You, the Juror

[ishtat]

So far I do not think any contributor to this thread would get on a Jury, mainly because of their Social media posting history.

 

[KeithD]

So far I do not think any contributor to this thread would get on a Jury, mainly because of their Social media posting history.

I doubt anyone here is posting in true name. How good would the lawyers' researchers be to connect the account names here with true name? Are they picking up false account postings now?

 

[dmallord]

So far I do not think any contributor to this thread would get on a Jury, mainly because of their Social media posting history.

I contribute. I have no social history outside of Lit. No right-minded person would consider this thread social media—that would be classified as social mania.

I could serve and make a decision based on evidence. However, I would not want to waste six weeks before getting the chance to find him guilty or possibly not guilty if the prosecutor fails.

 

[ishtat]

I doubt anyone here is posting in true name. How good would the lawyers' researchers be to connect the account names here with true name? Are they picking up false account postings now?

I contribute. I have no social history outside of Lit. No right-minded person would consider this thread social media—that would be classified as social mania.

Valid points. I was thinking of the circumstance of being in court and being asked whether I had ever posted anything either in praise or condemnation of an accused. In the absence of an honest answer Keith D is right, I think that lawyers in court would not be able or have the resources/time to research the issue. I looked into the regulation of this issue a little and was surprised by how many countries are considering the possibility of requiring sites/intermediaries to disclose identities - like China does.

 

[YDB95]

I'm guessing my social media history would keep me off the jury, and that's probably just as well. I think I would try to be objective, but that's an awfully tall order here!

 

[Bray123]

My searchable social media postings consist of a picture of my dog. All the rest is from email accounts created on Tor, good luck finding me that way.

 

[desecration]

I think that lawyers in court would not be able or have the resources/time to research the issue.

They can, however, ask you about your social media use during jury selection.

 

[HisArpy]

This entire premise begins with a prejudgemental position.

Trump paid Daniels as part of a settlement agreement to end her litigation against him. That's not "hush money" and the OP saying it is merely proves a bias and attempts to substitute the phrase in place of "predetermined guilt."

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

So what we have is a biased OP creating a question using inflamatory and prejudgemental language in order to ask others how they'd vote if they were a juror in a case which is based on making it a crime where someone obeys the law.

That's about as fucked up as it gets.

 

[drobert44]

This entire premise begins with a prejudgemental position.

Trump paid Daniels as part of a settlement agreement to end her litigation against him. That's not "hush money" and the OP saying it is merely proves a bias and attempts to substitute the phrase in place of "predetermined guilt."

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

So what we have is a biased OP creating a question using inflamatory and prejudgemental language in order to ask others how they'd vote if they were a juror in a case which is based on making it a crime where someone obeys the law.

That's about as fucked up as it gets.

A very weak case. I would rather see the Donald explain Jan. 6.

 

[HisArpy]

A very weak case. I would rather see the Donald explain Jan. 6.

The SCOTUS is going to do that soon. When it does you'll see that Trump doesn't need to explain anything and the Leftist narrative falls apart (with lots and lots of screaming and tears).

 

[drobert44]

The SCOTUS is going to do that soon. When it does you'll see that Trump doesn't need to explain anything and the Leftist narrative falls apart (with lots and lots of screaming and tears).

Yep, they might.

 

[AlexBailey]

This entire premise begins with a prejudgemental position.

Trump paid Daniels as part of a settlement agreement to end her litigation against him. That's not "hush money" and the OP saying it is merely proves a bias and attempts to substitute the phrase in place of "predetermined guilt."

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

So what we have is a biased OP creating a question using inflamatory and prejudgemental language in order to ask others how they'd vote if they were a juror in a case which is based on making it a crime where someone obeys the law.

That's about as fucked up as it gets.

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?

 

[desecration]

FALSIFYING BUSINESS RECORDS IN THE FIRST DEGREE

This is why it's going to go nowhere. Candidate Trump and Citizen Trump had overlapping interests, but this is not illegal.

 

[AlexBailey]

This is why it's going to go nowhere. Candidate Trump and Citizen Trump had overlapping interests, but this is not illegal.

It is in New York

 

[KeithD]

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?

The case has hit the national level because it's more about tampering with federal elections by doing illegal things to cover the issue up. I think the most egregious part of the issue is Trump's control of The National Enquirer to deliver fake shit about his opponents during the election (while covering his own disqualifying shit up).

 

[jaF0]

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?

 

[desecration]

The case has hit the national level because it's more about tampering with federal elections by doing illegal things to cover the issue up.

If paying hush money to grifters is illegal, every candidate is going to be disqualified.

 

[jaF0]

The case has hit the national level because it's more about tampering with federal elections by doing illegal things to cover the issue up.

You mean .... election interference?

 

[AlexBailey]

If paying hush money to grifters is illegal, every candidate is going to be disqualified.

Nope. Only the ones who do it right before an election and illegally claim it as a business expense.

Among other cheats, claiming it as business expenses robbed the treasury of taxes on $130k.

 

[desecration]

Only the ones who do it right before an election and illegally claim it as a business expense.

It is a legitimate business expense for either Candidate Trump or Citizen Trump.

 

[Bray123]

I've never tried it, but I expect that if I paid money to a prostitute and claimed it back on business expenses my management would not be amused. The chance of them approving it as 'legitimate' is slim.

Is it only politicians who get this on expenses? If I don't want a career in politics what other avenues are open where I can pay off prostitutes on the company dime or even better, public contributions?

 

[Oldermom935]

I believe I could be fair and impartial since like others I have no social interests and minimal exposure or interest in political affairs. And I believe keeping the laws and requirements the prosecutor, and defense attorneys must meet to a minimum for either a finding of guilty. Or the defendant being acquitted. Being able to compartmentalize the requirements of the alleged crimes that need to be met or defended. I believe that someone with an open mind and no outside influences should be able to serve fairly on the jury.

 

[ll74]

Using money from campaign contributions for anything other than a campaign expense should be illegal if it isn't. I have to file a six page explanation if I use work money for anything.

 

[Oldermom935]

Using money from campaign contributions for anything other than a campaign expense should be illegal if it isn't.

But isn't that what the trial should determine?

 

[ll74]

But isn't that what the trial should determine?

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