Page 814 of 872 FirstFirst ... 314714764804812813814815816824864 ... LastLast
Results 16,261 to 16,280 of 17432
  1. #16261
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    One of the jurors has asked to be removed from the hush money case. It is the juror who was described as an oncology nurse who lives with her fiancť. Apparently, some press outlets even reported where she worked. Needless to say, she said she came home after being picked on Tuesday and her phone just blew up with people who knew her who had figured out she was a juror and were telling her how she should rule in the case. She said she was afraid of being publicly identified and was unable to remain unbiased about the case.

    The press has really messed up here. There is simply too much info given out about these jurors. I was stunned on Tuesday when I saw how much info was being shared. I think it should be limited to sex and profession... maybe race, maybe some general sense of age (in his 30s/40s... in her 50s/60s). When you get into professions and additional data it becomes too narrowing.

    I mean, we know the jury foreman is an Irishman who works in sales and lives in West Harlem. That's probably enough info so that someone really intrepid could narrow it down to maybe a half dozen or fewer people. He's also described as "outdoorsy" so a scan of the social media profiles of the half dozen could likely net you the person who is the jury foreman. This is just too risky and, frankly, knowing more about these people does not serve the public interest anyway.

    Also of note from the trial today, the prosecution says Trump has violated the gag order 7 more times over the past two days. There is going to be a hearing about this on Tuesday. I think it is possible Trump is going to get slapped pretty hard as the judge tried to get him under control. Good luck with that.
    Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?

  2. #16262
    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 JasonEvans View Post
    Also of note from the trial today, the prosecution says Trump has violated the gag order 7 more times over the past two days. There is going to be a hearing about this on Tuesday. I think it is possible Trump is going to get slapped pretty hard as the judge tried to get him under control. Good luck with that.
    Again, until the judge makes an immediate on the spot ruling per the gag order, instead of "we'll come back to this in a few days", he's giving Trump free reign to do what he wants.
    Q "Why do you like Duke, you didn't even go there." A "Because my art school didn't have a basketball team."

  3. #16263
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post

    I mean, we know the jury foreman is an Irishman who works in sales and lives in West Harlem. That's probably enough info so that someone really intrepid could narrow it down to maybe a half dozen or fewer people. He's also described as "outdoorsy" so a scan of the social media profiles of the half dozen could likely net you the person who is the jury foreman. This is just too risky and, frankly, knowing more about these people does not serve the public interest anyway.
    Iíll go so far as to say there is NO public interest served by divulging any juror information at all. These people should be totally anonymous to anyone outside the courtroom. Just because we are curious does not make it our business.

  4. #16264
    Quote Originally Posted by Matches View Post
    Iíll go so far as to say there is NO public interest served by divulging any juror information at all. These people should be totally anonymous to anyone outside the courtroom. Just because we are curious does not make it our business.
    I agree. I'm shocked at how much information is being given. I know Manhattan is a large place, but it ain't that large.

  5. #16265
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North of Durham
    Quote Originally Posted by PackMan97 View Post
    I agree. I'm shocked at how much information is being given. I know Manhattan is a large place, but it ain't that large.
    Agreed. There is nothing to be gained by sharing this information.

    The dad of one of my sonís best friends checks most of the boxes of the foreman, though lives in a slightly different neighborhood (but not far). I havenít asked if he has gotten any calls.

  6. #16266
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Hot'Lanta... home of the Falcons!
    Boom, another juror bites the dust. This was a man who may have lied when answering the questionnaire. Turns out he appears to have had a prior conviction (in 1990) for tearing down some political posters.

    In any event, after starting the day with 7, we are now down to 5 jurors.

    They had brought in 98 potential new jurors earlier today. More than half were knocked out by the first two questions regarding whether you can be impartial and if the trial schedule is a problem for your work/home life.

    39 remain from that pool and are answering the longer 42-question survey from the judge. Last time they did this they got 7 folks but each side had more peremptory challenges. I would guess we might get as many as 10 from this current group. I think they will be able to seat a full jury and 6 alternates by the end of the day tomorrow and start opening arguments on Monday.
    Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?

  7. #16267
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    Boom, another juror bites the dust. This was a man who may have lied when answering the questionnaire. Turns out he appears to have had a prior conviction (in 1990) for tearing down some political posters.
    34 years ago. A 50 year old would have been 16. I might be embarrassed by some of the stuff I thought 34 years ago. That's some serious research both parties are doing. I think I'd say I can't be impartial just to avoid the swarms of PI's that would be digging into my life.

  8. #16268
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post

    The press has really messed up here. There is simply too much info given out about these jurors. I was stunned on Tuesday when I saw how much info was being shared. I think it should be limited to sex and profession... maybe race, maybe some general sense of age (in his 30s/40s... in her 50s/60s).
    I agree 100%. I have to say I was a little shocked when I was hearing all the details of the jurors that the press were Ďgleefullyí giving out. I say gleefully because thatís what it felt like.
    Kyle gets BUCKETS!
    https://youtu.be/NJWPASQZqLc

  9. #16269
    Quote Originally Posted by PackMan97 View Post
    34 years ago. A 50 year old would have been 16. I might be embarrassed by some of the stuff I thought 34 years ago. That's some serious research both parties are doing. I think I'd say I can't be impartial just to avoid the swarms of PI's that would be digging into my life.
    Could take guidance from Larry David and Homer Simpson.

    https://www.bing.com/videos/rivervie...393A&FORM=VIRE

    https://www.bing.com/videos/rivervie...E65A&FORM=VIRE

  10. #16270
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    The press has really messed up here. There is simply too much info given out about these jurors.
    I donít think that Fox is incompetent or exercising poor judgement. They are in the bag for the defendant, and will do anything they can to shape the jury to the defendantís benefit. Jesse Watters, in particular, is skating as close to the line as Clay Travis (https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4...l-clay-travis/), and should be thinking about engaging counsel separate from Foxí in-house lawyers.

  11. #16271
    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 burnspbesq View Post
    I donít think that Fox is incompetent or exercising poor judgement. They are in the bag for the defendant, and will do anything they can to shape the jury to the defendantís benefit. Jesse Watters, in particular, is skating as close to the line as Clay Travis (https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4...l-clay-travis/), and should be thinking about engaging counsel separate from Foxí in-house lawyers.
    It's amazing how little a $900M judgement against you matters.
    Q "Why do you like Duke, you didn't even go there." A "Because my art school didn't have a basketball team."

  12. #16272
    Quote Originally Posted by JasonEvans View Post
    One of the jurors has asked to be removed from the hush money case. It is the juror who was described as an oncology nurse who lives with her fiancť. Apparently, some press outlets even reported where she worked. Needless to say, she said she came home after being picked on Tuesday and her phone just blew up with people who knew her who had figured out she was a juror and were telling her how she should rule in the case. She said she was afraid of being publicly identified and was unable to remain unbiased about the case.

    The press has really messed up here. There is simply too much info given out about these jurors. I was stunned on Tuesday when I saw how much info was being shared. I think it should be limited to sex and profession... maybe race, maybe some general sense of age (in his 30s/40s... in her 50s/60s). When you get into professions and additional data it becomes too narrowing.

    I mean, we know the jury foreman is an Irishman who works in sales and lives in West Harlem. That's probably enough info so that someone really intrepid could narrow it down to maybe a half dozen or fewer people. He's also described as "outdoorsy" so a scan of the social media profiles of the half dozen could likely net you the person who is the jury foreman. This is just too risky and, frankly, knowing more about these people does not serve the public interest anyway.

    Also of note from the trial today, the prosecution says Trump has violated the gag order 7 more times over the past two days. There is going to be a hearing about this on Tuesday. I think it is possible Trump is going to get slapped pretty hard as the judge tried to get him under control. Good luck with that.
    I'm not a big fan of DT but I am HIGHLY skeptical that he will be able to get a "fair" trial in NYC on these charges and he may not be able to get a fair trial anywhere in the US, for a variety of reasons, including finding unbiased and open-minded jurors, who haven't already pre-judged his guilt or innocence. I certainly don't have the answer as to how his prosecution should be handled but, IMO, it's a big mess.

  13. #16273
    Quote Originally Posted by duke79 View Post
    I'm not a big fan of DT but I am HIGHLY skeptical that he will be able to get a "fair" trial in NYC on these charges and he may not be able to get a fair trial anywhere in the US, for a variety of reasons, including finding unbiased and open-minded jurors, who haven't already pre-judged his guilt or innocence. I certainly don't have the answer as to how his prosecution should be handled but, IMO, it's a big mess.
    I can tell you exactly how it should have happened...a few more Republican Senators should have had the guts to end Trump's political career in the impeachment trial after J6...and then none of these trials become nearly as big a deal and he can get his fairish trial.

  14. #16274
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Rougemont Nebulae
    Quote Originally Posted by duke79 View Post
    I'm not a big fan of DT but I am HIGHLY skeptical that he will be able to get a "fair" trial in NYC on these charges and he may not be able to get a fair trial anywhere in the US, for a variety of reasons, including finding unbiased and open-minded jurors, who haven't already pre-judged his guilt or innocence. I certainly don't have the answer as to how his prosecution should be handled but, IMO, it's a big mess.
    To save bandwidth, those that identify as fans should probably say so, otherwise it's assumed.
    Last edited by CameronBlue; 04-18-2024 at 02:23 PM. Reason: Yes my comment is probably OOB, but geez, as long as there still is a 1st Amendment...for at least a little while longer

  15. #16275
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    New Jersey
    Quote Originally Posted by duke79 View Post
    I'm not a big fan of DT but I am HIGHLY skeptical that he will be able to get a "fair" trial in NYC on these charges and he may not be able to get a fair trial anywhere in the US, for a variety of reasons, including finding unbiased and open-minded jurors, who haven't already pre-judged his guilt or innocence. I certainly don't have the answer as to how his prosecution should be handled but, IMO, it's a big mess.
    On the Daily Show they interviewed some MAGA people outside the courthouse who were asked if they thought Trump would get a fair trial. One interviewee said, "Not in NYC!" So they asked him what about the cases in Florida and Georgia and the response was, "He can't get a fair trial there either!"

    I know it's largely a political comedy show, but the bottom line is that no matter the results of any of these trials, should they be completed before the election, which is unlikely, his supporters will believe they're just as rigged as the election.
    Rich
    "Failure is Not a Destination"
    Coach K on the Dan Patrick Show, December 22, 2016

  16. #16276
    Quote Originally Posted by CameronBlue View Post
    To save bandwidth, those that identify as fans should probably say so, otherwise it's assumed.
    Fan is the shortened form of fanatic.

    https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/...oogle_vignette

    fanatic
    noun [ C ]
    informal
    a person who is extremely interested in something, to a degree that some people find unreasonable:
    To that end, I would say everyone participating in this thread is a fan when it comes to DJT, in as much we are also fans with regards to UNC. Search your feelings. You know it to be true.

  17. #16277
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Chicago
    Quote Originally Posted by PackMan97 View Post
    I can tell you exactly how it should have happened...a few more Republican Senators should have had the guts to end Trump's political career in the impeachment trial after J6...and then none of these trials become nearly as big a deal and he can get his fairish trial.
    ^this

  18. #16278
    Quote Originally Posted by duke79 View Post
    I'm not a big fan of DT but I am HIGHLY skeptical that he will be able to get a "fair" trial in NYC on these charges and he may not be able to get a fair trial anywhere in the US, for a variety of reasons, including finding unbiased and open-minded jurors, who haven't already pre-judged his guilt or innocence. I certainly don't have the answer as to how his prosecution should be handled but, IMO, it's a big mess.
    So whatís your solution to this ďproblem?Ē The publicly available evidence points strongly in the direction that he did all the things for which he has been indicted. And he goes into the process with resources and advantages that the overwhelming majority of criminal defendants donít have.

    Are you arguing that he should walk? If so, why?

  19. #16279
    Quote Originally Posted by burnspbesq View Post
    I donít think that Fox is incompetent or exercising poor judgement. They are in the bag for the defendant, and will do anything they can to shape the jury to the defendantís benefit. Jesse Watters, in particular, is skating as close to the line as Clay Travis (https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4...l-clay-travis/), and should be thinking about engaging counsel separate from Foxí in-house lawyers.
    Evil Ted Mosby, as he is referred to in my household, should be charged with jury tampering if he says anything else like that. Just utterly despicable behavior.

  20. #16280
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Richmond, VA
    Quote Originally Posted by Rich View Post
    On the Daily Show they interviewed some MAGA people outside the courthouse who were asked if they thought Trump would get a fair trial. One interviewee said, "Not in NYC!" So they asked him what about the cases in Florida and Georgia and the response was, "He can't get a fair trial there either!"

    I know it's largely a political comedy show, but the bottom line is that no matter the results of any of these trials, should they be completed before the election, which is unlikely, his supporters will believe they're just as rigged as the election.
    And not to be crass (lack of sensitivity, not lack of intelligence) but I will be...who cares what anyone outside the 12 jurors believe.

    This is similar to the fraud case in that we are in the "legal" realm now not the "political" realm. There may be political ramifications such as more turnout for Trump in the Nov election, but he will still owe the state of NY close to half a billion dollars.

    If found guilty in this case, he may still be elected president but may be in a jail cell for a period of time rather than the WH.

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
  •