Page 808 of 878 FirstFirst ... 308708758798806807808809810818858 ... LastLast
Results 16,141 to 16,160 of 17552
  1. #16141
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDukie View Post
    So Trump is speaking right now and saying the Judge will not allow him to attend his sonĎs graduation. Unfortunately, that will play well with a large segment of the population. As in it will anger quite a few folk all the more.
    The Judge should have asked him his sonís birthday.

  2. #16142
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New Bern, NC unless it's a home football game then I'm grilling on Devil's Alley
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDukie View Post
    So Trump is speaking right now and saying the Judge will not allow him to attend his son‘s graduation. Unfortunately, that will play well with a large segment of the population. As in it will anger quite a few folk all the more.
    There's nobody in that population that is on the fence about voting for Trump. Needle isn't budged one bit. The "segment" that you are speaking of is a minority of the overall voting block, and the angry folks are even less.
    Q "Why do you like Duke, you didn't even go there." A "Because my art school didn't have a basketball team."

  3. #16143
    Quote Originally Posted by CameronBornAndBred View Post
    There's nobody in that population that is on the fence about voting for Trump. Needle isn't budged one bit. The "segment" that you are speaking of is a minority of the overall voting block, and the angry folks are even less.
    I don’t agree with this at all. I think there are a few persuadables in the middle who will look at this and think it’s over the top. And yes, I know what the rules are in New York. I’m only speaking about the perception of others who will see this as somewhat unfair.

  4. #16144
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Outside Philly
    Quote Originally Posted by howardlander View Post
    Heh, I resemble that remark.
    But as long as youíre not making the case that youíre the smartest, most energetic, most virile, most healthy candidate for president of the world who also beat prefontaineís mile record at 60 after consuming 9 Big Macs, then those naps are okay!

  5. #16145
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North of Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by Matches View Post
    The Judge should have asked him his sonís birthday.
    Exactly. Trump can't pick Barron or any of his grandkids out of a lineup.

    Based on the reporting I have read, the judge did not say he could not attend the graduation. He said he would see how the trial is proceeding. As usual, Trump is twisting this for his own benefit. If he were to attend, he would likely snooze through it like the trial.

    If Trump cares so much about attending the graduation he will stop stalling. It is very simple.

    I am curious where Barron ends up for college. It will be a circus, especially if Trump is re-elected. Kudos to the press for generally leaving him alone.

    Apparently right after the trial adjourned for the day, Trump's people sent a fund raising e-mail saying he stormed out of the court room. Which he didn't actually do. But I guess it makes him look tough and angry and the subject of a witch hunt.

  6. #16146
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Quote Originally Posted by Kdogg View Post
    The defense was expecting 40%. That puts a damper on one point for a potential appeal.
    Has nothing to do with any potential appeal really. Asking that question of jurors is standard in every criminal trial. Any jurors that admit they can't be fair and impartial are excused and that's that. Jury selection continues with those who say they can be fair and impartial, and other questions are asked to try to tease out those that said they could be fair but really can't, and many other issues. It's not an appellate thing in any but the most extreme cases.

  7. #16147
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    New Bern, NC unless it's a home football game then I'm grilling on Devil's Alley
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDukie View Post
    I donít agree with this at all. I think there are a few persuadables in the middle who will look at this and think itís over the top. And yes, I know what the rules are in New York. Iím only speaking about the perception of others who will see this as somewhat unfair.
    If they take criminal defendant Trump being "denied access" to an event that isn't being held during court hours (no graduation at a high dollar school is going to take place between 9 and 5 on on a work week) as the tipping point for casting their vote for him, I don't know what to say.

    But then I truly think nobody that is weighing their options is actually going take the "unfairness" of the court as the reason he deserves their vote for POTUS.
    Q "Why do you like Duke, you didn't even go there." A "Because my art school didn't have a basketball team."

  8. #16148
    If the trial does end up conflicting with the graduation the Judge probably will let him attend anyway. Heís just not going to agree to it a month in advance.

  9. #16149
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Washington, D.C.

    Supreme Court argument?

    At the end of today's proceedings, Trump's lead attorney asked that the trial be paused for a day next week to allow Trent to attend the Supreme Court oral argument in the immunity case. Why Trump's team waited until now to raise this is a good question. The judge, not surprisingly, denied the motion.

  10. #16150
    Quote Originally Posted by CameronBornAndBred View Post
    If they take criminal defendant Trump being "denied access" to an event that isn't being held during court hours (no graduation at a high dollar school is going to take place between 9 and 5 on on a work week) as the tipping point for casting their vote for him, I don't know what to say.

    But then I truly think nobody that is weighing their options is actually going take the "unfairness" of the court as the reason he deserves their vote for POTUS.
    I just wouldnít underestimate the feelings of many that think government agencies (including courts) have their thumbs on the scale. Whether we like it or not, Trump has appealed to the populism of the middle and lower class that truly believe most things related to the Government and Big Business donít care a whit about them. Itís a powerful weapon in Trumpís back pocket.

  11. #16151
    Quote Originally Posted by MChambers View Post
    At the end of today's proceedings, Trump's lead attorney asked that the trial be paused for a day next week to allow Trent to attend the Supreme Court oral argument in the immunity case. Why Trump's team waited until now to raise this is a good question. The judge, not surprisingly, denied the motion.
    Heís not needed at oral argument. Judge made the right call there.

  12. #16152
    Quote Originally Posted by tommy View Post
    Has nothing to do with any potential appeal really. Asking that question of jurors is standard in every criminal trial. Any jurors that admit they can't be fair and impartial are excused and that's that. Jury selection continues with those who say they can be fair and impartial, and other questions are asked to try to tease out those that said they could be fair but really can't, and many other issues. It's not an appellate thing in any but the most extreme cases.
    Not the lawyer here so i take your word. I just go by what I read when it comes to cases.

    From CNN.

    More potential jurors lost on impartiality question than Trump team was expecting, sources tell CNN

    Donald Trump's team was expecting around 40% of jurors to be dismissed on the question of whether they can be impartial, sources told CNN's Paula Reid, but more than half of the first group of 96 prospective jurors were reportedly excused after that question was asked.

    "They're going to preserve this issue on appeal," Reid said. "Their concern is if Trump is convicted, right, that is a concern, their strategy is to appeal this and preserve every single issue, and try to kill the case."

    Trump's lawyers fought to have this question separated, Reid reported. They did not want to have all the potential jurors who can't serve to be lumped in as one so they could establish how many people cannot be impartial.

    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyNotCrazie View Post
    Exactly. Trump can't pick Barron or any of his grandkids out of a lineup.
    To be fair, Barron's a literal giant so he's easy to pick out. He towers over his father. He's like 6'7-6'8'.

  13. #16153
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North of Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by tommy View Post
    Has nothing to do with any potential appeal really. Asking that question of jurors is standard in every criminal trial. Any jurors that admit they can't be fair and impartial are excused and that's that. Jury selection continues with those who say they can be fair and impartial, and other questions are asked to try to tease out those that said they could be fair but really can't, and many other issues. It's not an appellate thing in any but the most extreme cases.
    IANAL so perhaps I am missing some nuance here, but if I recall, I sat through jury selection (but was not selected for questioning) for a criminal trial in Manhattan a few years ago and the judge spot checked those who said they couldn't be fair and impartial to make sure they weren't just saying it to get out of serving. This trial was for an alleged hate crime so people said they or a close family member had been subject to a hate crime, or other issues like that. For several, the judge said their excuse wasn't good and they weren't excused (the judge had a good, snarky sense of humor so it was funny hearing her shoot people down).

    I assume that in this case they want to keep things moving and the judge doesn't want to risk incorrectly ruling on someone so they aren't questioning people?

  14. #16154
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Quote Originally Posted by Kdogg View Post
    Not the lawyer here so i take your word. I just go by what I read when it comes to cases.
    I can tell you for sure that when it comes to reporting on the legal system and courtroom cases, the media almost never gets it right, or quite right. There is little understanding of the actual process, little ability to convey the process to readers in an accurate way, no understanding of the way the system actually works, and no understanding of nuance. You will definitely learn more on this board than you will from actual reporters on these (and any other) cases. Unfortunately, most people get their understanding of how our legal system and how trials work from TV. And that just ain't the way it works, at all.

  15. #16155
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyNotCrazie View Post
    IANAL so perhaps I am missing some nuance here, but if I recall, I sat through jury selection (but was not selected for questioning) for a criminal trial in Manhattan a few years ago and the judge spot checked those who said they couldn't be fair and impartial to make sure they weren't just saying it to get out of serving. This trial was for an alleged hate crime so people said they or a close family member had been subject to a hate crime, or other issues like that. For several, the judge said their excuse wasn't good and they weren't excused (the judge had a good, snarky sense of humor so it was funny hearing her shoot people down).

    I assume that in this case they want to keep things moving and the judge doesn't want to risk incorrectly ruling on someone so they aren't questioning people?
    Not sure what you mean. Sure the judge wants to keep it moving, but everyone in the pool of potential jurors will certainly be questioned by one side or the other, or more likely, both sides. And I'm sure the judge in a high profile case like this doesn't want to risk being overturned on appeal, should there be a conviction. So he has certainly read up on what the standard is for excusing jurors "for cause" when a juror is challenged on that basis by one side or the other. Making a mistake in that area can be a grounds for appeal, but it's very very unusual for a conviction to be overturned on those grounds. But why take a chance? He'll be careful in this area, as he will be in as many areas as possible.

  16. #16156
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North of Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by tommy View Post
    Not sure what you mean. Sure the judge wants to keep it moving, but everyone in the pool of potential jurors will certainly be questioned by one side or the other, or more likely, both sides. And I'm sure the judge in a high profile case like this doesn't want to risk being overturned on appeal, should there be a conviction. So he has certainly read up on what the standard is for excusing jurors "for cause" when a juror is challenged on that basis by one side or the other. Making a mistake in that area can be a grounds for appeal, but it's very very unusual for a conviction to be overturned on those grounds. But why take a chance? He'll be careful in this area, as he will be in as many areas as possible.
    It sounds like in this case, the judge said "can you be fair?" People said "no." They were then excused with no further questioning. In the trial I was at, if someone said no, the judge asked why not. And some people's excuses were not deemed good enough so they had to go through the whole process. In this case, I can think of countless follow-up excuses people could give about why they couldn't be fair that would probably be acceptable, but the judge didn't even ask.

    But I thought the blanket up front excusal seemed to be different from what I experienced. I am not referring to jurors being excused after being questioned by the lawyers.

  17. #16157
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    A suggestion for the mods. Now that an actual court case has started would a separate thread to explain / discuss the case separate from the horse race thread be in order. I suggest this because how this affects the election is separate from an ex president is on trial and the outcome of the trial is a significant piece of news unto itself

  18. #16158
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Quote Originally Posted by CrazyNotCrazie View Post
    It sounds like in this case, the judge said "can you be fair?" People said "no." They were then excused with no further questioning. In the trial I was at, if someone said no, the judge asked why not. And some people's excuses were not deemed good enough so they had to go through the whole process. In this case, I can think of countless follow-up excuses people could give about why they couldn't be fair that would probably be acceptable, but the judge didn't even ask.

    But I thought the blanket up front excusal seemed to be different from what I experienced. I am not referring to jurors being excused after being questioned by the lawyers.
    In most cases, when a juror says he/she can't be fair, they can't. Are there liars? Of course, but the safer course, especially in a high profile case, is to take the person at their word and excuse them.

    Another consideration in deciding whether to probe further before possibly excusing the juror is the issue of the juror's answer tainting or poisoning the other potential jurors. Such as:

    "Why are you saying you can't be fair?"
    "Because I already know this is a political prosecution where Mr. Trump is being unfairly persecuted for doing nothing wrong and this is just an attempt to prevent him from winning the presidency in 2024. No way is he guilty of whatever these made-up charges are."

    or:

    "Why are you saying you can't be fair?"
    "Because this guy is a liar and a crook and a philanderer and a cheat and I wouldn't believe a word out of his mouth and he belongs in prison. There's nothing about this phony that doesn't scream "guilty."

    The judge doesn't want any of those kinds of things being said in the presence of the other potential jurors.

  19. #16159
    Quote Originally Posted by tommy View Post
    In most cases, when a juror says he/she can't be fair, they can't. Are there liars? Of course, but the safer course, especially in a high profile case, is to take the person at their word and excuse them.

    Another consideration in deciding whether to probe further before possibly excusing the juror is the issue of the juror's answer tainting or poisoning the other potential jurors. Such as:

    "Why are you saying you can't be fair?"
    "Because I already know this is a political prosecution where Mr. Trump is being unfairly persecuted for doing nothing wrong and this is just an attempt to prevent him from winning the presidency in 2024. No way is he guilty of whatever these made-up charges are."

    or:

    "Why are you saying you can't be fair?"
    "Because this guy is a liar and a crook and a philanderer and a cheat and I wouldn't believe a word out of his mouth and he belongs in prison. There's nothing about this phony that doesn't scream "guilty."

    The judge doesn't want any of those kinds of things being said in the presence of the other potential jurors.
    I was going to post exactly this, but you beat me to it. The explanations of why jurors can't be fair are almost certainly prejudicial. They would be if I were asked why.
    Last edited by PackMan97; 04-15-2024 at 07:38 PM.

  20. #16160
    Quote Originally Posted by SouthernDukie View Post
    I just wouldn’t underestimate the feelings of many that think government agencies (including courts) have their thumbs on the scale. Whether we like it or not, Trump has appealed to the populism of the middle and lower class that truly believe most things related to the Government and Big Business don’t care a whit about them. It’s a powerful weapon in Trump’s back pocket.
    I think this is backwards. No one outside of MAGA world really thinks there's a deep state trying to persecute Trump or that judges and juries and prosecutors are incapable of acting honorably and doing their jobs while putting politics aside.

    I would wager a tidy sum that, due to the very factors you note above, there are more undecided American voters chafed by what appears to be a different, far more lenient set of norms and behavioral expectations applied to this particular defendant than to any other defendant in any other case in the history of the American criminal justice system. I've heard a LOT more normal people musing about how if they did ______ their rear end would be in jail for the night, and wondering why Trump isn't held accountable for things like relentlessly attacking a judge's daughter on social media. Middle and lower socioeconomic class folks are also well aware of how the system is capable of railroading innocent people, often acutely so because it's their classes that get railroaded. Now they watch Trump, with access to unlimited legal assistance, file motion after motion after motion and appeal after appeal after appeal in a naked attempt to cajole the entire system into letting him go out of fatigue, jetting around to rallies while most people under federal indictment for stealing classified documents from the White House would be in a jumpsuit pending trial. Trump whining about unfair treatment lands on deaf ears for anyone not already watching Newsmax or Fox.

    ETA: giving him a day off from his criminal trial to go watch his kid graduate high school would be icing on the cake for a lot of people who already think Trump's been getting special treatment that wouldn't be afforded anyone else.
    Last edited by Mal; 04-15-2024 at 07:41 PM.

Similar Threads

  1. Wagers on the Presidential Election
    By JasonEvans in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 224
    Last Post: 02-12-2021, 12:05 AM
  2. 2020 Presidential Election
    By JasonEvans in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 26102
    Last Post: 01-20-2021, 11:21 AM
  3. Presidential Inauguration
    By such in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-26-2008, 11:19 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •