All true.
Not only that, but jurors aren’t told ahead of time which case they’re being summoned to hear, and while some might deduce they could be a Trump prospective juror, they won’t have much time to erase every aspect of their internet history, etc.
Ah, ok - fair enough. Jam’s done, right there.
Just a note that those words are not relevant to the Jan 6th trial. He isn’t (yet) being charged with causing the riot. He’s being charged with trying to overturn the election with the false electors.
Would being a MAGA devotee itself cause someone to be stricken from the jury? That is, would the court remove that person rather than the prosecution having to use a strike on that person? Normally that kind of devotion to the defendant would cause a potential juror to be removed by the court, but this is an unusual case since the defendant and details of the case are so well known. If MAGA devotion is not enough to get someone stricken, then it’s conceivable that a true believer could get on the jury. If they’re not kicked out by the court, the defense is going to put every MAGA on their list of potential jurors. The prosecutors only have so many strikes that they can use to remove jurors. If more MAGAs are in the pool than prosecutors have strikes, then it’s very likely a MAGA will be in the jury.
P.S. If you’re a liberal in DC and get a jury summons, return it as soon as possible and say you don’t have any scheduling conflicts 
Which is one reason why Trump would very much like the venue moved out of DC.
No, it wouldn’t. If a MAGA devotee was unable to set aside his or her preconceived notions of evidence, then that’s a challenge for cause. If a MAGA devotee says he or she can set aside their preconceived notions and decide the case fairly, but they were heavily involved with MAGA activities, it could still be a challenge for cause. If not granted, then it could be a peremptory strike by the prosecution.
Alternatively, substitute Aspenglow for the MAGA devotee. It would work exactly the same.
The threshold isn’t that someone holds particular views. It’s whether one can set aside those views sufficiently to decide the case solely on its merits as presented by the attorneys in the case and as instructed by the judge.
(Pretty sure I’d be excused for cause if I tried to say I could set aside my prejudices. And rightly so.)
If they literally say they are devoted to the MAGA movement, I suspect yes.
But the Carroll juror who seemed to be MAGA didn’t say that. He was asked about what media he consumed, and told them, and also that he could put it aside and be fair, or something to that effect.
I do not believe you can ask a prospective juror who they voted for.
But the defense can’t just pick which jurors they want. If they wanted an all-MAGA jury, then they’d have to strike every non-MAGA juror. And there are going to be a lot more of those, and they don’t have any more strikes than the prosecution does.
I don’t think that’s written in stone. It isn’t in state court, at least. The parties can decide between themselves and the judge to increase the number of perempts based on the various aspects of the case if they feel it’s appropriate.
Why are Trump’s lawyers still blathering on about “free speech this,first amendment that…” It was made crystal clear in the indictment that Trump was free to say whatever bullshit lies he wanted about the election… The case is not about that, it’s about the actions he took to get false electors in place to circumvent the election results. Results that court after court after court had said were correct.
And what’s with the bullshit about how preventing Trump from revealing evidence (lying about it more likely) and threatening witnesses is somehow against his first amendment rights? Where in hell does it give anyone the right to intimidate witnesses against you when you’re on trial.
I guess they’re not even going to push this very hard in court - this is all simply bullshit for the MAGAts, in order to rile them up. In the end, are Trump’s lawyers all in for a civil war as well? Whatever it takes to get their shitstain client off?
For the following reasons:
Any word on where this complete pile of horseshit is going?
“WE WILL BE IMMEDIATELY ASKING FOR RECUSAL OF THIS JUDGE ON VERY POWERFUL GROUNDS,” the president wrote on Truth Social, “AND LIKEWISE FOR VENUE CHANGE”
My guess is … nowhere. Because there are no “powerful grounds” other than Trump does not like her skin color.
All good reasons. Plus, they have nothing else to argue. There is no obvious and legitimate defense to these charges. So they talk nonsense instead.
My link only says they can if there are multiple defendants, as in the Florida case. Not saying you are wrong, as I only checked the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, not the case law.
In any event, the defense gets more preemptory challenges than the prosecution in the federal criminal system.
That’s it. They don’t have a defense. I should have added another reason to my list.
They want to undermine any confidence the people have in our justice system as a whole.
As lawyers, what do they hope to get out of doing this? Fame? Money from MAGAts? (they better not hope on $$ from Trump). I’d expect that few lawyers have the goal of fucking up the justice system.
Indeed. Their case is a paper bag full of broken glass and dogshit, and also it’s on fire. There is no good argument. So, say whatever.
I suspect your assessment that few lawyers have the goal of fucking up the justice system is correct. Which might be one of the myriad of reasons Trump has difficulty finding competent lawyers. At this point, my assumption is that anyone who represents Trump is a true believer until I see evidence to suggest otherwise.
When life gives you crap you make crap-ade.