That’s sort of the whole point of our “Debate Tuesdays” as he’s coined our allowable discussion times. We talk things out, but he’s always a little short on details when pressed and he will not tell me who he gets his news from. He doesn’t watch TV, but he is listening to radio all day in his car. I just don’t know who. I get the feeling he’s embarrassed about his sources.
He’s not a complete Magat. He supports Pence certifying the election.
Well, there’s dead certain of guilt (which you don’t need), and dead certain the prosecution proved the case beyond a reasonable doubt (which you do need). Two slightly different things.
Hmmmm. Trump wants to be able to attack and set his death threat minions against the judges daughter, the trial witnesses, and the jury members. It’s not fair that he can’t insult and threaten them now that the trial is over.
I’m just going to throw this in here because it’s really pertinent to the verdict. It needs to be seen because I’m sure I’m not the only one who had forgotten it. The relevant part is just the first few minutes. This is 2016, and Trump is railing against the horror of a “constitutional crisis” if Hillary is elected because she “might” be indicted, and “might” face a trial, in which case government would grind to a halt. I wonder how he feels about this bit of rhetoric now that he’s a convicted felon?
From the very good TIME article (that the people who need to see probably won’t):
Myth: Juan Merchan is a judge on the New York County Supreme Court.
Response: Merchan’s correct title is “justice,” even though he presides in one of New York’s trial courts, which are called the Supreme Court of each county. The state’s highest court is called, oddly enough, the New York Court of Appeals.
People who watch Law & Order know this. The trial courts aren’t THE Supreme Court in spite of the name.
He covered this when it was pointed out how he used to rail against anybody who took the 5th amendment, because only criminals have anything to hide.
The response is that of course it’s different because Trump is being targeted unfairly, “every legal expert” says the cases are bogus, nobody’s ever seen such persecution, weaponized DOJ, etc etc.
Seems unlikely but possible. People close to the jurors might have figured out who they were based on their personal schedule.
A lot of people want to feel they are have some association with famous people and inside knowledge. Then there’s the whisper down the lane effect. Put it together, and a cousin might claim to know what they did not.
If proven, this would be a clear example of juror misconduct. It’s also clear that Trump’s lawyers would demand a mistrial be declared, since they’ll demand anything that will get the orange felon off the hook. It’s much less clear if such an enormous use of resources would be mandated or justified since this is not evidence of impartiality.
But it would be incredible if Trump’s amazing luck which put the Georgia trial on hold for frivolous reasons and gave him an incompetent Trumpist judge in the Florida documents case might let him skate once again on this one! The guy must have been born with a lucky horseshoe up his ass.
Sure, but the identity of the jurors are known to the court, presumably the identity of the poster is known, so while such a leak might not be provable, it could at least be established whether it was plausible or whether it was complete bullshit.
Suppose somebody on the jury told his family " I think the other 11 jurors will agree on a guilty verdict, so the trial will be over soon and we can get our family life back to our regular routine tomorrow, I 'll pick up little Timmy from day care. "
From a legal point of view, is this a minor issue, or a huge problem? The juror didnt say anything about the trial or the evidence.