Actually, it’s a 22 minute video that hits most of the points that we’ve already discussed, because the SDMB is that good. The crimes charged largely sidestep all the Free Speech issues by charging based on the conspiracy and the actions to further the conspiracy, and that for most of the charges, Trump’s state of mind / knowledge of the truth or lack thereof of any actual fraud are equally not important.
I’ve watched the video and it is pretty dense with legal detail. I am not sure how it could be summarized well. (FWIW I think @ThelmaLou would like this video…just a guess.)
But they do seem particularly credulous and prone to following the crowd. I can see the combination of peer pressure of the other jurors, the authority figure of the judge insisting on relying only on evidence heard at trial, and the tenacity of the foreperson insisting on voting until everyone agrees one way or another to sway all but the most dyed in the wool freakshow of a MAGAt. And presumably those will be weeded out during voir dire.
I rather liked the “crow bar” example. Really good explanation of single thought to conspiracy.
Legal Eagle is a popular channel on this forum, and frequently cited. People just like to know if a new video is posted relevant to a particular subject being discussed.
There was no specific point about it that interested me, I just thought that several other people might like to know.
Fair enough.
They are also very susceptible to peer pressure & extremely gullible. It would not be that difficult to persuade an isolated Trumper to vote ‘guilty’ (by a competent persuader).
Oops, ninja’d by MulderMuffin
So they think that the truth is out there? 
Maybe.
I presume there will be a change of venue request. Looking at this criteria, it seems to me that such a request should be granted:
It will be extremely difficult to find an unbiased jury anywhere. But given that the January 6 assault occurred in D.C., it might be more fair to Mr. Trump for the jury to come from anywhere else. And he, like any other defendant, should be treated as fairly as practicable.
This, to me, is the most salient point.
If there is no reasonable list of clear alternative venues where the elements that constitute insurmountable prejudice can be definitively avoided, it would be my (IANAL) guess that the court will err toward defaulting to the scene of the crime.
I think a change of venue is pretty unlikely in this case.
Especially if it was afforded to few or none of the Jan 6 defendants.
Let me be the first to predict without hesitation, there will be no granting of a change of venue in this case.
Beat me to it. There are few sure things in law, but this is one of them. The trial will not be moved. (and, if I’m wrong about that, I’ll add that there is no way in Hell it would be moved to West VIrginia, which is what I heard will be requested).
I accept the multiple predictions, in this thread, that change of venue is unlikely.
However, I found something suggesting Trump should be regarded differently from others. This is from a decision turning down a January 6 defendant change of venue request:
By contrast, the juror pool members will have heard of Mr. Trump and seen media reports about him specifically.
The same is true of jury pool members nationwide. But the criteria I linked to earlier did not give national prejudicial publicity as a reason to deny change of venue.
As has been noted, Trump wants a move to West Virginia. I instead suggest Puerto Rico, since most jury pool members there would not have voted for or against Trump. This is because United States citizens, living in Puerto Rico, can vote for president only in primaries. Expensive? Yes, fair justice is expensive.
P.S. If a judge did accept the change of venue request, while nixing West Virginia, could they, even theoretically, move it to a U.S. territory?
It’s unlikely because 1) they don’t have to and 2) they don’t want to.
They’ll take their time and have a thorough jury selection process. But that’s all he gets. Sucks to be Trump I guess.
ETA: I’ve made several motions to change venue in criminal cases in my career. Always denied, with one exception. Small county where everyone had an opinion. Even in that case the Judge made us try to pick a jury for around two days before he gave up and granted my motion. So, I’ll modify my prediction to say if they try voir dire in DC and really can’t find jurors, then perhaps they’ll move it. Having tried the J6 defendants (admittedly different to some degree) they have a good sense of how jury selection will go.
For that matter, you’re assuming that Trump team would accept that as a choice of venue.
Ever single legal action to date by that team seems to support that the only venue they consider ‘fair’ is one that is helplessly biased in his favor. After all, he objects to being judged by a US citizen because they had Mexican Ancestry after all. Thus, they would likely only support white, male, Christian judges and jurors.
So, no. Let us be clear, Trump is entitled to a fair trial. His actions, not those of anyone else, have made it nearly impossible to get a bias-free or absolutely uni-formed jury anywhere in this nation (and he’s entitled to a Jury of his fellow Americans). I don’t think there is any evidence (opinion, sure, but no evidence) that DC is substantially more biased than any urban area in the US, and the Feds have no binding reason to select a venue that is -favorable- to a defendant. That in and of itself would be prejudicial. So all else balancing out, having the trial in the region of the crime committed is the default, and should be respected.
It’s not like the DOJ went judge shopping well outside of their normal range in order to make sure they selected someone quite literally beholden to their interests, unlike Trump.
Edit: Nevermind!
It’s frustrating that the side of law and order are trying so hard to do everything right and by the book to save the country. And instead of letting the process play out, Trump is shitting on the book and throwing the smeared pages at everyone. It’s so lopsided it’s hard to get your head around. We’ve never seen a defendant behave the way he is and it’s extremely unsettling to know the stakes and feel so uncertain about the outcome.
Sometimes it gets to me, too.
Trump just gave Pence a nickname, albeit a heavily recycled one.
Does THIS count as witness intimidation?
The jurors are going to be drawn from the population of Washington, DC, which is something like 90% Democratic. And starting from that population, they’re going to be getting rid of anyone with extreme bias.
And then, if the jury is hung, they’ll have another trial, also drawn from the population of DC, and also filtered for the crazies.
There’s a chance of a hung jury. But there’s no chance at all of a Not Guilty verdict, and that’s the only thing that would stop Smith’s team.