Trump gets gagged, McCarthy gets booted. What's next in Trumpworld?

[AcrossthePond55]

Roll up, roll up for the GOP Mystery Tour!! Trump thread lost-the-count!!!

The Nodfather

Don Snoreleone, The Nodfather...

😂

I've just noticed this heading under "trending" in the Washington Post. Is it me, or is this not just absolutely shocking to be reading in the twenty-first century?

"Red states threaten librarians with prison — as blue states work to protect them
Dozens of measures advanced in recent years aim to either restrict which books libraries can offer and threaten librarians for handing out “obscene” or “harmful” titles — or to prohibit such bans or harassment."
https://wapo.st/3Q8un7v

Shocking - I agree.
DP's family in U.S. has several members who work in education. Most in Blue states so generally OK to speak/teach freely but one is in Arizona and they are seriously thinking of moving to Ireland if Trump "wins" in November.

Meanwhile, Day 3 begins and already jurors are afraid of being targeted by the Orange one and his flying monkeys.

From Washington Post
The third day of jury selection in Donald Trump’s hush money trial in Manhattan started Thursday morning with one of the seven jurors sworn for the case saying she wanted out and being excused, and lawyers raising questions about a second one.
^^

Jurors’ names are not being released publicly. But the woman said that after news reports described her profession and other details, friends, colleagues and family members conveyed to her that she had been identified as a potential juror. The fate of a second sworn-in juror — No. 4 — was up in the air Thursday morning after prosecutors said they had discovered additional information that called into question the veracity of that juror’s statements.

^^
A total of 12 jurors and about six alternates are needed to hear the criminal case. Prospective jurors are being questioned about their social media habits and feelings about the former president, who has been observing the process this week in court.
New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan, who is presiding over the trial, said in court Tuesday that he hoped to get to opening statements Monday

From the NYT live updates:
Quote:
The first potential juror that is being questioned this morning says she has previously worked as a law clerk and has discussed the legal merits of this case with many of her coworkers. Justice Merchan asks if that would influence her if she’s chosen for the jury. She paused before saying she could be fair, but then added: “It is hard to unring a bell.”
Unquote.

Pardon my stupidity, but given the coverage Trump and his machinations have been getting since before he became President, how on earth can anybody on this jury be considered to be "fair", whichever side they are on?

More

The prosecution suggests not asking about former and current employers so as to reduce chances of jurors being publicly identified. The defense responds that the judge should instruct the media not to report on this information.

Judge Merchan rules that the answers to the 2 questions about current and former employers will be redacted from the transcript and he directs the media NOT to report on this information.

Pardon my stupidity, but given the coverage Trump and his machinations have been getting since before he became President, how on earth can anybody on this jury be considered to be "fair", whichever side they are on?

Originally (in merrie old ingerlande) the whole idea of a jury was 12 men who did know the accused. Their job was more to vouch for the defendant.

Not quite sure at what point the concept of an impartial jury crept in.

Not only were they supposed to know the defendant, they had an obligation to study and establish what the law was in a given case, and to investigate the case itself to try to establish the facts. Kind of like early policemen, since those didn't exist at the time

I too am unsure when the concept of an impartial jury crept in, but it is enshrined in the sixth amendment to the constitution of the United States: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.” So it's been there in American pretty-much since the beginning, or since 1791 at least.

Well the US was a conscious attempt to build on what worked - no baby bathwater situation for them. Presumably the idea being how could they replicate the British class system without letting on to the useful idiots who thought they really were getting a new deal. Hence the camouflage of Burke, and Payne and Rousseau etc.

So no shame in retaining - and formalising - trial by jury as was.

Hence the retention of the quaint notion of Grand Juries. Something England lost over a century ago, and unlike Empire, seems seldom missed.

@Jaichangecentfoisdenom

Pardon my stupidity, but given the coverage Trump and his machinations have been getting since before he became President, how on earth can anybody on this jury be considered to be "fair", whichever side they are on?

This is an issue that crops up in just about every criminal case that has any type of publicity. It's usually the defense saying that their client cannot get a fair trial and usually asking for a change of venue. IIRC I think that Trump's team argued exactly that about 'liberal' Manhattan.

But it's not really about jurors being absolutely ignorant of any pretrial publicity, it's about jurors being able to honestly state "Yes, I know what's been said but I can discount that and deal with the facts only". I've been on a jury like that, where the 'incident' was widely reported in local media and much speculation (media and the locals) about the incident and the defendant were made and yet I was honestly able to deal with 'just the facts, ma'am' and the jury was able come to a verdict that wasn't coloured by publicity. Was it hard to disregard occasional personal thoughts or bits of gossip that we remembered and stick only to the facts and make a verdict on those facts and not what we may have thought personally about the defendant? No, it really wasn't because there wasn't anything larger at stake.

But could I do it in Trump's case? No, I don't think I could because there is so much at stake. It would be hard for me to disregard the possible positive affect on the coming election by a guilty verdict. Do I think others could? Absolutely, but they're better people than I am, Gunga Din. And on that, do I think people are going to lie to get on that jury. Yep, absolutely.

Very grateful to all of you who kindly replied to my question about "twelve good wo/men and true". Food for thought. I know I would be like you, @AcrossthePond55, if I happened to be on Trump's jury (or for that matter, Farage's or Johnson's, if only they could ever be called to account for what I consider to be their treacherous behaviour). Not for the first time on these threads, I am despairing of this world.

The prospective Trump jurors are a highly educated bunch. The first 9 potential jurors in the box this morning include 8 with college degrees, four of whom have advanced degrees (one JD; three MBAs)

They include a lawyer, a hedge funder, an investment banker, a woman in publishing, a teacher turned stay-at-home mom, and a retired college administrator. And according to @nytimes, these are not the jurors Trump’s looking for.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/10/nyregion/trump-jury-hush-money-trial.html?unlocked_article_code=1.lU0.9kmi.lZ61_xUE1gOe&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare&ugrp=u&sgrp=c-cb

The nub of the matter is whether a juror can be impartial in this specific instance. With the facts being the arbiter.

Or to spin it another way, I'd rescue even Trump from drowning of I could - for all my feelings.

The full 12-person jury and one alternate in Donald Trump's hush money criminal trial have been seated.

The court will resume tomorrow and jury selection is expected to continue until all the alternates are chosen.

Ha! Actions have consequences.

Judge shoots down request to tell Trump who the first 3 trial witnesses will be
.
By Devlin Barrett


Just before court broke for the day, Donald Trump paid a steep price for his social media posts about witnesses and others in the case.
Trump's lawyer Todd Blanche asked the judge to instruct the prosecutors to tell them who the first three planned government witnesses will be.

^^
Prosecutor Joshua Steinglass said no. “Mr. Trump has been tweeting about the witnesses. We are not telling them who the witnesses are.”
It is a significant disadvantage for the defense team not to know which witnesses are coming, because it makes it much harder to prepare their cross-examination.

^^
Crestfallen, Blanche offered to promise the court that Trump would not tweet about those pending witnesses.
“I don’t think you can make that representation,” New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan replied.

^^
Blanche tried another tack, offering not to tell Trump who the witnesses would be.
Merchan again refused and said he wouldn’t force prosecutors to tell the defense the names.
“I’m not going to order them to do it, no, I will see you tomorrow morning,” Merchan said before leaving the bench.

And on that, do I think people are going to lie to get on that jury? Yep, absolutely
**
This is my biggest worry, that a pro Trump supporter will lie to make himself look moderate, then vote to acquit regardless of any evidence.
Trump only needs ONE juror.

Being a highly educated professional does not preclude being pro Trump, as I discovered during my recent holiday in USA

And let's bear in mind, a Trump supporter, educated Christian or not, will have absolutely no scruples about lying in court, as they have their own version of the truth which even if completely false, is equally as valid as the actual truth. If you see what I mean.

do we need a new thread? Help!

We do!

#131. Lumme. Paging @AcrossthePond55 ?

Started a new thread.
I've name changed a few times since the heady days of 2015-2020 😫 but I'm fully back for 2024. After November... who knows?

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5058103-trump-trial-time-banish-all-memories-of-mueller

Are there any intelligent Trumps supporters ?

You know, DH and I have figured out that there is 'intelligence' and there is 'smartness'.

There may be intelligent Trump supporters, but they aren't very smart.

How about some good Trump memes to assist in filling up this thread. I'll start.

Aaaand another, re his attitude during the pandemic.