755
Donald Trump will be the first former president to face a criminal trial, judge rules
(www.motherjones.com)
this post was submitted on 16 Feb 2024
755 points (98.1% liked)
politics
19088 readers
3682 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Be careful with that “no way Trump can slide on all 34 charges” stuff.
All you need is ONE juror to hold their ground and it’s a hung jury. You get one dedicated MAGAt creating an 11-1 hung jury and Señor BuildThaWall can delay prison with mistrial after mistrial.
How do you even have a jury trial for a president? isnt the jury supposed to not have a preexisting opinion of the person being charged?
From a jury I was being considered for (sexual assault), is not that you have no opinion, it is that you think you can be objective based on the evidence.
Right which a Magat thinks he will be.
'Fuck your feelings. We use logic over here in the sane world" - Literal Snowflake
Yea that's what I was thinking too. It's more likely a left leaning person recuse themselves for their impartiality than a right leaning person who already thinks Trump is being wrongfully prosecuted.
That's why both sides' lawyers gets to request to exclude potential jurors which they think would be biased
Not to mention I imagine they'll have more thorough vetting of potential jurors than you see on TV or in your local country courthouse
A jury only needs to convince the judge and both parties that they can rule impartially on the law.
Sadly true. However given jury selection is a thing, you can bet that prosecution did their best to weed out any overly biased jurors.
I mean, nothing is perfect (it's humans all the way down, and humans are flawed), but for a trial like this you can bet both sides went over everyone with the biggest magnifying glass they could find.
The need for a unanimous jury varies by jurisdiction and crime.
One of the cases in NY his lawyers failed to request a jury trial, and is being adjudicated by the judge who clearly has no love for the defendant, and seems to be doing everything he can to avoid an appeal, much less a mistrial. That one is sticking .
That was a civil trial, not criminal.
Well shit.
That’s true, but in every case against him with a jury so far, he’s still lost, even though a few jurors were trump supporters. When presented with the evidence in a forum where they have to listen, where that evidence wasn’t filtered through their lunatic talking heads, and where they couldn’t immediately run to their extremist forums to filter and reinterpret it for them, they’ve realised that oh yeah, this guy is a criminal and they’ve been duped.
I’m not concerned about rogue jurors. Many of his supporters can come back to reality when that reality is no longer filtered through a bullshit lens. Watch The Brainwashing of My Dad on ~~Netflix~~ (e: it’s no longer on Netflix. So Freevee, Prime, or Apple TV, I guess. I added the IMdB link, which includes places to watch it now). It covers much of that effect.