To.
Get.
Attention.
Assuming the “shit posting” theory to be true (which we shouldn’t do, until proven), I’d assume that the general flow will be that Trump’s lawyers will call for a mistrial and then, somehow, someone has to prove the matter one way or the other.
Obviously, they could just invite the person in to the court but, if they don’t come voluntarily, does the judge have some power to compell them? Once demonstrated to have stated an untruth related to a criminal trial, that wasted everyone’s time, is there some way to punish this person?
Why shouldn’t we? Since when is the default assumption that everything anyone posts on social media is true? If I post in MPSIMS that I paid Juror #7 elventy-twelve thousand quatloos for a guilty verdict, should I be expected to report to a courtroom 3,000 miles away to give sworn testimony on it?
It should be pretty easy to check whether he has a cousin who was a juror or not.
Please pardon my snip.
I would consider your skepticism to be appropriate, IF the party posting the information had included any details that indicated an actual, verifiable insider information. Of which we have zilch. In the absence of any corroborating evidence, then yes, we should dismiss it out of hand, as @Smapti suggested.
Well, you’re certainly free to make the argument for making assumptions.
I’d give a 4% chance that it’s not the right answer but there’s nothing to be gained by claiming that you factually know the answer.
There was a good chance that Hunter’s laptop had come from Giuliani, just fresh back from meeting Russian agents in Ukraine. As it happens, that just doesn’t seem to have been true.
Sometimes, the obvious thing just isn’t correct. Usually it is. Sometimes, it isn’t. There’s nothing wrong with practicing patience and honesty about the current state of evidence.
But that’s not what you’re saying. You’re indicating unsubstantiated random rumors from the internet are worthy of legal action and investigation:
By that standard, each of us could mention that we’d heard Trump congratulate Canon for her obstructionism, and that her promised SCOTUS position would be done as soon as he was re-elected.
And she should then be fully investigated and brought into court to confirm or deny.
Again, not against journalism, investigation, but absent even the slightest supporting evidence, your assertation seems excessive.
The pertinent quote from the link I posted. “Take it easy… I’m a professional shitposter”
https://youtu.be/dhtYceuZPeY?t=203
There’s no assumption made.
The majority of trials are conducted according to the rules. The rules are that the jury should not discuss the trial with anyone. They are instructed not to tell their cousin that they will probably convict. Most juries obey the instruction. That’s not an assumption, that’s the default position.
Claiming that a juror DID discuss the case with their cousin is an unusual claim. It should not be believed without evidence.
The shitposter made this post on the day before the verdict was rendered, about 10 days ago. Presumably somebody on the court staff saw it soon after it was posted. So why did the judge wait this long to send this letter, or, maybe a better question is why did the judge even bother to mention this post?
I mean, it’s obvious that it’s a fake, so why bother?
Because he’s a good judge. He probably strongly suspects it’s fake, but better to clear it up now than wait until it hits the fan months from now.
There’s nothing to assume, because the poster said himself that he was a shitposter. When someone says that, either it’s true, or it’s true. The statement “I am a shitposter” inherently cannot be a lie.
- Dude regularly trolls a court website.
- Dude leaves a message about the most famous case in that court’s history, claiming to have insider knowledge that would possibly result in a mistrial if true.
- Dude admits he’s a troll.
At what point is it risky for me to assume he’s not trolling in this case?
I asked whether that would be the likely outcome or not.
We have laws around false reports of a crime. I could see this falling into a similar territory. But I could also see it not. Pranking the justice system is a questionable hobby.
I don’t personally care what the answer is.
What you actually said:
This is wrong on two counts. First, you say that the shitposting theory isn’t yet proven. It is. Second, you assume that someone has to prove something. They don’t. Trump’s lawyers would, of course, have to prove something in order to make anything of this in court, but they won’t, because they can’t, because what they have to prove isn’t true. The prosecution, meanwhile, doesn’t have to prove anything, because there’s no there there. They’re perfectly free to just completely ignore it, because that’s what one does with random Internet shitposts.
Now, whether the shitposter will himself face any legal action for this remains an open question. But that’s not what you were talking about before. And even there, the question isn’t whether the guy was shitposting. The question is just one of what the law in the relevant jurisdiction says.
A Facebook post is not a police report, and if I post on X The Site Formerly Known As Twitter that I was the Zodiac Killer, the police are under no obligation or expectation to take me seriously, nor should there be any expectation that I should be punished for using my Constitutional right to speech to make a statement that is clearly not intended to be taken as true.
So… They do?
I don’t know what you’re envisioning that’s different from me but I don’t see why you’re assuming that it’s different when we are both ending up in the same place.
And yes, it’s likely that Team Trump will fail to move forward with this because, almost certainly, the culprit and his motive have been correctly identified. They’ll just say that it happened and casually ignore that they refused to get their client out of jail when, by their own word, they could have.
I’m quite happy to treat any such activity by Team Trump as conclusive that the person has indeed been identified and that it’s been confirmed that they’re not the cousin of someone on the jury. Right now, though, we still don’t know their identity so it’s not conclusive.
That still doesn’t answer the question that asked, though.
I think at this point they are into double figures for claims of a mistrial, none of the other attempts have delayed the trial for a minute. I don’t see that this one will delay the sentencing any more than the previous ones did the trial
If they seriously expect to get a mistrial on the basis of the equivalent of a Dril tweet, then yes, the burden is on them.
Yes, and based on that assumption - which we all agree on - how would it go from there?