The jury will have at least two alternates selected, quite possibly more given how high-profile this case is, and they will sit through the whole trial, ready to be slotted in if one of the official jurors has to be excused during the proceedings.
We sat 6 alternates in a high profile criminal case I once worked on. It was a 4-month trial and if I recall correctly, we didn’t need any of them. But better to have them and not need them than get halfway through the case and not have them.
I know several very dedicated MAGAts who either have no social media presence at all, or only a very minimal one. I would bet this is fairly common among MAGAts. They also don’t generally share their views with casual acquaintances or in public forums of any kind. In other words, unless the lawyers do a deep dive into interviewing their personal connections, they could land on this jury with ease. Comforting, isn’t it?
Still worried, but that made me laugh out loud.
I mean, name one smart, educated informed MAGA.
Thinking about the upcoming trial:
What are the odds that Mark Meadows is a cooperating witness, and will appear to give testimony that is damaging to Trump? My guess is 99.4%
What are the odds that Trump will go off the rails at some point, and obliquely suggest that the world would be a better place if someone, anyone were to drive their car into Mr. Meadows?
10 am Friday is the hearing date and time. ( per msnbc) Should be fun as trump has said publicly that he will not obey any orders.
Count down to fines and a holding cell.
I’d love to see a cite to this. (I believe you, I just want to read it myself)
He did declare that he will refuse any order telling him to be quiet.
“I will talk about it, I will,” he said. “They’re not taking away my First Amendment rights.”
Now, that doesn’t necessarily mean he will not obey any orders, but he has said that he will not obey an order that won’t let him say whatever he wants.
Thanks. That should make for an interesting hearing.
There’s plenty of them, if you include amoral.
Case in point: Stephen “We All Float Down Here” Miller.
Just a prediction pulled from my posterior (how is that for alliteration?) but it’s possible that what he’s saying is just colorful Trump Tough Guy Talk for, “My lawyers will appeal the order on First Amendment grounds.” He might end up complying if it is made clear that there will be serious consequences if he doesn’t.
Has anyone ever succeeded in making consequences clear to Trump?
Thanks for the cite. As I read it (in conjunction with historic Trump BS) is that he’s telling his supporters he’s being silenced, and he’ll Fight Like Hell To Show Those Bullies! Or in other words, keep the grift rolling. Meanwhile, per the article, his -lawyers- aren’t saying that, but that they want fewer restrictions. So as usual, court of public opinion trial vs actual trial tactics. Knowing Trump and his lawyer’s efforts to work with/around him, they’ll try to keep (successfully) most of the damaging material out of his tiny little fingers, since he can’t be bothered to read things.
So Trump will keep talking in general terms, but still may trip over the line with the bluster and threats, and spew some 1/5 accurate things about a witness or the like, and end up with several pointed rebukes from the judge. I just don’t believe, in his mob boss way, he’ll quite get to something that cannot be dismissed as bluster, so I doubt he’ll end up with more than a verbal censure. Or, a true gag order if he goes farther than I expect.
He might. Or he might deliberately violate a court order to keep himself front and center in the news, and to show he’s willing to go to jail rather than be bossed around.
The problem with the jail thing is that, I think, it would immediately drop him a couple points in the polls. That’s what his aides will be saying, if he has any numerate ones left. But experience shows he will bounce back. The worst thing for him would be news stories saying he’s an old guy who no longer knows how to dominate the news.
Some here are probably convinced that he’s too much of a (if I can use my old-guy word) sissy to accept jail time as part of his play to be the victim. Me, I don’t believe in underestimating the adversary. So we’ll see.
I’m sure that there are many very clear Supreme Court verdicts on first amendment rights versus gag orders but Trump’s big path to winning is gaining immunity. If he can delay a verdict long enough then he’s effectively the winner so he has a motive to try and appeal everything that he can and make a big enough political stink that the Supreme Court might feel compelled to intervene.
Ideally, the judicial system goes into overdrive to respond to and toss all of the side-suits and appeals that are going to come flying.
Question: If a defense team openly and publicly announces their intentions to use every delay tactic in the book, can/will a judge do anything about that? I mean, it’s one thing to delay, delay, delay, but usually it’s done without fanfare with at least a fig-leaf of deniability. To publicly announce this as a strategy seems to be a slap in the face to the judicial process and to the judge indirectly.
Likewise if the defense lawyer goes to the media with completely fallacious arguments that they would never (and could never) use in court… are there any sanctions for this? Or are they allowed to spew complete and utter nonsense in the obvious attempt to pollute the jury pool before trial?
(As an example, blathering on about how this is a “first amendment case” for Trump, when it is clearly, obviously, plainly not, and never will be)
Well put.
I don’t have statistics, but think it extremely unlikely that you would start out 11-1 on the initial jury vote, on all counts, and then you have no movement with a final 11-1 hung jury on all counts. It is just too hard to stand up to group pressure, hour after hour, with supreme stubbornness.
There also is the possibility of 11 jurors going to the judge and saying that the consistent holdout was failing to deliberate.
The likelihood is that voir dire will result in a jury with weak political convictions. If they hang on some counts, many here will not think much of the acquittal holdouts. But their reasons for holding out may not map to partisan politics.
Now, if they hang on some counts but convict on others, it probably will not have a radical effect on the sentence, because judges usually let the sentences run concurrently.
Despite all the claims about this case being a slam dunk, something tells me that mixed verdicts, when the defendant is a politician, are pretty normal.
I’m fine with a mixed verdict as long as there’s “Guilty” on at least one count.
And a fine attached to the “guilty” the size of his ego.