Trump charged

[rjpalmer]

And all of those jurors (as well as potential jurors) were questioned by Trump's attorneys during the voir dire process and were deemed acceptable.

c.d.

It's interesting to listen to the banter of the hardcore Trump supporter.

They argue that the country is filled with Trump supporters--look at the rallies!--and that the election was a landslide victory for Trump, but was stolen.

Yet when it comes to a jury, suddenly everyone in New York is a left-wing radical. Every single of one them.

Trump wasn't even a Republican for much of his life. When it was convenient, he marketed himself as a Democrat. In reality, he is apolitical. He has only one cause and one allegiance: to his own bank account. The rest is an act. That's what I believe.

[c.d.]

And all of those jurors (as well as potential jurors) were questioned by Trump's attorneys during the voir dire process and were deemed acceptable.

c.d.

[rjpalmer]

Ok humour me with this hypothetical.

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?

[c.d.]

Edit: I'm suggesting a cover-up by the jurors not a conspiracy.

Can you provide any actual evidence to support that belief such as irregularities in the the trial transcript or a particular witness not being allowed to testify or anything else that was improper? Simply saying you believe that the majority of jurors were Democrats and therefore would have voted to convict for that reason alone is not a really compelling argument.

c.d.

[jason_c]

You're just spewing conspiracies.

Ok humour me with this hypothetical. Let's assume Mrs Thatcher is on trial at Liverpool Crown Court in, say, the early 1990's. Do you think Mrs Thatcher would receive a fair, impartial trial in Liverpool?

Edit: I'm suggesting a cover-up by the jurors not a conspiracy.

[rjpalmer]

I'm going to take jurors statements with a pinch of salt. They are going to try to justify themselves by fair means or foul. A juror in the segregationist South was unlikely to tell a waiting press 'we got the black sob'. They are going to mostly be on their best behaviour for the media. Also, an impartial jury requires more than one or two individuals who could in theory vote either way. An impartial jury requires all of them (or most) to be fairly neutral, no?

You're just spewing conspiracies.

[jason_c]

And Jason -- have you actually read the details about the jurors? Some of them lived outside of Manhattan (Westchester County, etc.) and one admitted to getting most of his news from a pro-Trump MAGA podcast. Others stated they didn't follow the news and were apolitical. It rather destroys your argument that this was a political hit job.

I'm going to take jurors statements with a pinch of salt. They are going to try to justify themselves by fair means or foul. A juror in the segregationist South was unlikely to tell a waiting press 'we got the black sob'. They are going to mostly be on their best behaviour for the media. Also, an impartial jury requires more than one or two individuals who could in theory vote either way. An impartial jury requires all of them (or most) to be fairly neutral, no?

[jason_c]

Your stats are wrong. Based on the latest info, Democrats make up 68% of registered voters in Manhattan, not 85%. So, statistically, 2 or 3 jurors could have been Republican or Independent--it may have been more, yet 9 out of 9 found him guilty of lying about the abuse.

Further it wasn't a political trial--but you're following DJT's lead and trying to make it one.

Hell, DJT lived in Manhattan, and the jury believed he committed the abuse in Manhattan. That's where the civil case was filed. If he doesn't like the New York venue, maybe he should limit his sexual abuse to Dade County, Florida. In the U.S. we try cases in the correct jurisdiction.

Do you seriously look at DJT and see a morally upright man who respects women? Really? Or is it possible that he's not the person you want him to be, and this is all about partisan politics?

I said nothing about voter registration, though I should have made myself clearer on this. Looking at the results Manhattan voted 76% for Biden in 2020. Dem DA Alvin Bragg ran on a platform of 'getting Trump' in 2021. Bragg received almost 84% to his Republican rival. This most recent election was awfully close to 85%.

It wasn't a political trial? Sorry, but this is Donald Trump we are discussing here. Everything is political concerning Donald Trump since 2016. Everything!

I have no opinion on the uprightness of Donald Trump or whether he respects women. It's irrelevant when discussing whether Trump could possibly receive a fair trial in Manhattan or dozens of other heavily Dem districts.

[rjpalmer]

And Jason -- have you actually read the details about the jurors? Some of them lived outside of Manhattan (Westchester County, etc.) and one admitted to getting most of his news from a pro-Trump MAGA podcast. Others stated they didn't follow the news and were apolitical. It rather destroys your argument that this was a political hit job.

[c.d.]

Every one of those jurors swore an oath of impartiality. They also went through the jury selection process (voir dire) designed to weed out prejudices. In addition, each side can make peremptory challenges to remove a potential witness without giving any reason whatsoever for doing so. Both sides get to question a witness. Now, does this ensure an absolutely impartial jury? Of course not but it is the best we can do or completely abandon the jury system and come up with another method of determining guilt.

c.d.

[rjpalmer]

Yes, in terms of a supposedly impartial jury of peers being anything but an impartial jury of peers. All the entitlement in the world doesn't help you when the justice system is loaded against you with an almost certainly tainted jury. Hunter Biden is similarly entitled, do you think Hunter Biden would get a fair hearing from his 'peers' in one of the ten most Republican counties in the US?

Your stats are wrong. Based on the latest info, Democrats make up 68% of registered voters in Manhattan, not 85%. So, statistically, 2 or 3 jurors could have been Republican or Independent--it may have been more, yet 9 out of 9 found him guilty of lying about the abuse.

Further it wasn't a political trial--but you're following DJT's lead and trying to make it one.

Hell, DJT lived in Manhattan, and the jury believed he committed the abuse in Manhattan. That's where the civil case was filed. If he doesn't like the New York venue, maybe he should limit his sexual abuse to Dade County, Florida. In the U.S. we try cases in the correct jurisdiction.

Do you seriously look at DJT and see a morally upright man who respects women? Really? Or is it possible that he's not the person you want him to be, and this is all about partisan politics?

[jason_c]

You're comparing an entitled multi-millionaire with more lawyers than a dozen law firms to a black man in the segregated South?

Get real.

Yes, in terms of a supposedly impartial jury of peers being anything but an impartial jury of peers. All the entitlement in the world doesn't help you when the justice system is loaded against you with an almost certainly tainted jury. Hunter Biden is similarly entitled, do you think Hunter Biden would get a fair hearing from his 'peers' in one of the ten most Republican counties in the US?

[rjpalmer]

'A jury of your peers'. This is Manhatten, 85% Democrat. This would be similar to expecting a black man to get a fair trial in 1950's Alabama.

You're comparing an entitled multi-millionaire with more lawyers than a dozen law firms to a black man in the segregated South?

Get real.

[jason_c]

'A jury of your peers'. This is Manhatten, 85% Democrat. This would be similar to expecting a black man to get a fair trial in 1950's Alabama.

[Svensson]

Trump has been found liable of sexual assault and defamation by a jury of 9 men and women. Fox News were out of the gate proclaiming that he had ben cleared of rape . The verdict was probably helped by a disastrous and INSANE video deposition where he:

1. Confuses E. Jean Caroll for his ex-wife (after stating that she was not his type which now presumably extends to his ex-Wife).
2. States that for the last 1 million years, Stars were always able to grab women by the p**sy. "Fortunately or unfortunately" (presumably fortunate for the grabber and unfortunate for the grabbee).
3. that he himself was a star so that the rule above could be applied to him.
4. That he lawyer interviewing him was also not his type.
5. That he can't remember if during the Hollywood Access tape recording, he was engaged or married to Melania (he does not remember when he got married basically).

Following this video depositon, he stood on a golf-coure in Ireland and proclaimed that he "had to return to New York to confront that woman", which of course he did not.

This whole episode has of course been completely absurd and there is so much more to come of the next few months. Buckle up eveyone, as they say.