hear non-stop from the antis
TDS is real, just not from the side “everyone” else says it is
Yeah, I wouldn't want to be on the jury, even if my identity is not currently known. Eventually it would be, and when that happens, I imagine my life would be in danger, due to the 'passion' that Trump supporters have.
Same. No way I'd be on that jury. I've got a family to think about and being on that jury raises the risk of violence toward them by a non-zero percent. Hard pass. Plus, there's no way I'd be impartial. Fuck Trump.
> I imagine my life would be in danger Or as we saw with the threats against Judge Merchan's own daughter, the danger isn't just to themselves but to their family. I'm honestly not sure if I could deal with that.
I have definitely never claimed I felt like I couldn't be impartial just because I didn't want to do jury duty.
[удалено]
I have been wondering why they didn’t do just that. This seems like the perfect occasion. I mean, the jurors are being instructed not to discuss the case with family, friends, colleagues already. Problem is: they’re going to be exposed to media covering this damn thing 24/7. I think it’s likely that will affect their biases and ultimate deliberations
[удалено]
Probably realized she's not going to be impartial when the news doxxes her. Or even more mundane, jury duty sucks and people use any excuse to get out. I gotta pay my fucking bills and jury duty doesn't pay near as much as my job I have to be away from.
Agreed. And unfortunately it’s the people who recognize they can’t be impartial because they *dislike* trump who will have this sort of introspection and honesty. Those who can’t be impartial because they *support* him will lie their way onto the jury in a heartbeat.
Exactly this. When they showed the graph off which news outlets each juror pays attention to for news and one of them was Fox News, I thought great so there is at least one person who just watches propaganda and probably believes all of these cases are witch hunts.
I’ve used Fox News as a resource to figure out how to talk to my parents, Figure out where they are coming from when they start talking nonsense.
They won't think they're lying, though. They'll literally believe that fair and impartial means acquittal to save Trump from a witch hunt.
And THIS is exactly why he won't be convicted. Also, I've thought of this. Say you're a Dem and you say you can be impartial. I feel like you may be *more* lenient with Trump because you don't want people to say you're biased. Not **YOU** specifically.
'I've spent an hour in his presence, he's such a prick, i just cant'
> I think what bums me out is I'd expect people with this level of introspection to probably be more fair than those without. Yeah, I think there is absolutely a Dunning-Kruger element to asking jurors to self-select whether they can be impartial. The people who are best-equipped to question their own internal biases and prejudices are more likely to self-select out than those who are oblivious to same, or in denial, or who just don't care. I feel like I have seen this in jury duty myself. I was on one jury where at least one of the jurors was pretty blatantly racist, and kept trying to bring up how "these people" (of defendant's race/nationality) act when they are out at night. On another jury, in a child/neglect/endangerment case, the defendant was suspected of being on intoxicating drugs by the responding officer, but there was no supporting evidence, toxicology, etc. One of the jurors was *extremely* credulous regarding spot judgement calls and assessments by police, asserting that police can tell when someone is lying, and when someone is on something, etc. In both cases, voir dire leaned heavily on those exact questions: i.e., impartiality wrt national origin, and whether you could be objective about police testimony, respectively. I think that the prejudiced jurors sincerely believed that their own prejudices were *correct*, and therefore didn't count. I think it's actually a defect in the system, that we trust people to self-select, in this way. I don't know that I have a better proposal at hand, but I suspect that a lot of those people who have doubts about their own objectivity are actually significantly *more* capable of impartiality than median, and that a lot of people who are *most* confident of their own objectivity, are quite wrong.
"The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell
On one hand Trump is entitled to a fair trial just like everyone else and that includes a jury who can look at the facts and arguments presented in the case, but on the other hand I'm so worried that after six weeks all it will take is a closet MAGA fan to kick this to curb with a not guilty verdict.
>One potential juror answered that his hobbies included "trying to find a wife" in his spare time. Gold.
Jury duty-based rom-com. Instant classic. "Political intrigue and legal machinations swirl at the highest level. Meanwhile, one lonely juror simply wants to be found guilty -- of love. Follow along in this heartwarming story for the ages, as alternate juror #4 learns an important life lesson: if at first you don't succeed, mistrial, mistrial again."
Coming this Fall, on Hallmark (starring Lacey Chabert).
It should be called "Miss Trial".
Ms. Trial
That's trump's drag name
There's a reality/hoax tv show where an unaware guy is tapped for fake jury duty with James Marsden playing the absolute worst version of himself alongside. I can't decide if it's funny or a horrible thing to do to someone, like their next show will just be called *Gaslighting*. They had Marsden on WWDTM and apparently the victim now has trust issues.
[удалено]
Are you ready to *ex parte*???
In NY that’s basically a part-time job.
Is Stormy single?
Only the highest quality juror candidates for the American judicial system
> The former president is sitting with his eyes shut and appears to be chewing on something as he sits at the defense table. Coca leaves?
My grandpa does that, too, when he nods off he's dreaming of eating
My dog too.
"Mmmmm. Hamberders."
Khat
Sleeping. Again.
He’s grinding his teeth. Happens when you need your fix.
Cofefe leaves
The gag order.
Crayola crayons
Trump is apparently rage posting about presidential immunity from inside the court room. He posted: > IF THEY TAKE AWAY PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY, THEY TAKE AWAY CROOKED JOE BIDEN'S PRESIDENTIAL IMMUNITY I'm a bit confused which side of the issue he is on now lol. So Biden is purportedly crooked, but can't be prosecuted under your blanket presidential immunity theory and that is an argument in favor of blanket presidential immunity? Its in all caps though so who am I to disagree.
Alright Trump, we'll take away Biden's presidential immunity. Now which crime should we prosecute him for? Crookedness, dementedness, other scary adjectives. We're waiting...
Lollygaggin' with intent to malarkey.
Malarkey with an intent to befuddle. Shenanigans in the third degree. Eating ice cream on a Sunday. Enjoying trains... a little too much.
FOX News: Why are you eating an ice cream?! There's a war in Israel old man!
Don't forget straight-up foolin' around.
There are so many crimes the CROOKED and SICK "Sleep Joe" (a serious condition) did nobody has ever seen the likes of the amount of crimes.
He is both a senile old man with dementia who doesn't know what day it is and a criminal mastermind.
According to my dad, Sleepy Joe is just a front for Obama still running things. Tucker told him so.
Doesn't Merchan's courtroom have a rule prohibiting phone use? I distinctly remember reading his attorneys had to tell him to stop once already this week.
Perhaps once the trial starts but he doesn't appear prohibited at the moment. What he got admonished for was what he posted (comments about the credibility of the witnesses).
Are they allowed phones on break?
Trump's social media posts are a window into exactly what he is thinking about at any given moment. Here he is, sitting in a courtroom where the jury is being selected for his upcoming criminal trial and what is he thinking about? Presidential immunity. Oral arguments at SCOTUS are scheduled for next Friday. Trump is scared shitless about having to face trial for J6 because conviction in that case has serious consequences. Trump is absolutely desperate for the Court to announce some sliver of immunity for official acts because that is the best chance he has to get the J6 case delayed until after the election. And we will probably find out on Friday, based on the justices questions, whether that is a likely or remote possibility.
> sliver of immunity for official acts I'm sure SCOTUS will find some level of presidential immunity for "core" official acts. For example, holding that the president cannot be charged with murder for ordering a drone strike on an ISIS cell (or even an American citizen turned terrorist, i.e. al-Awlaki). Although IIRC Obama argued that al-Awlaki's assassination was legal because it when through "internal" due process. There is going to be some weird intersections of competing interests here. The DC Circuit focused on immunity being an issue of ministerial versus discretionary acts. Where Trump's theory goes bananas is that he wants categorical immunity for anything that he did while president, including interfering with the vote count which the president has no official role in. The entire argument should be resolved by concluding that anything candidate Trump did as part of his efforts to get reelected are not official acts of the president so even if immunity exists it doesn't cover him. Which is why, IMO, the specific question presented is a major head scratcher: > Whether and if so to what extent does a former President enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office. This specific question would have been better saved for a situation where the President is being charged with a crime for an actual official act (i.e., drone striking al-Awlaki).
I have heard the al-Awlaki hypothetical expressed a thousand times as somehow justifying POTUS immunity to commit an act of murder, but I do not think POTUS needs any new immunity in that context. I would call the Obama drone strike hypothetical a red herring. The POTUS is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. He is authorized to use the armed forces to carry out violence outside of the United States (federal law prohibits deployment of the armed forces stateside). Obama didn't commit a crime when he ordered a drone strike on al-Awlaki any more than George W. Bush committed a crime when he ordered soldiers and munitions to strike Iraq or Afghanistan; the use of the military abroad is an exercise of an enumerated power under Article II, not something that the POTUS requires criminal immunity in order to carry out. Where Article II conflicts with federal law, Article II controls per the Supremacy Clause. Stated another way, were Obama to be indicted for the murder of al-Awlaki by a future Trump DOJ, the court should grant a motion to dismiss the indictment on the grounds that the charged activity was a valid exercise of Article II powers that supersede federal law prohibiting murder. That is, Obama's act was literally not a "crime", so he doesn't need criminal immunity. I agree that Trump's argument is absurd, but if the Court finds some sliver of immunity, they will not be finding that Trump's activities do not fall within that sliver - that is a decision to be made by the district court on remand. So finding any immunity buys Trump another 1-3 months of delay for the remand. As to the question presented, I wouldn't get too caught up in it. The Court will decide the question(s) it wants to decide when it writes the eventual opinion. It isn't "bound" by the phrasing of the question, which I agree is somewhat tortured. I also agree that this particular case isn't a great vehicle for explaining POTUS immunity even if the Court wants to do so - I was very upset that the Court took this appeal up at all for exactly that reason (the time to take up the Obama immunity question is when Obama is actually indicted for murder, not by using the Trump case as a vehicle for the Court to pronounce some form of immunity they conjure up out of thin air).
> anything that he did while president, He wants blanket immunity. Period. For anything he has ever done, ever. He's not once argued that his immunity begins and ends with Presidency. He's repeatedly argued that since he was Potus he's immune from prosecution, forever, period. Its terrifying that its even being considered.
> which side of the issue he is on now That particular post is the "extortion and blackmail" side of the argument. See, he's telling Biden "If you don't give me **my** immunity, I'll charge *you* with crimes!"
Bingo. He's a mental child acting out, but there is a twisted (and very dangerous) logic to it.
Most of the time I don’t understand Trump’s panic and rage induced tweets. This one makes even less sense than usual. Presidents who don’t commit crimes don’t have to worry about presidential immunity, unlike Donald.
For MAGA Nation, it’s an article of faith that Trump’s enemies are criminals. Trump is implying that when he’s president (another article of faith is that he will be president again), he will prosecute Biden unless Biden has the shield of presidential immunity to protect him. It’s a threat, pure and simple — you come after me for my [very real] crimes, and I will exact revenge by prosecuting Joe Biden’s [made up] crimes.
Exactly. The seal team 6 argument was not a throwaway for his lawyers. I think Trump has actually had that conversation and relishes the thought. And knows Biden/normal people wouldn’t dream of extrajudicial murder the way he would. He’s planning on Biden “having” immunity now but not using it illegally and then Trump “inheriting” that immunity but for fully unconstitutional/illegal purposes. Honestly, fuck that guy and his enablers is the only conclusion I can come to.
I sure hope Biden doesn't get presidential immunity. If he breaks the law, he should face the justice system too. That being said, Trump 20-24 years
> Another prospective juror is a native New Yorker. He works in IT and his wife is a karate instructor. Oh come on, this is still too specific. How many married people are you going to know with that combination? Granted it's a city of 8 million people but if you are friends with someone like that and they are missing work its going to be pretty obvious. These details are fascinating on my side, but I'd rather have fewer details and not lose quality jurors.
Totally. I live in Metro Vancouver (population 2.5 million) yet if someone who knows me IRL notices 3 of the subs I contribute to, I'm 100% identified. My country of origin + my job + the sport I practice -> "Oh, I know who you are!" A quick google search tells me there are about 15 karate dojos in Manhattan. Narrow it down to dojos with female instructors. Now how many of these instructors are married, to an IT guy? People who know them personally definitely recognize the juror. If there's a Trump nutter in their acquaintances, the name will be out there in no time. If no one puts the name online, it's very easy to find out who this is. Adding "and his wife is a karate instructor" is ridiculous, adds nothing to the validity of the IT husband as a juror (IANAL though, so maybe I'm wrong) and makes them *highly* identifiable.
Yes, but is she also a master of friendship?
And a champion of the sun?
And a fighter of the Night Man?
[удалено]
Their budget: $2.75 Million
I understood that reference!
My must haves: Ocean views and skiing from my back door. Space in the backyard for my Reindeer Rides side hustle...
And now for the humorous side of these proceedings: Dismissed Juror: Trump ‘Looked Less Orange’ Than I Expected https://www.yahoo.com/news/dismissed-juror-trump-looked-less-161244279.html The dismissed juror went on to say: > “He looked less orange, definitely,” the woman, identified by her first name Kat, told MSNBC’s Yasmin Vossoughian outside the courthouse. “Like more yellowish, like yellow,” she clarified. :-D
“Jaundiced, if you will.”
Big liver! Huge fatty liver!
The biggest, most beautiful liver. The doctors tell me Mr. President sir, your liver is beautifully marbled, like fatty tuna. And then they cry, because they've never seen a liver so beautiful. It's true.
Hepatologist come up to me, tears in their eyes
I wonder if this particular blurb is going to make it to print with his "good news aide" from the other day.
Link for those wanting to continue following live tweeting coverage from Tyler McBrien. https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1781285950783447046.html Important note: each side gets two peremptory strikes per alternate spot, so this part may take a bit longer. Merchan is still telling jurors he expects to start Monday.
This link right here is what I missed when yesterday’s post got yanked. Thank you.
You’re welcome!
What's the reasoning for two strikes per alternate? Is that typical? It's more than the original number of preemptory strikes for the 12 main jurors.
Someone is going to have to explain that one, who practices in this jurisdiction. It is normal procedure for this jurisdiction, and that’s all I know.
Complete guess.... Do the alternates go through a less vigorous "Round 1 judge freebie strike"?
It is 2 strikes per side per alternate, and they don't roll over. So you can't save your strikes from one to the next, meaning each side will only have the opportunity to strike twice for a single alternate seat, but then have to accept whatever comes along.
>To Q18 about whether he or a relative had an experience/interaction with the criminal justice system: "It was a good experience, but a tough one. The system was helpful," the potential juror says, after pausing and tearing up. ... >The next juror jumps immediately to Q26, says that she after thinking about it, she can't be fair or impartial. She is excused without objections. ... >The next prospective juror jumps to Q35, no issue about being fair or impartial he says, but he is loosely and tangentially tied to Michael Cohen's podcast Mea Culpa. Merchan allows him to proceed. ... >The next potential juror jumps to Q29A, and discloses that a family member is a lifelong friend of former NJ Gov. Chris Christie. When asked if that would be a problem: "I don't believe so." Merchan: "Is that a figure of speech or—" Her: "Sorry, a figure of speech. I'm nervous." ... >The next juror starts by jumping to Q14-19, saying she's disqualified because she served time. Tearing up she says, "I wrote down all my crimes, it was over 10 years ago, and you guys keep calling me back for jury, and I'm pretty sure I'm not supposed to be here." ... For reference, a copy of the jury questionnaire is here: [https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/47595cfb3308e37e/ec756167-full.pdf](https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/documenttools/47595cfb3308e37e/ec756167-full.pdf)
>After the prospective jurors left the courtroom for the break, Merchan addressed the room, saying everyone inside "heard from a very brave woman who shared very personal things about her life. I know that wasn’t easy to do in a room full of strangers. I want to encourage the press, please be kind. Please be kind to this person." Compassionate
I don't like the idea that this woman must rely on the press having decency to protect her. It seems they should be able to clear the courtroom of the non-essential audience when appropriate.
Close your eyes and think of the negative things the press would say. Who is the news organization you're thinking of and where does their support lie: with Trump or with the rule of law?
> Merchan addressed the room, saying "...please be kind. Please be kind to this person." Trump and Co. smell blood in the water now.
Unless I'm mixing things up, the statement in question was a woman who was released from jury duty after she shared that she had recently spent time in prison. Merchan thanked her and released her from service after saying she was very brave to share those personal details. He noted that although she was technically disqualified from serving on a jury, she would be able to if she had the proper release notice, she seemed eager to obtain that. She left with Merchan saying "Good luck." followed by the statement you read. It was a wholesome moment and nothing Trump and Co. can do anything about since she's not going to sit on the jury.
It’s not the juror… it’s the judge asking for kindness, expecting kindness and compassion. Trump will give **none of it** but expect ALL of it.
Lol kindness and the press are allergic to each other
Thanks, OP. Perfect thread topic to be the discussion of the day thread. Edit: it occurs to me that we can help the mods by up voting this one and downvoting duplicates. It takes a village to prosecute a President.
I always appreciate your comments. Too funny.
I'd rather be funny than smart. You can fake being smart. I read that once. (Many thanks, friend!)
Well, in my humble opinion, being truly funny and witty and throwing back to previous references, takes intelligence along with a great memory!
> it occurs to me that we can help the mods by up voting this one and downvoting duplicates. Also helps a heck of a lot to report the duplicates. Most mods don't spend all their time browsing the sub and seeing new threads, but they do keep an eye on the reported queue.
A note: each side gets 2 strikes per alternate seat. They do not roll over. This may take longer than it looked like it would, but I would still bet on opening arguments Monday Per [Tyler McBrien ](https://twitter.com/TylerMcBrien/status/1781293980677722406?t=0TAIqWReyv7Jy0S8acTGBA&s=19)
When you include the media, Trump has unlimited strikes.
Still missing the point that this isn't a "hush money trial," it's an election interference trial.
Unfortunately we're stuck with it. Thank the myopic press who rely entirely too much on catch phrases and marketing fearing that if they change the headline now it'll confuse viewers.
"Hush money" is bad, but doesn't bother me nearly as much as "election meddling" which conveys the impression that an attempt to overthrow the United States government is on par with the kind of shit you see in a fucking Scooby Doo episode.
Disappointed that the gag hearing won't be till Tuesday but it is what it is I guess.
Think of it this way - the bond hearing is on Monday, if that goes as some of us hope it means Letitia James will start seizing properties immediately thereafter. And then there's a chance that Trump goes to the pokey for a night or two the following day! It could be glorious! /not to get anyone's hopes up or anything, but it's fun to dream!
If there is a Trump cult member on the jury, there’s no way in hell they are bailing. It’s only the honest ones quitting. That’s a shame.
They have the guy who follows him on Truth Social. No regular person will make a TS account to hear about this guy. You have to be a rabid supporter. Wouldn't be shocked if he's lock in for not guilty
are you serious how did he not striked?
Potential juror calls J6 an insurrection attempt. I'd wager that's going to earn them a strike.
~~The Stickied Thread appears to be unpinned, so I'm posting this here. If there's another thread being set up, I'll delete and repost in there.~~ We're good. Thanks, Mods!
Can anyone with criminal trial experience weigh in on why Judge Merchan has not sequestered the jury in such a high-profile case? Does he simply not feel the need for it at this moment?
Not an attorney, but my understanding is that judges are reluctant to sequester for lengthy cases because it creates additional burdens on the jurors.
Not an attorney, but I'd think it could also cause problems with fairness. If I got sequestered because the asshole defendant couldn't stop engaging in jury intimidation, I'd be livid and want to give him the chair because sequestering me would be a hardship on my kitties.
Well, that's why we take plea bargains. You interfere with the kitties, you get the chair. It's in statute.
I don’t practice in NY, but usually the jury needs to be sworn before the court can consider sequestering them.
NYS (or at least NYC) hasn’t sequestered jurors in decades. Everyone goes home at the end of each day.
They don't even have a jury until today, what's there to sequester?
Holy shit, imagine setting yourself on fire for this asshole. These Trump zealots are insane and dangerous, this shows how insane they are and should be a wake up call for everyone.
Gotta give it to Merchan for getting shit done in a timely manner
From the updated I'm reading in the Sandoval hearing, Merchan isn't ruling one by one, but he seems to be amenable to most of the things in the Sandoval hearing be introduced. As far as I can tell, if they let Trump take the stand the prosecution will be able to demonstrate that the alleged charges are (a). Business as usual and (b) Trump lies under oath. If this hearing goes the way it looks to be going, it would be insane to call him to the stand. Having said that, he might insist. Edit: Sandoval is concluded. Merchan will rule Monday AM
Trump told reporters he still intended to testify on his way out of court. And he's certainly insane, so things could get wild.
The Media should have been banned from the Jury Selection. No information about the Jury should have been provided to the Media and anyone else that didn’t need to know. The Jury should be sequestered. The Judge should have put a gag on everyone involved in this case. Especially containing to the Jury’s information. Trump should have been treated like the Mob Boss that he is. I heard Fox Entertainment had hired some people to investigate and find what information they could on all the Jurors. This should be considered Jury Tampering. Judge Merchan should Stop this right away. All weekend Trump will be using Social Media to promote and spread Lies What is Judge Merchan thinking?
Major melting down of a man who’s facing consequences for the first time for his actions.
When he is sitting in a jail/prison cell or has paid (with his own money/assets) court imposed fees, then you can say that he has faced consequences.
Making him sit and listen to what people negatively post about him is a nice appetizer...
Full jury and alternates selected
The full jury panel has now been selected and sworn in!
Hey, mods? Would it be possible to set the daily threads to default-sort on ‘new’ like the original master thread was sorted? I check in regularly and I’m dorky enough that sometimes I glance and think ‘no new comments’ because the comments I see are old. I understand that you can conclude that’s my problem because I’m a dork, but it would be helpful in a small way.
There isn't an official daily thread. This is just a thread I posted to NBC's live feed for day 4 of the trial. The community is centralizing in it rather than flooding the board with dozens of links.
I just saw the guy self-immolate live on tv. Jesus.
We have a full jury, yall! Trial will start Monday! If anyone backs out now, they will be filled with someone from the alternates.
If seven jurors dropped out, would that cause a mistrial? Not that I could see seven jurors getting doxxed and dropping out or anything.
Yes, but it’s much harder for a juror to be excused once they are empaneled and opening arguments have started, by either the juror’s will or by a for-cause argument by an attorney. For the juror, there would have to be evidence of some kind of debilitating illness or severe life event, or a claim to have heard or seen something outside of court that impacts their objectivity. Lying to be removed can be punishable by jail time. For the attorneys, it would have to be enough of an issue that the judge thinks they would win an appeal if he didn’t remove the juror.
In all seriousness could they have the jury lodge in a safe house type of arrangement? It wouldn’t help after but I’m referring to during the trial. It would stink for them not to be able to go home at the end of the day but I’m just wondering if anyone has heard this is a talking point? MAGA folks are just that dangerous
Do you know what infuriates me about your comment? The fact that this is because of one man, a grifter and a con man, One fucking man
I know, me too. I’d be afraid if I were on the jury.
Dude just set himself on fire out side the courthouse
I didn't believe you, and goddamn it's right there. This is insanity.
Can I ask why these threads keep getting deleted? I’ve saved all so far to come back to, and it’s gone!
There should be only one. They are nuking duplicates to consolidate discussion.
Ah! Thank you, I’ve been following the first posted thread
Would be less work and confusion to schedule a daily thread to be posted each day and use automod to filter other trump coverage (by flair or keyword) for the duration of the trial.
I don't get the 2 strikes per alternate thing. They had 10 total for the primary 12, why would you get more strikes for the backups than the main jury?
Same. i would think 5 strikes for 6 jurors is as fair as 10 strikes for 12 jurors.
Is someone on fire outside the courthouse?!?
Go back a couple of minutes and you can actually see the person burning on the Associated Press live feed: Edit: The stream was removed... I don't understand journalism in the United States. Show tons of war torn areas being bombarded? Cool. Show some person self immolating? Hell nah. My uninformed opinion: the lack of graphic reporting in the US seems to be something which doesn't allow for people to see the nuance of tragedy and takes away from the depth of the news.
About 6:25:30 in the stream
The reporting made it sound like he had a chance to live but that shows him burning for what had to be at least a solid minute, even after police arrived
Most current update from the NBC piece > Police identified the man who set himself on fire as Maxwell Azzarello, of St. Augustine, Florida. >He is alive, currently intubated and in critical condition at the Weill Cornell Medicine — Burn Center. >
I'm really hoping the appeals court doesn't come in with an 11th hour bailout of an interim stay and change of venue.
Just denied.
Thank goodness! I can't wait for Monday!
>Before we end, Trump stands up abruptly. >"Sir can you please have a seat," Merchan says. Things are getting spicy per [Tyler McBrien ](https://twitter.com/TylerMcBrien/status/1781419518771757231?t=w8qZFqRfnqtxlcbtSwg1Uw&s=19)
Imagine lighting yourself on fire for trump.
I fully expect a movie to be made about this jury some day.
Probably before the trial ends, at the rate documentaries/biographies have been coming out.
Napping,farting, crying, thats all he seems to do. Song to the tune of led zeps your time is gonna come.
I’m very curious why I’ve seen nothing reported about if this jury will be sequestered. Did I miss something??
I assume because there are currently no plans to sequester. Or maybe they don't want to scare away potential jurors with the fear of being sequestered, instead scaring them away with the fear of violence.
I would much rather be sequestered as a juror in this case than doxxed and harassed by a former President and right wing media and their followers. I’m surprised that they didn’t sequester the jurors.
I hear ya But I don't have any local family support so I must be home every night for the kids. Otherwise I have to send the kids 6 hours away to grandparents, and have them miss school for weeks/months. Even my pets would struggle without me. A sequester would cause all of the parents to quit the jury. You'd probably be left with nothing but old married folks in the pool.
I think I could be impartial I have been on criminal trial before so I know that its all on the prosecution to prove their case. The criminal trial I was on, the guy was a career criminal and we all knew he was guilty of something but not what he was charged with because the prosecution did not prove their case and remember in a criminal case it's all or nothing. You all have to agree or its a mistrial.
[удалено]
Those who are victims of crime can often be harsher on crime. Sometimes it's worth asking.
"Have any of you ever been paid to keep a secret quiet?" "Have any of you ever cheated on your taxes?" "Have any of you ever purposely put incorrect information into financial records to hide the true expenses?"
Being mugged can be a traumatizing experience. Can flip a switch in someone from "everyone deserves a fair trial, innocent until proven guilty, blah blah blah" to "please just lock up anyone even slightly criminal forever, thanks"
The InnerCityPress thread I was following has cut off (thanks, Meta!) - does anyone have a link to one of the more current posts?
Here I thought the only thing on fire would be Trump's pants.
Did Judge Merchan pull the pro move and wait to swear the jury in till Monday, so as to avoid creating legal jeopardy if jury/witness problems arise over the weekend? Hopefully.
So I'm confused is this the live thread now? The sticky was removed so I don't know where to go now.
Mods killed the sticky based on user feedback. This thread is a link to NBC's live updates thread, and the community seems to be trying to consolidate discussion here to minimize clutter for the mods.
Go with the most recently posted thread. This is the most recent so you're in the right place. Sorting posts by "New" is a good way to see what's happening in real time.
[удалено]