Trump charged

[jason_c]

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

If true being almost certainly untrue.

[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?

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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."

[Svensson]

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

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[c.d.]

It boils down to it being an if A then B argument. If you can show that the majority of of the jury were registered Democrats or somehow had left leanings then that and that alone would have been the basis for their verdict. And while that could certainly be true it could also be that they made their decision based on the evidence alone.

So it is a flawed argument.

c.d.

[jason_c]

No. I have no desire to 'humour' your hypotheticals which are irrelevant to the facts.

It's obvious that you don't have any real information about the jury make-up and are just operating on desire--what you want to believe.

Most of the jurors didn't even live in Manhattan, so your initial argument was flawed.

We don't know their names--not because of a secret 'Deep State' conspiracy--but because the judge realized that a percentage of MAGA supporters are unhinged and would threaten the jury if they found out their names.

One of the jurors was from Rockland County, upstate New York. Despite your conspiracy theory, this is nowhere near Manhattan and the political make-up of the county is split almost exactly 50/50 between Dems and Republican. You have ZERO information about what this person's political affiliations are.

Several of the other jurors lived outside of Manhattan as well.

Here's what we know of the jury makeup.

• A 37-year-old father who works at the New York Public Library, lives in Westchester County north of New York City, and said he’s informed by “Google, anything on the internet”
• A 64-year-old physical therapist mom in the Bronx who watches CNN
• A 26-year-old retail worker in Manhattan who said “social media is my news outlet”
• A 46-year-old former janitor who said he doesn’t “really watch news or listen to anything”
• A 55-year-old mother who works in a health care facility’s collections department and said she’ll “watch anything”
• A 60-year-old father in faraway Rockland County in Upstate New York, who studied computer coding, now works in a hospital, and likes to “flip channels”
• A 62-year-old Spanish speaking mom in the Bronx who watches CNN
• A 31-year-old security guard in the Bronx who claimed to “tend to avoid news,” but added that he’s informed by “mainly podcasts,” like the one hosted by right-wing provocateur Tim Pool

Tim Pool is a pro-Trump MAGA warrior who had been invited to the Trump White House.

Of course, you're going to argue that this security guard lied under oath about listening to Pool as part of the Deep State takedown of Trump.

What's your evidence for this? How do you explain that he, too, thought Trump was lying?

Couldn't it simply be that he heard the evidence and believed the plaintiff and didn't believe the defendant?

You never answered my question. Does DJT strike you as a morally upright man who respects women?

I did answer your question. I said Trump's uprightness is entirely irrelevant as to whether he gets a fair trial.

Sorry, I'm not taking this info about the jurors at anything like face value. In fact it makes me all the more suspicious that we know so little about the jurors. The reason we in the West prefer to not live in a closed society is precisely because of corruption and the like. A couple of puff lines from the court about how lovely these people are is not nearly good enough. I seem to be posting on a forum where posters refuse to admit that the justice system is anything other than ideal(did millions not riot and demonstrate this point barely 2 years ago?). It's not. I'm of the opinion that Trump would struggle get a fair hearing anywhere in the US, the jury is either rigged in his favour or against. That's how partisan a figure he has become. And I don't think it remotely coincidental it's in Deep Blue cities that they are effectively targeting him in.