Why it's impossible for Trump to get a fair jury
By: Andrew Cherkasky
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
A convenient way to define bias in a juror is to ask, "Do you have a personal motivation to convict or acquit the defendant?" Jurors who have an actual interest in the outcome of a trial are, by law, required to be struck from a jury pool. Legally, this isn't a high bar. Any personal interest in the outcome of the case is disqualifying.
This is precisely why — no matter how many hundreds of prospective jurors are questioned, what news sources they read, where they live, where they work or how many times they promise to be fair — Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, cannot get a fair jury.
It is preposterous to suggest that any American citizen called as a prospective juror could be "unbiased" when it comes to Trump — the presidential leading candidate, according to polls — mere months away from the election. It is indisputable that the lives of all Americans will be affected by whoever is elected as the next president. According to the polling, if Trump were convicted in the Manhattan hush money case, his chances of winning the election would go down.
The acquittal or conviction of Trump in this trial will directly affect his electoral chances in the upcoming election. Democrats feign shock at the suggestion that the prosecution is politically motivated, suggesting instead that this case is a vital prosecution to demonstrate that "nobody is above the law." But they're just playing coy. The case — which has been repeatedly passed over by the FEC, federal prosecutors and even the Manhattan DA's office itself — has almost nothing to do with enforcing the law. Based on the indictment alone, it's not even clear what law Trump allegedly violated. Yet Democrats suddenly care so much about a decade-old misdemeanor? It doesn't take much to do the math on that one.
Judge Juan Merchan issued a memorandum in advance of jury selection outlining 42 questions that the attorneys were authorized to ask prospective jurors. His intent, it seems, was to limit inquiry into the explicit political preferences of the jurors and their past voting history. The questionnaire, though, in its attempt to strategically excise "politics," blatantly prohibits the only question that matters at all — who do you want to be our next president? Only three meaningful answers exist: Trump, Biden or "I don't care." Each answer presents an inextricable bias that no amount of promises to be fair and impartial can override.
One's first instinct might be to suggest that the court should seat only those jurors who don't care who is elected as the next president. But this, too, would result in an unconstitutional jury. By seating only those who have no opinion, you disenfranchise the involvement of all those reasonable people who do care about national politics — no longer a jury of one's peers but a jury of the outliers.
Then there's those who do have a preference. By definition they are biased, because they have a direct and tangible interest in the outcome of the case, knowing that their verdict will sway the election for or against their candidate of choice.
We are, in fact, in the throes of a logical conundrum. All the prospective jurors are American citizens living in America. Of course they have an opinion as to the direction the country is taken. Their lives will undoubtedly be affected by the next presidential election — yet we're to believe there are jurors who can both care about this country's future and simultaneously set such concerns aside as they determine the guilt or innocence of Donald Trump?
To hold this trial in the lead up to a presidential election is, by definition, election interference. The outcome will affect the election and the jurors deciding the case — whether they admit it or not — have an interest in its outcome, one way or the other, that is unconnected to the evidence presented in court.
Tags
Who is online
41 visitors
You're lecturing to the wrong crowd. We did not have anything to do with the "stormy" parts of Ms. Daniels: enjoyment or distress. Moreover, we did not pay anybody to "hush' them up or pay to "fetch and kill" a story or stories in the 2016 election. That was Trump.
Give it up already. Stop defending a stupid man who can't even admit to the truth of his own activities.
One has to wonder if MAGAs believe in the rule of law-as it is-when it is applied to them.
I'm neither lecturing to nor defending anyone.
The reader shall be the judge of that. For example:
It is Trump's duty to be accountable and to stand up to his actions and activities in a court of law when he is summoned. There is no other to blame. . . as he is brought up on charges alone. Let him defend himself and either win his case and be set free or face whatever consequences is a proper judgement.
Posting articles that seek to explain away the seriousness of this situation Trump finds himself in, by darting around tagging anybody else in a crowd is makes a case for a defense of the indefensible. Donald Trump is too well versed in the manner of how courts operate to be in the position before this court that he finds himself. It is his own stubbornness (and desire to win at any cost) that turns to look him in the eye and accuse him now.
What a silly notion: Donald Trump, the man and the myth is simply too high to be under any pool of the people ("the community") he is alleged to have offended. That's laughable. HA-HA.
Let me state this
[✘] Donald Trump, shits, showers, and shaves just like the rest of the men in this country. Therefore, a jury of his peers (not those beneath him in any legal way) has been and will continue to be seated to hear the charges against him.
Myth-busters
This is not a fatalistic exercise. Donald Trump has finally landed where he belongs in a criminal court of law where his alleged crimes can be critically examined for accuracy or error by the appropriate parties- prosecutors, defense lawyers, judge, and jury.
I don't see that notion in the article. What I do see is the notion that if you're an adult American you have an opinion of Trump already, good or bad.
That is ambiguous. Of course, "many" have an opinion of Donald Trump. He lends himself to the formation of opinions by "many." This man adores popularity. He swaddles in the earned (free) media he generates: good and bad. Recently I commented that for the past nine to ten years at the least Donald Trump has been a fixture on our television sets, because of his non-stop pursuit of any kind of fame he can lavish upon himself.
That being so, he remains a 'regular' citizen today who when he is accused, charged, and set before a jury. . . must face a proper trial.
This is very simple. For most liberals, having 12 primary and 6 alternate far left jurors is absolutely OK, but have one of those jurors be a right leaner and vote not guilty, then those same leftists will scream that that person was a far right wing plant and lied to get on the jury just so he could cause a hung jury.
Yeah, we're gonna have to wait to see how it all plays out. But based on what I know of the charges (yes, based on what I've read as I have no direct knowledge) I think it's very possible that there's at least one juror who will not convict and we end up with a hung jury and mistrial. And if that happens, expect to see a lot of howling at the sky over it.
I pray the "gods" will protect the integrity of this proceeding about to be undertaken. As we are 'full' already of the controversies this one man generates. Here is what pisses me off about it: Trump and his supporters evidently do not care about our rule of law. . . he, Trump, struts around declaring any action he takes as above it all and right simply because he says so. . . and there being "many" who allow him to operate this way. . . blows up the legal system when it is engaged.
I still remember a majority leader in our Senate who 'swore' that the legal system would take up and handle Trump because of his second impeachment in a single presidency which McConnell and his senate majority of republicans acquitted him. And, yet the legal system is now waffling under the weight of trying Trump and wondering just how much it can bear to have a former president's legal stress pressing down on it.
This is the same legal system that millions have been charged under and have been acquitted and punished under. Trump deserves a proper 'turn' in court just like everybody else who is caught up in the system.
That's pretty funny coming from one who supports a POTUS who has ignored the rule of law and censored the people, allowed to border to be unsecure giving way for millions of illegals to cross into the country. This same POTUS has been funneling money to a country that is tied into corruption.
That's far better than what we've seen Senate majority of Democrats do with Mayorkas.
You want to cry about "ignoring the rule of law" then bring something to the table that withstand the burden of proof of a criminal trial. To date, that hasn't happened despite the lefts best "efforts". And no, one would have to have their head firmly placed in their 4th point of contact to think its the "same legal system".
Yes, I could be wrong in my assumption but this obsession with human body parts is yours alone today. And, duly noted.
The problem for MAGAs, and there is one. . . is Donald is on trial today and we are expected to be discussing the capability of THE JURY to be fair. Since this is the case, bringing up Biden is irrelevant. Biden is not charged or before any judge today.
So suddenly you want to get back on topic.
When you want to talk about Donald and this case-yes, let's.
lets take a look at your hypocrisy. That's more interesting. So why do you ignore a POTUS who has ignored the rule of law and censored the people, allowed to border to be unsecure giving way for millions of illegals to cross into the country and claim the other doesn't care about our rule of law?
Well, okay, that happened.
So why do you ignore a POTUS who has ignored the rule of law and censored the people, allowed to border to be unsecure giving way for millions of illegals to cross into the country and claim the other doesn't care about our rule of law?
You don't know what those jurists are-especially since their profiles are being denied to the public. (So they can't be researched and treated with "indignities" by unfair critics.) The fact is Donald Trump is in the proper venue, its proper court, and its proper jury. As it is for millions of regular citizens going back through the history of juries. . .he shall face a cadre of his peers, his legal equals, and whatever they believe about him shall be beyond criticism when according to law.
Don't need to know. They are in Manhattan where Trump received 12 percent of the vote in 2020.
They are leftists and most of them hate Trump, like most leftists nationwide, because he beat their queen in 2016...and they don't like it.
Well, that's life "in the big city." Maybe Trump should have done his "do" in a Trump welcoming jurisdiction. That's all. However, his discomfort is no reason to bend the law 'downward' to find him and lift him up. Some who talk about fairness should be ashamed of themselves for wanting favoritism for Trump in a court of law. Because favoritism in court is not justice!
Yet, that seems to be what was done...
As I stated. Either you will have a principle to stand on or you want a personality to compel others to indulge his legal whims. In this case, you have a personality who is going through the 'rigors' of a court case he richly deserves. Whether he wins or loses, he is where he belongs at this point in time.
Neither is prejudice..
Prove prejudice is occurring in this court proceedings beyond a reasonable doubt and you may have a cause. Don't prove it and you are just making a complain out of the proverbial 'whole cloth.'
So you would be okay with a Republican DA pulling some charges out of their ass and pulling this shit on a Democrat?
Make a statement and not a question and I will give it a go!
I would bet a dollar to a donut that wouldn't fly
Mmmmm, how about you just answer the question and we'll take it from there.
Okay. . . wrong approach to asking. And it would have been a great response, probably. You can't 'talk' to me any kind of way, though. As for answering MAGAs' question. . . I don't have to. . .and it gets me nowhere. I don't know about where it would take you!
Best just give it up now, you won't be getting responses.
Sure you will.
Yes, GregTx can get a response. . . just not to questions (even as you 'got' one just now.) But, I am not here as entertainment for any one or group of MAGAs. Just make a statement and let's move forward with the inane comments and bull about questions being left on the table (even when they are not or are not 'worthy' of a direct response).
What exactly are you trying to say?
Trump openly wants to be a dictator on day one, but Trump supporters are up in arms that he can’t possibly get a fair trial because he has single handedly poisoned an entire country’s pool of jurists with his nonstop diarrhea of the mouth. [deleted][✘]
When your going to misquote something- go full on TDS! Brandon, Hillary, Obama, and all the TDS driven leftist talking heads appreciate you promoting their BS.
Here is Brandon the Human Fuck Up Machine's first 100 days.
Now care to talk about who the real dictator is?
“…go full on TDS! Brandon, Hillary, Obama, and all the TDS driven leftist talking heads…”
When this drivel counts as a rebuttal, much less a reasonable attempt at furthering a discussion, it only serves as evidence of the fecklessness and frustration and frivolity of the point so weakly trying to be made.
That is a longwinded way to say your can't refute a single thing that was said.
1. No POTUS or POTUS wannabe should EVER state ANY intention to be a dictator.
2. “Except for day one” is still on day one, thus it is still correct to say Trump wants to be a dictator on day one.
And when has Donald EVER persisted in telling the truth? (Donald is lying.) Donald is not asking for immunity just to have its power taken from him in a day. Hell no! This man is gaslighting those who listen and accept his bull. Donald will (mis)use the new power granted to presidents to run it into the ground. Watch this space! And as we are witnesses to seeing: Donald does not fear courts of law!
Yet you all (the left) claim he was telling the truth with is supposed dictator comment. Your hypocrisy is showing.
Read my comment again. Especially this part: And when has Donald EVER persisted in telling the truth.
The qualifier makes all the different in the world and consequently is why it is there.
And, let me continue by adding: Nothing in our world is 100% (absolute) anything. All of us should know this by now and it should go without specially stating it so. After all, people of a certain age have a 'lifetime' of experiences with the aforementioned being true.
Just like you wrote: "Supposed dictator. . . . " in your comment. . . and yet you are CERTAIN about any so-called, "conclusion" you reach about President Biden. You are supposing (and gaslighting these articles in the process) about Biden too. We have material evidences of Trump's record; you do not have such evidences that can stand up to close scrutiny about Biden.
Yet you all (the left) claim he was telling the truth with is supposed dictator comment. Your hypocrisy is showing.
Of course, Donald is telling the truth in such a case. It's the same as Donald telling the truth when he threatens the country with being MAGAs' "retribution" should he get back in office. Moreover, Donald has conservative think-tanks behind him that NEED him to be telling the truth about it.
What is a (damn) lie, similar to the lie about showing his taxes publicly (nobody is even discussing them now for this campaign season), is that his "dictatorship" will last only one day. The man is at the Supreme Court asking for immunity from prosecution. . . as he plans on releasing the KRAKEN. (And, I remember hearing that term from MAGAs in the post Trump presidency years.)
Conviction now to be overturned after the election.
[✘]
Already answered. If he gets immunity, these trial circuses end and he can concentrate on real issues.
Why is Bragg pushing something a misdemeanor from 2017 to a federal issue? Oh, wait...
Because committing misdemeanors in commission of election fraud and any conspiracies to do so are felonies. Together they are the exact kind of high crimes and misdemeanors that our Founders intended to disqualify scumbags from high office!
So you are going to reach like Bragg. Can't say I'm surprised.
No reaching here. You asked a question. I answered it. You just do not like the truthful explanation I honestly gave you.
Sad thing is, in this case, it isn't illegal.....................
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/04/12/trumps-hush-money-payment-isnt-illegal-in-itself-heres-why-hes-actually-on-trial/#:~:text=Hush%20money%20payments%20can%20be,bribery%2C%20Wilkinson%2DRyan%20noted .
Keep telling yourself that.
I never said you didn't respond.
What I don't like is fiction being pushed as fact.
Some people just can't understand basic stuff. The problem is that Bragg has to PROVE everything else he's fabricating.
Except, Trump did screw Stormy Daniels, pay her off to keep it secret and misrepresent those payments as lawyer fees...
The criminal conspiracy to illegally influence a Presidential election is where things became especially extra illegal felonies.
Those would be the criminal conspiracy Trump's accountant outlined in court yesterday and the day before. Felonies Michael Cohen went to prison for. Let us not forget about those felonies...
Did you not read the link in #6.2.4 above?