Gee, do you think being the creator of the Clusterfuck thread would be a problem for me?
And especially his golf bags! I knew a guy who would stuff all his secrets way down in the bottom under the clubs. His wife found them anyway. 
FBI Search and Seizure at Trump's Mar-A-Lago Residence, August 8, 2022, Case Dismissed July 15, 2024
You know how we went into Pakistan without permission to get Bin Laden? I think the DOJ has grounds to search fucking Saudi Arabia and fucking Moscow at this point. Or months ago. DOJ knew what we know long ago.
The bathroom behind the tacky shower curtain?
I had to laugh today when I heard this photo referred to as, “Bed, Bath and Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.”
Not funny, but funny. 
Let’s be honest, I don’t think anyone on the SDMB is impartial enough to serve on a jury for Trump. I include those few favorable to Trump here.
I have to say…
Seriously, isn’t this one indictment enough? It’s stunning to me that there might be more, maybe even a lot more to this.
Eh…
I know it was said upthread that federal judges usually do their own voir dire, but in the 2 federal trials I had the lawyers were allowed to ask questions (it is typical, in all jury trials, that the judge starts the questioning of potential jurors, but then the lawyers customarily get some time to ask their own questions).
One use of voir dire might be to try to rehabilitate a prospective juror who had said something the other side is likely to use as a basis to strike.
So, I might say
“Well, Atamsama, you have said that you participate in an online message board that describes the defendant as a cheese faced shit eating gibbon? But are you able to put those feelings aside and review the evidence fairly? Remember, the defendant doesn’t have to prove anything. Whether you like him or not, are you willing to hold the government to its burden of establishing that a crime occurred beyond and to the exclusion of a reasonable doubt?”
You might say yes.
Sure, the defenze may still choose to strike you (each side gets a certain number of preemptory challenges that they can use for people they don’t like), but you might not be eliminated “for cause” if you can assure the court that you can put your biases aside.
(That’s how maga supporters can end up on the jury, as one apparently did during the Carroll defamation lawsuit. You’ll be amazed what jurors decide to do once presented with actual testimony and other evidence, and then are given a solemn oath to apply the facts to the law).
Can – and often have – vouch/ed for the truth of this.
Sure, I mean, I think I can be impartial. I’m just not sure I’m correct in thinking so.
Ok, I’m going to lawyer you right now:
“If we were all getting on a plane right now, and the pilot came on the intercom and said ‘Ladies and Gentleman, I think I can fly us to our destination, would you want to get on that flight?”
Collective shaking of heads.
“No, right? Safely flying a plane is a matter of life and death. We need to know that our pilot is confident she can fly that plane.”
I take a few steps toward you. I look into your eyes.
“This case doesn’t involve life or death. But it does involve the life of this defendant. So we can’t have people try to follow the law. We need people who know that they’ll do that duty.”
I pause a beat
“So, I need to know. Can you fulfill that role?”
I turn around, walk back to the lecturn, before causally turning back to the pool of potential jurors. I notice the guy sleeping in the back, and write a Z next to his place on my seating chart.
“I mean, it’s okay if you can’t. We just need honest answers here. And if you’re not up to doing that duty - that constitutional duty - we do have other fine people on this panel who, I’m sure - “
At this point, I look over at the young college student amongst the group and give up a smile
“I’m sure can.”
Now I return my gaze to you. My smile fades. I blink slowly.
“So what is it? Do you think you can be an impartial juror, or do you know you can?”
Given my years of experience as an admin over on Wikipedia, where I had to be impartial all the time on stuff I really do care about, yeah, okay, I know I can do it.
If I acquitted him I’d probably feel like crap though.
Let me try to get bounced from any future juries.
No, one indictment isn’t enough! He should be indicted in every state and city that he’s ever set foot in, because just by being there he committed a dozen crimes!
More realistically, Jack Smith’s probe is not confined to the classified documents. It’s probably been mentioned somewhere above, but he is also investigating the Georgia election interference.
His pursuing this case is vitally important in two ways. First, it should return proof that Trump tried to illegally change the results of a fair presidential election. Second, it could help a prosecution by the Georgia DA, which as a state trial would not be subject to presidential pardon. That may be in process.
The importance of this indictment cannot be considered on its own. Trump’s continual procession of crimes all have to be legally charged. One blow after another. No David exists to take down this Goliath with a single rock.
I mean, yes, and Nevada election interference, and the January 6 riots. But I was talking about specifically the document case. It boggles my mind that Mar A Lago might only be the first part of Trump’s document theft and everything that came afterward. Because there’s already so much.
Those other cases seem like a different topic in my mind.
I would reply
“Respectfully, your honor….it’s Cheeto faced shit eating gibbon.
Since you asked me specifically, and even though I don’t really know:
I think that one of the lawyers may ask the judge to include this question. Reading the New Yorker article on the E. Jean Carroll voir dire, I think that judge might have allowed it – just very literally as you word it – a yes/no question. Just as they had allowed the yes/no about Truth Social.
Perhaps half would answer your question yes, and half no.
By itself, that yes/no
A. Isn’t obviously useful.
and
B. Could help the other side as much as it helps me.
What the Carroll judge might not have liked was a followup where jurors had to try to remember posts going back many years. It would take a lot of time, and I wonder how accurate the answers would be. The prospective juror would have already professed impartiality to get to that point in the voir dire, so they would likely characterize their web/Facebook posts as even-handed.
If I was the lawyer, for either side, I might instread see if the judge would go for this as a replacement for just asking about Truth Social:
List all social media platforms or web site where you ever posted about Donald Trump.
If I was the prosecutor, and the juror mentioned a far right-wing site, it would be worth using a preemptory.
The defense could use the same info, but I’m thinking they never heard of Straight Dope 
I was fairly worried upthread there would be evidentiary appellate issues/delays. After a bit of research, there will 100% be pre-trial evidentiary appeals. It’s just the nature of a “top secret” case. The defense will be able to exploit the nature of the case (especially to the public), and the Judge is a novice in this types of case - most are.
I’d think we’d all agree that you can’t convict someone using secret evidence - they have a right to know the nature of the evidence. If the Jury can see it, the Defendant can see it and use it to defend themselves. The flip side is, the Gov’t has a right to keep very important information secret. Those fundamentals converge and its left for the Judge to decide a host of complicated issues on how the Defense can use it, and how to present the evidence to the jury.
I might have missed it, but the Confidential Information Procedures Act (CIPA) is a procedural statute that tries to help navigate these issues. It’s complicated at best. I mean, it’s hard to find a good link to it. It’s alluded to in this NBC article:
Brandon Van Grack, a former Justice Department national security prosecutor and a lead prosecutor in the Mueller investigation, noted that the use of classified documents involves a separate discovery and litigation process, under the Classified Information Processing Act, or CIPA.
“They will create significant delay and litigation risk,” he wrote on Twitter adding that most judges do not have experience with the process. “This process takes time and will be unfamiliar to the judge.”
Most of google turns up more niche National Security websites, like articles on Lawfare
The first step will be the arraignment on Tuesday. A key next question is whether other indictments will follow, either in Washington or, less likely, in New Jersey—where the conduct at Bedminster took place. Next will come, presumably, motions to dismiss and a lot of discovery disputes and litigation under the Classified Information Procedures Act (CIPA).
The CIPA litigation will tend to drag out. Other cases heavy with classified material have often required interlocutory appeals on CIPA matters, so don’t expect this case to go to trial quickly.
or Emptywheel.
I imagine we’ll get more familiar with CIPA soon.
I can understand why a lawyer would ask those questions, but does it lead to impartial juries, or to juries full of swaggering, overconfident people who don’t examine their own thoughts and beliefs?
It has been memed with that caption.
Oh, I was sure it had. I’m always the last person on the planet to learn about memes. But I found it funny. 
I hadn’t seen it before and had to share that caption with my wife.
I hope she laughed as hard as I did.