You, the Juror

[RoryN]

I think I'd have a hard time serving on a jury today. I would get anxiety about having to work with other jurors.

All the evidence available would indicate that the potential for there to be some real morons on a jury right now is high - and I wouldn't be able to just rub my temples with my eyes shut; I'd have to say something.

 

[Oldermom935]

The trial is about whether he broke current laws. I'm talking in general that laws shouldn't be ambiguous on the matter.

But as I said the jurors should be open minded and narrow there decisions to the charges, and evidence or lack of to make a fair and impartial decision.

 

[ll74]

But as I said the jurors should be open minded and narrow there decisions to the charges, and evidence or lack of to make a fair and impartial decision.

The jurors should listen to the judge's instructions on the matter and do what they are tasked to do.

The law is somewhat ambiguous for no reason.

 

[Oldermom935]

I think I'd have a hard time serving on a jury today. I would get anxiety about having to work with other jurors.

All the evidence available would indicate that the potential for there to be some real morons on a jury right now is high - and I wouldn't be able to just rub my temples with my eyes shut; I'd have to say something.

The problem is those "morons" we encounter every day in our lives and they deserve to serve just as it dictates. " a jury of our peers".

 

[Oldermom935]

The jurors should listen to the judge's instructions on the matter and do what they are tasked to do.

The law is somewhat ambiguous for no reason.

The jury should listen to everything!

 

[ll74]

The jury should listen to everything!

They have specific instructions regarding their duty as a juror. That includes listening to all evidence presented.

 

[Oldermom935]

They have specific instructions regarding their duty as a juror. That includes listening to all evidence presented.

Exactly.

 

[Comshaw]

If you were brought in to be considered a juror in the Trump hush money trial, would you opt out as being able to render a fair verdict, or would you say you could be fair and move to the next round? Would you survive that round based on your social media posting on Trump?

I would have to raise my hand and opt out, although, given the chance, I'd quibble with the "fair" characterization. I think enough is objectively known, including Trump's own statements and behavior, to be "fair" in concluding that he's guilty as sin for those and so much more charges. I also know, though, that I couldn't withstand scrutiny of my social media postings on the rottenness of the man.

Would I opt out? My philosophy about jury duty is that if I'm ever sitting in the accused chair I would like as many people who are fair and can impartially apply the law despite their personal biases as can be found. I've sat on three juries. All three times I tried to put aside what I had read in the paper or watched on other news media (in a small community it's impossible not to see things about a charged crime). I can't say I was perfect at it, but I tried my best. In one of those trials everyone on the jury felt the accused was guilty, but the prosecution didn't prove their case so we acquitted the defendant. We later learned the defendant probably did what was alleged, but the prosecution didn't present some of the evidence they had because they were saving it for a separate trial.

I didn't feel bad about that verdict. The keystone of our justice system is "innocent until PROVEN guilty". It isn't and never should be "Guilty because I think they are".

Yeah it would be hard to put aside everything heard on the media about Trump. But if our system of justice is to work as it should that's exactly what every juror needs to do.

Comshaw

 

[Oldermom935]

Thank you gentlemen for the conversation but I must take my leave.

 

[RoryN]

The problem is those "morons" we encounter every day in our lives and they deserve to serve just as it dictates.

In previous posts of yours, you invoke Hunter and Joe Biden in defense of Trump.

So, your defense of morons in general makes sense.

 

[KeithD]

If, under oath, you're asked about all websites where you discuss news, politics and/or current events and you do not mention Lit or similar sites, are you subject to perjury?

Yes, but I wouldn't mention Lit. anyway. And I might say the question was intrusive (and go fuck yourself).

With me, it's moot. I've posted what I think of Trump in my true name on social media--certainly enough that the defense would strike me off. And I think my postings have been objective and as fair to Trump as he allows.

 

[KeithD]

I think I'd have a hard time serving on a jury today. I would get anxiety about having to work with other jurors.

At my age, I'd have a hard time if they didn't allow for a bathroom break every hour. I normally could go longer, but just deny me time/access to a bathroom and that's when my system demands attention. The one time I've been called for jury duty, which was fairly recent, I did say "Sure, if I can be given a bathroom break every hour," and they struck me off.

 

[jaF0]

I literally canNOT sit upright and still for any period of time. I used to be able to drive for several hours or until I needed gas. Not any more. Last time I drove more than 2 or 3 hours, I had to stop and get out just to get the cramps out.

 

[HisArpy]

Spin away.

The case isn’t about hush money for a pornstar. It’s about:

FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE

Care to mention why Trump is unlikely to take the stand?

What false entry did he make? Did he not pay Cohen for legal services?

The indictment is based on the theory that Trump used PERSONAL monies to make the payment for the settlement agreement while he was a candidate for President and didn't declare it as a campaign contribution.

Which would have required using campaign cash to pay Stormy Daniels to sign the settlement agreement and drop her lawsuit against "private citizen" Trump. Which would have been illegal.

So what "false entry" did Trump make? He paid from his personal finances for legal services which resulted in settlement in a lawsuit against him as a private citizen.

 

[AlexBailey]

What false entry did he make? Did he not pay Cohen for legal services?

The indictment is based on the theory that Trump used PERSONAL monies to make the payment for the settlement agreement while he was a candidate for President and didn't declare it as a campaign contribution.

Which would have required using campaign cash to pay Stormy Daniels to sign the settlement agreement and drop her lawsuit against "private citizen" Trump. Which would have been illegal.

So what "false entry" did Trump make? He paid from his personal finances for legal services which resulted in settlement in a lawsuit against him as a private citizen.

From the text of the indictment:


“The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about February 14, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, a Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust Account check and check stub dated February 14, 2017, bearing check number 000138, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.“

https://apnews.com/article/trump-indictment-full-document-640043319549

 

[Pad_Foot]

I almost made it onto a jury, but found a way to answer why I would not be a good honest juror.

If they had asked me about the accused being late and falling asleep ? They would have known I was just about decided already!! Wasted two days! The accused couldn’t stay awake ???

Hmmm! I hope Trumps jurors are like me

 

[HisArpy]

From the text of the indictment:


“The defendant, in the County of New York and elsewhere, on or about February 14, 2017, with intent to defraud and intent to commit another crime and aid and conceal the commission thereof, made and caused a false entry in the business records of an enterprise, to wit, a Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust Account check and check stub dated February 14, 2017, bearing check number 000138, and kept and maintained by the Trump Organization.“

https://apnews.com/article/trump-indictment-full-document-640043319549

And?

Is this ILLEGAL?

 

[dmallord]

If, under oath, you're asked about all websites where you discuss news, politics and/or current events and you do not mention Lit or similar sites, are you subject to perjury?

You can, in good conscience, ignore your opinions expressed on Lit's politics thread, not the other threads. There is precedence for this:

The rationale is discussions here are with imaginary beings, some of whom are mentally challenged, though some may not be. Since you have no way of assuring the judge that their mental state is verifiable, you are not obligated to acknowledge you engage in fantasy conversations. If this doesn't track, please note that the special prosecutor, Robert Hur, regarding Joe Biden, stated that an elderly man's recall of such communications might be considered sympathetic to a jury. And as a potential juror, you cannot, of course, judge yourself. So, acknowledging that you are engaging in discussions on Lit is a moot consideration. This logical construct was patterned after considerable imaginary conversations with HisArmpit on the subject.

In summary, no, you are free not to disclose Lit as a political thread or even a quasi-political thread. Or, you could just adapt the TDS approach and, in good conscience, say as Trump does, "No, your honor, I've never heard of Literotica.com, and my accounts there are fake news."

 

[AlexBailey]

And?

Is this ILLEGAL?

Isn’t that what is about to be tried in the criminal court proceedings?

This entire premise begins with a prejudgemental position.

———
Further, the case is built upon Trump NOT committing an illegal act (using campaign funds for personal purposes).

I posted the quote from the indictment in answer to your bullshit claim above.

 

[HisArpy]

Isn’t that what is about to be tried in the criminal court proceedings?


I posted the quote from the indictment in answer to your bullshit claim above, after all, aren’t the charges in the indictment where the prosecution begins?

As I said, the indictment attempts to make it unlawful to commit a lawful act while asserting that the accused should have committed an unlawful act instead.

That the words in the indictment say that Trump intended to commit fraud/etc doesn't mean that's a fact. As a matter of law and fact, one cannot commit fraud by engaging in a LAWFUL act.

 

[AlexBailey]

As I said, the indictment attempts to make it unlawful to commit a lawful act while asserting that the accused should have committed an unlawful act instead.

That the words in the indictment say that Trump intended to commit fraud/etc doesn't mean that's a fact. As a matter of law and fact, one cannot commit fraud by engaging in a LAWFUL act.

So are you saying Trump did not falsify his business records?

Are you wanting the charges to be thrown out before they are tried?

 

[dmallord]

What false entry did he make? Did he not pay Cohen for legal services?

The indictment is based on the theory that Trump used PERSONAL monies to make the payment for the settlement agreement while he was a candidate for President and didn't declare it as a campaign contribution.

Which would have required using campaign cash to pay Stormy Daniels to sign the settlement agreement and drop her lawsuit against "private citizen" Trump. Which would have been illegal.

So what "false entry" did Trump make? He paid from his personal finances for legal services which resulted in settlement in a lawsuit against him as a private citizen.

Stand by and stand back, Arphy. Wait for Trump to signal that you should rise to his defense.

Bragg's case is said to rely on two legal strategies. One of these is a novel approach that uses federal campaign violations and federal and state income tax laws.

The accounting fraud elements involve Micheal Cohen, acting on Donald Trump's behalf. Cohen arranged payments to two women to remain silent about sexual engagements with Trump. Trump denies those but allegedly arranges for their silence and repays Cohen via business records for service and reimbursement amounts over multiple payments. An indictment charge represents each of those payments.

In one instance, Cohen paid 130k to a woman and got an NDA signed.
In the second instance, he arranged for a tabloid to buy another's story and not publish it.

Both situations were just prior to Trump's running for election. The charges alleged Trump paid them to keep the news out of the campaign.

Trump paid for Cohen's services and also paid the 130K while deducting all amounts as taxable write-offs over multiple time periods. Trump's accountant previously went to jail over this, and so did Cohen. So, there is still some smoke over this case, and the checks may be tinder for Trump's fire pit to be lit.

Cooking the books is a misdemeanor level. Cohen's repayment of 130K as a legal deduction for hush money would not be legal under local charges. That's part of what Bragg must convince a jury that violated regulations.

The second part, the novel element, concerns Trump committing fraud by using campaign violations and tax evasion regulations. Bragg must prove to a jury that Trump knew about the finances, and authorized them to a jury of twelve starting on Monday. Like Al Capone, one of Trump's favorite characters he brags about, Bragg is taking a page from Eliot Ness and applying it to tax evasion charges.

Arphy is concerned that the process is illegal - that's okay. Sit back and let's let the DA see if he can convince a jury of twelve and then of course there will be Donald's inevitable series of appeals.

 

[Wylie3]

I see no problem in being a juror for Trump's trial, have no real social media presence so nothing to find there. He may be an idiot but until you hear the facts you can't truly quantify that.

 

[dmallord]

I see no problem in being a juror for Trump's trial, have no real social media presence so nothing to find there. He may be an idiot but until you hear the facts you can't truly quantify that.

You can't quantify Trump as an idiot based on existing facts? Or do you mean you would reserve guilt or innocence in the case going to trial on Monday until you hear the evidence?

I believe once an individual repeatedly shows himself/herself to be an idiot, that isn't something that gets undone.

 

[icanhelp1]

What false entry did he make? Did he not pay Cohen for legal services?

The indictment is based on the theory that Trump used PERSONAL monies to make the payment for the settlement agreement while he was a candidate for President and didn't declare it as a campaign contribution.

Which would have required using campaign cash to pay Stormy Daniels to sign the settlement agreement and drop her lawsuit against "private citizen" Trump. Which would have been illegal.

So what "false entry" did Trump make? He paid from his personal finances for legal services which resulted in settlement in a lawsuit against him as a private citizen.

And being a private family owned enterprise how he chooses to spend his money I would think is his legal prerogative.

I’m still curious as to what future defrauding of whoever is the charge?