Stoll's point wasn't about if he is or isn't. He won't get a fair trial in a liberal area, just like Clinton wouldn't have received a fair trial in Blount Co., Alabama.
Witness history in real time...
- Thread starter Bloom.
- Start date
Stoll's point wasn't about if he is or isn't. He won't get a fair trial in a liberal area, just like Clinton wouldn't have received a fair trial in Blount Co., Alabama.
Pitbulls are trash that should be eradicated from the earth. Being a pitbull is the last thing I'd want to use for an analogy.
He doesn’t want to see the point. Trump is one of the most polarizing leaders in history. He has almost zero chance of an impartial jury in the cities where his trials will be. In fact he’s hated in those cities just like Bloom and others hate him. Bloom has convicted him, period. If he says different, he’s lying.
If Trump committed crimes he needs punished. And when it’s over they need to go after others who’ve been given carte blanche in the past.
If you are not popular in a certain area of the country, then maybe you should be more careful to avoid allegedly committing felonies there, dontcha think?
Exactly and that's pretty much all that needed to be said.
Anyone that commits crimes should be punished.
And yet you and other posters are more worried about lobbing unfounded accusations of it being a political witch hunt or unfair because you THINK other politicians have gotten away with something.
I think you overestimate just how much the average person cares about politics. We talk about it here, on a daily basis, and that makes us believe that everybody is as vested as we are.
In reality, there's a ton of people who don't give a single care about such things. They don't vote. They don't get into arguments with friends and family about it. They just go about their lives trying to make enough money to keep eating and keeping a roof over their heads.
There are absolutely going to be members of the jury pool who will be biased one way or the other. It's up to the lawyers to try and weed out any that they feel are biased, but in the end, I think that percentage is smaller than you imagine it to be.
I've been in a court jury a few times. In every case, they instruct the jury up front that it doesn't matter what you believe about the trial, the defendant, or the world outside. All that matter is the facts of the case that are presented in that court room. I was on a jury where a guy was being charged with gun possession and he was a former felon who could not own a gun. Personally, I though he kinda got a raw deal. I could think of several ways that the defense could have argued a reasonable doubt case. They didn't do that though. We all voted to convict. The jury has to vote based upon what is presented. Not what they feel.
I have faith that the jury they use will be able to do that. Maybe I'm wrong, but my experience tells me that it should be possible.
In the Carroll case, one of the jury members was a self-claimed Trumper and Trump still lost. Not everyone will be tainted by their biases in making decisions as a juror.
I understand what you’re saying but Remember the OJ jury?
I’ve been on one jury. I was the foreman and irrespectively of what the judge said and what I tried to remind the jurors, people had their prejudices.
Stoll assumes everyone is like him and would vote based on politics instead of facts.
You're counting on the entire jury not only being prejudiced against trump but being incapable of looking past that prejudice.
I remember parts of the OJ trial, and I do remember that it took months and months. I also remember that two of the witnesses for the prosecution ended up being more hurtful than helpful. Kato ended up being declared a hostile witness (even though the prosecution was the one who put him up there) and a detective for the case ended up pleading the 5th multiple times in court (as an aside, believe it or not, the guy works for Fox News now). Between that and the glove, it created just enough reasonable doubt.
As a curiosity question, as the foreman of your jury, you believe that you saw prejudices in your jury, did it affect the outcome?
Well that’s interesting. I think one attorney did a great job cleaning up his client and the other attorney (losing attorney) did a horrible job.
I think the right decision was rendered but if we had known what winning attorney (friend and client) told me latter about what he hid in his client’s appearance, there might have been a different outcome. Most likely it would just have taken longer to make the same decision.
You are correct. There’s no way you would look past your prejudices.
lol. You would be wrong but even if so, I don't represent everyone in the jury.
I realize you can't go without throwing insults but that doesn't make your point like you seem to think it does.
I wasn’t throwing any insult. There’s no way you would drop your bias against Trump if you were on the Jury. In the cities where trials will be, most of the jury pool shares your opinion of Trump.
Am I the only one that thinks that this would never happen in other countries? For those who think Trump is a terrible person and a poor President why would you want your country to have the embarrassment of a trial of a former President put on TV? Are all trials going to be made open to TV? The past few years we seem to be a country fixed on self embarrassment and one of extremely poor choices.
I know quite a few Trump supporters (and no I'm not one) that could care less about these indictments or the trial. Before it comes up they could care less if it were Biden on trial especially if he is not the sitting President.
Such a waste of time and money, but hey on a lighter note was in downtown Louisville this weekend and only got asked for money five time and only saw about 25 homeless in the block I walked to get to my car.
I know quite a few Trump supporters (and no I'm not one) that could care less about these indictments or the trial. Before it comes up they could care less if it were Biden on trial especially if he is not the sitting President.
Such a waste of time and money, but hey on a lighter note was in downtown Louisville this weekend and only got asked for money five time and only saw about 25 homeless in the block I walked to get to my car.
Last edited:
LOL
I've done no such thing. Other than his idiotic phone call to the Georgia SS, I have zero clue of the details of any evidence the state has, nor do I know how it's viewed under Georgia law.
You have to quit projecting. You're ratting yourself out.
the homeless are ubiquitous. they are like pot smoke. this is joe biden's america. worse is that where i exit the highway is a family who sits to collect money. three kids under 5 years old. 100 degrees out. there are jobs everywhere. the kids should be taken away from the mom and dad. i'd take those kids in a heartbeat. little brown kids. guarantee you they already have better touch on the ball than my own kidsAm I the only one that thinks that this would never happen in other countries? For those who think Trump is a terrible person and a poor President why would you want your country to have the embarrassment of a trial of a former President put on TV? Are all trials going to be made open to TV? The past few years we seem to be a country fixed self embarrassment and one of extremely poor choices.
I know quite a few Trump supporters (and no I'm not one) that could care less about these indictments or the trial. Before it comes up they could care less if it were Biden on trial especially if he is not the sitting President.
Such a waste of time and money, but hey on a lighter note was in downtown Louisville this weekend and only got asked for money five time and only saw about 25 homeless in the block I walked to get to my car.
i've never understood why anyone would care what other countries think of us. as for trump he's running for president again. all things change because of that imo. he doesn't get a pass. and there's probably a public service benefit to it being televised
Last edited:
just because you are incapable of looking past your biases doesn't mean other people can't.
You can sleep a little better tonight knowing your buddy isn't convicted yet so there's a chance lol
He’s not my buddy and your post shows there’s no way you could set aside your biases to set on his jury.You can sleep a little better tonight knowing your buddy isn't convicted yet so there's a chance lol
As much time as you spend yabbutting for the guy, you can't pretend he's not your buddy.
I don't care what other countries think and I don't think we should just saying other countries would never do self inflicting wounds like we do, that for the most part are done solely to further divide the country.
I will be glad if he is not allowed or this causes him to withdrawal from the Presidential race, but honestly I don't see it happening. The political landscape of America is so f'ed up I wonder if there is any bringing it back.
I am ignorant trying to engage with you.
Of course he might not be guilty.
It's not difficult. Some people like to make it difficult because they assume all of this is binary.
If I were called to serve on a Trump case jury, I would have to tell the judge that I thought Trump was an asshole, that I wanted him behind bars, and I didn't much care how that was accomplished.
Would you tell the judge you thought Trump was being railroaded and there was no way in hell you'd vote to convict him?
Let's do some math. No crazy math. Stay with me. Let's say it's a city that votes 75-25 Dem over GOP.
What are the odds that you get 12 out of 12 jurors who will be Dem, no matter what?
it's (0.75)^12 = 0.032
So there is a 3.2% chance that you get 12 out of 12 jurors who will be Dem, no matter what.
Michael Jordan shot 83.5 percent from the free-throw line in his NBA career. The odds of him missing 2 out of 2 with the game on the line would be (0.165)^2 = 2.7% chance.
So your lead-pipe lock scenario to doom Trump is like banking on Michael Jordan missing both free throws at the end of a game.
Then do this with 4 juries.
Amazing how popular the word “binary” has become.
I would say I thought it was political prosecution and you will have to show me he broke the law because going in, I don’t think he did.
In those cities most republicans would have the same disgust for Trump that Aloha has.
Do you think an unbiased jury can be put together for Trump?
Do you think if Trump shut his mouth and road off into the sunset, these prosecutions would have happened?
Good. That's how it's supposed to work. In my case as well. We would both be dismissed, of course.
Jurors are picked and assigned randomly. They are vetted by the judge (in Federal cases) or the attorneys (in state court). That's after being given questionnaires and whatnot. I assume the declarations on those forms and in the courtroom are under oath.
I agree.
I am not sure you can find any community in the country that isn’t biased one way or another with Trump.
Our system of justice depends on it. Do you think Trump is helping to make that happen?
Assuming you mean he accepted the election results... With the GA and Jan 6 cases, probably not, since they are based on Trump's actions trying to overthrow the election. They might have still gone after him on the documents case and the business fraud case.
I agree with you on first answer but not the second. I think if Trump walked away 1-31-21 and stayed out of politics, he’d be playing golf with no problems right now.
I'll put you down for swallowing the ELECTION INTERFERENCE!!! excuse then.
Similar threads
