ex-President Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at low-info Boomers like my religions aunts. I have two questions:
a) Is anyone here who supports Trump bothered by lies like this?
b) Does anyone know what he's even talking about here? Like is there some grain of truth that he's embellishing on bigly?
Has this been a conviction of a famous person based solely on witness testimony to which you are referring?
A jury of white men in 1911 Alabama will believe the girl claiming she has been raped by the black person being judged even if the claim has problems with timing, location and other stuff, because they want to hang the black guy regardless.
Now democrats hate Trump a lot more than KKK people hated black guys.
The jury man. The jury. The topic is partiality of the jury.
The jury can't judge the trustability of witnesses properly if it is partial. It's not like with physical evidence. You can't cast aside the notion that a party and everyone linked to it is tainted, corrupted, disgusting, willing to lie about anything even under oath.
In cases that are based on witnesses the claim "I will be able to judge impartially even if I ****ing hate the accus
What is there to trust? That Cohen paid Stormy Daniels? There are receipts for that, i.e. physical evidence. That Trump paid Cohen back? There are receipts for that, i.e. physical evidence. What is in question that requires physical evidence here?
What is there to trust? That Cohen paid Stormy Daniels? There are receipts for that, i.e. physical evidence. That Trump paid Cohen back? There are receipts for that, i.e. physical evidence. What is in question that requires physical evidence here?
You have to trust Cohen claiming Trump knew all about it and so on.
Payments happened. Reasons for the payment depend on what you believe about witness statements.
You also need to trust Daniels about the fact having happened to begin with
Does the jury has to discount the fact that the defendant is a public figure and a known liar? What if an actor is on trial and takes the stand, for example, is the jury is allowed to consider the fact that they've seen him cry in a movie before so they know he can fake emotions when considering his veracity?
You have to trust Cohen claiming Trump knew all about it and so on.
Payments happened. Reasons for the payment depend on what you believe about witness statements.
You also need to trust Daniels about the fact having happened to begin with
You've pretty much described every white collar case here. How do you think people get convicted of e.g. fraud or insider trading? Nothing unusual about having a money trail and then witnesses testify as to what representations the defendant made or what the defendant knew and when.
You've pretty much described every white collar case here. How do you think people get convicted of e.g. fraud or insider trading? Nothing unusual about having a money trail and then witnesses testify as to what representations the defendant made or what the defendant knew and when.
There are emails or video proof often enough btw.
But again the "detail" is that if you are asked to judge about a controversy related to people you know nothing about, you will be able to judge impartially. If something smells wrong in the prosecution case you will be able to notice that, if the defense is weak, non-existent, you will be able to notice that.
You will be able to judge with the necessary nuance if the case is complicated.
But lol at doing that if say one party is a company that fired you for what you believe was unjust cause.
In cases that are based on witnesses the claim "I will be able to judge impartially even if I ****ing hate the accused and I consider him an horrible person beyond repair" is simply false.
Well that, and this:
But lol at doing that if say one party is a company that fired you for what you believe was unjust cause.
Are quite the goalpost shift from:
So are you expecting a lot of jurors were chosen that could say "I ****ing hate the accused and I consider him an horrible person beyond repair"?
Well that, and this:
Are quite the goalpost shift from:
So are you expecting a lot of jurors were chosen that would say "I ****ing hate the accused and I consider him an horrible person beyond repair"?
I expect everyone who vote democrat to believe that + a decent number of other people, which means 70%+ of NYS adults, you don't?
95%+ of the potential jurors were partial and should have been stroke down because of that.
Only the most blatant such cases were removed.
I fully expected most of the 12 jurors to have had strong opinions about trump before the trial started.
I understand legally that's not enough to remove them from the jury because you guys believe in fairy tales.
If as rococo thinks (and he is far better at this than me to be clear) one (or more) of them will hang the jury because they are biased pro trump I don't want to hear whining.
But in general the expectation someone who has an opinion on trump could judge this fairly is absurd, incredible, fully irrational, deeply misguided
95%+ of the potential jurors were partial and should have been stroke down because of that.
Which is another goalpost shift that still doesn't answer the question.
But in general the expectation someone who has an opinion on trump could judge this fairly is absurd, incredible, fully irrational, deeply misguided
No, that's just your projection again. It's very possible to have an opinion on Trump and judge him fairly. It wouldn't be shocking, given your penchant for seeing things as very black and white, that you would be unable to do so. Others are capable of doing so.
Of course, those who could say "I ****ing hate the accused and I consider him an horrible person beyond repair" are potentially problematic, and that's why there's a jury selection process.
There is no point in analyzing Trump's behavior as if he were a typical criminal defendant. Trump is making decisions based on what he believes is best for his presidential campaign. We can debate whether it is best for Trump's presidential campaign for him to pretend like he never had sex with Stormy Daniels or Karen McDougal and to accept the incremental risk of a suboptimal defense strategy.
But that's what is going on. It's the same
Are multi-millionaires who continuously break gag orders normally only punished with fines of under $10K? How is that supposed to be any kind of punishment or disincentive?
I think that when a judgement is about "he said she said" , impartiality is impossible if you have a previous strong opinion of a person.
If the case was about something more material, physical practical evidence of heinous alleged acts, impartiality might come into play for a lot of people even if they have previous opinions about the subject of the story.
But when at the end of it all, you cast a vote that fully depends on which side you tr
Don't all Trump supporters know he is lying about everything related to all of the trials? I thought the whole thing, as just mentioned by someone else, was that they think everyone lies about all these things, but that Trump is the only one who gets prosecuted for them (of course that is also a lie).
Bobo fighting the good fight against luciom's kaleidoscope of goalposts 👍
Don't all Trump supporters know he is lying about everything related to all of the trials? I thought the whole thing, as just mentioned by someone else, was that they think everyone lies about all these things, but that Trump is the only one who gets prosecuted for them (of course that is also a lie).
as I said, no one claims he followed election money management rules perfectly, as no one is ever expected to do that, and no one is ever prosecuted for that basically.
they all use political funds for their vacations, their mistresses, their clothes and so on, their and their families personal consumption.
so ofc he is liable for some rule breaking about that, that's a given, as everyone else with sizeable political funds to spend is and was.
that was something I wrote at the very beginning
as I said, no one claims he followed election money management rules perfectly, as no one is ever expected to do that, and no one is ever prosecuted for that basically.
they all use political funds for their vacations, their mistresses, their clothes and so on, their and their families personal consumption.
so ofc he is liable for some rule breaking about that, that's a given, as everyone else with sizeable political funds to spend is and was
Right, so why would it matter if someone who assumes everything Trump says is a lie, if even his supporters know that?
Basically everyone knows he is guilty. Everyone on this forum knows he is guilty. Every potential juror knows he is guilty. All the evidence that will be shown in the trial is already public knowledge. By all rights, he absolutely should go to prison. The only problem with anti-Trump jurors is that they very well may do what everyone knows should be done. However, if a Trump supporter is on the jury, he may very well vote non-guilty even though he knows Trump is guilty. So it really doesn't matter how many Trump-haters are on the jury, how many Democrats are on the jury, how many never-Trumper Republicans are on the jury, as all of them will give a fair verdict. The only people on the jury whose bias can make any kind of difference are people who are so pro-Trump that they basically want to do a jury nullification.
as I said, no one claims he followed election money management rules perfectly, as no one is ever expected to do that, and no one is ever prosecuted for that basically.
they all use political funds for their vacations, their mistresses, their clothes and so on, their and their families personal consumption.
so ofc he is liable for some rule breaking about that, that's a given, as everyone else with sizeable political funds to spend is and was
It's a dictionary definition Bribe no matter how you slice it. And everybody knows it.
Republican pols would've been stroking out on the Capitol lawn if they had any recent D Pres. in such a straight up jackpot. Clinton got impeached for 1 half-truth and a little fun during Executive Time--no other Pres. was torched for including his predecessor. But there was plenty of wailing lol
I guess it is a good thing Trump only lost one sexual assault/rape case based on he said/she said. Of course that was really a she said, because he decided to not attend the trial or testify. Hard to be mad about a he said/she said issue when he won't give his side of the story, but you be you.
In the hush money case, they are using his own organizations business records to hang him.
Which is another goalpost shift that still doesn't answer the question.
No, that's just your projection again. It's very possible to have an opinion on Trump and judge him fairly. It wouldn't be shocking, given your penchant for seeing things as very black and white, that you would be unable to do so. Others are capable of doing so.
Of course, those who could say "I ****ing hate the accused and I consider him an horrible person beyond repair
Fascist and extremist political parties (backed by fanatics) can’t conceive that some “voters » aren’t as fanatic as them and can have higher priorities and beliefs in how to judge people .
Politics and ideology isn’t everything for some and can have ethics , justice and moral values higher in their decisions process .
Some participants here just don’t get it ….
