Trump charged

[c.d.]

And these jurors who all hated Trump with a passion could have found him guilty of rape but did not do so. Draw your own conclusions.

c.d.

[Pcdunn]

Well, men outnumbered women on the jury at 2 to 1, so if we think the verdict against Trump was swayed by the female vote, that seems unlikely.
I think they just agreed that harassment and defamation was proved better than the rape charge.

[Svensson]

I think this whole discussion about a fair trial is insulting to the jurors. It is suggesting that they are either mentally unable to objectively determine the veracity of evidence brought before them or they would maliciously discard the evidence in order to deliver a desired verdict (rather than a correct one).

The latter is also what likelyoften happened in the american south up until the 1950's because there different legal standards for black americans (I know that I am wobbly on the terminology and exact definitions here, so apologies to those who have better knowledge on this than me) and I assume that in some communities, convicting black americans of whatever they were accused of would have been considered "the right thing to do". And as crazy as it sounds, I belive that Margeret Thatcher would have received a fair trial in Liverpool in the 1990s or any other time in fact.

[rjpalmer]

I think this whole discussion about a fair trial is insulting to the jurors.

I feel sorry for Rep. George Santos. Not only did he lose his grandparents in the Holocaust, and his mother in 9/11, but now the Deep State is charging him with fraud in a federal court in Long Island. How can he possibly get a fair trial in New York?

[Svensson]

how can a human possibly get a fair trial on earth?

[Pcdunn]

I think this whole discussion about a fair trial is insulting to the jurors. It is suggesting that they are either mentally unable to objectively determine the veracity of evidence brought before them or they would maliciously discard the evidence in order to deliver a desired verdict (rather than a correct one).

The latter is also what likelyoften happened in the american south up until the 1950's because there different legal standards for black americans (I know that I am wobbly on the terminology and exact definitions here, so apologies to those who have better knowledge on this than me) and I assume that in some communities, convicting black americans of whatever they were accused of would have been considered "the right thing to do". And as crazy as it sounds, I belive that Margeret Thatcher would have received a fair trial in Liverpool in the 1990s or any other time in fact.

Look up Jim Crow Laws for more insight into American law and formerly-enslaved "negroes". These laws were instituted mostly in the Southern states, against black Americans, but sometimes in Northern and Western states against Asians, "Indians", and "Mexicans" as well. The state laws curtailed many aspects of daily life for the named groups, from where to sit in a train carriage or on an public bus, where to eat, which fountain to drink from, which theater or nightclub they could visit, who they could marry.... on and on. 14 year-old Emment Till was supposedly guilty of "whistling at a white woman" and was murdered for it; it has since been revealed that the woman involved had lied when she made that accusation. The boy was visiting relatives down South, and didn't understand local "laws."

[jason_c]

Look up Jim Crow Laws for more insight into American law and formerly-enslaved "negroes". These laws were instituted mostly in the Southern states, against black Americans, but sometimes in Northern and Western states against Asians, "Indians", and "Mexicans" as well. The state laws curtailed many aspects of daily life for the named groups, from where to sit in a train carriage or on an public bus, where to eat, which fountain to drink from, which theater or nightclub they could visit, who they could marry.... on and on. 14 year-old Emment Till was supposedly guilty of "whistling at a white woman" and was murdered for it; it has since been revealed that the woman involved had lied when she made that accusation. The boy was visiting relatives down South, and didn't understand local "laws."

Also, Federal prosecutors have over a 99% conviction rate in cases they prosecute. This includes plea deals. Stalin would be proud of such a conviction rate. I won't convince anyone on here but Feds are notorious liars in court. If you have a dodgy case just overcharge the defendant and hope they take the plea deal on offer. Yes, the justice/legal system in America often sucks.

[String]

From what I’ve read it only appears to ‘suck’ when rich white guys get prosecuted. When it comes to the poor and minorities it seems to work just fine.

[Fiver]

Also, Federal prosecutors have over a 99% conviction rate in cases they prosecute. This includes plea deals. Stalin would be proud of such a conviction rate. I won't convince anyone on here but Feds are notorious liars in court. If you have a dodgy case just overcharge the defendant and hope they take the plea deal on offer. Yes, the justice/legal system in America often sucks.

That is incorrect.

90% of people charged by the Feds pled guilty, presumably as part of a plea bargain.
8% had their charges dismissed.
2% went to trial.

Of those who went to trial, 83% were convicted. That's a 17% chance of being acquitted, not a 1% chance.

[jason_c]

That is incorrect.

90% of people charged by the Feds pled guilty, presumably as part of a plea bargain.
8% had their charges dismissed.
2% went to trial.

Of those who went to trial, 83% were convicted. That's a 17% chance of being acquitted, not a 1% chance.

You obviously missed the part of my post which said the 99+% conviction rate included plea deals of individuals the Feds prosecute.

[String]

If true it doesn’t surprise me.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/rudy-giuliani-trump-pardons-lawsuit-b2339431.html

[jason_c]

The Durham Report just came out. Russian collusion was all a big fat hoax by the Clinton campaign, aided & abetted by the DOJ, FBI etc. And people still refuse to accept the possibility that a local NY court can be corrupt or biased?

[jason_c]

If true it doesn’t surprise me.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-b2339431.html

If true being almost certainly untrue.

[String]

If true being almost certainly untrue.

Knowing Trumps greed and Giulliani’s incompetence I would go for it being true. More evidence might be uncovered.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-drives-donald-trump-greed-and-greed-alone/2019/09/26/927fccde-e099-11e9-be96-6adb81821e90_story.html

[jason_c]

Knowing Trumps greed and Giulliani’s incompetence I would go for it being true. More evidence might be uncovered.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...e90_story.html

I suspect neither man did accept money for pardons but my comment was more towards Guliani telling this aide that he and Trump were splitting $2 million for pardons. That's the sort of thing you admit to very, very few people. I don't think a competent politician & lawyer such as Guliani would go around saying this to someone who had barely walked through his staff door. Sure, in this case Guliani may have had an aneurysm and started telling those around him he was accepting bribes but I suspect probably not.