1523
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2023
1523 points (97.7% liked)
politics
19104 readers
2003 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
How can they actually get jurors for this?
If the facts require the jurors to convict, there is no chance that this won't ruin their lives (if not significantly shorten them). Even before then, it's going to be a problem. His supporters have already declared and demonstrated that they are willing to use violence.
Thank you, but I'd sit in jail as long as necessary to not be on any of these juries.
How do you even find an impartial jury? I might be wrong but I was almost certain that an impartial jury is required to convict, which is why they always ask you about potential conflicts of interest when you attend jury duty. How many impartial jurors can there be at this point? Tbh, I'm not even sure I would trust an impartial jury with this case. To me, if you're claiming to be impartial then you're either lying, or you give zero fucks about politics and the people around you. Being impartial in this context has some really concerning implications about you.
Am I biased? Fucking absolutely and I hope he's found guilty.
Can I set aside my bias and only consider the evidence as presented? Also fucking absolutely.
There are plenty of people who care enough about the rule of law that would let a man they hate walk free. If you can't, perhaps you should be more concerned with yourself than the implications you ascribe to others who don't deserve it.
My concern is that there's a certain type of person who would have zero issues with lying about how impartial they are. Here's a hint, they're not like us.
I loath trump... but if I was on the jury I would do my job and set aside my personal feelings and listen to the evidence presented by both side and make a decision within the confines of the law... if the prosecution gave charges they couldn't fully prove or over reached I hate to say it I'd have to find him not guilty even though I know morally he fucked up but it's the states job to have competent prosecutors that do their job well. I truly hope the prosecution does a stellar job and gets a conviction and I hope those in the jury take it seriously and set aside personal feelings and listen to the facts.
Being impartial doesn’t mean that you are midway between prosecution and defendant.
Impartial means that you will take the facts presented to you at face value and derive logical conclusions from those facts.
You raise a very good point. I think they should be able to use "innominate jury" (anonymous jury) so that the public and the defendants are not able to know who they are. I don't know how common it is in RICO cases but it wouldn't supprise me if this will be used in these cases.
The jury will be secret.
Good luck keeping it that way.
No, in Georgia a Grand Jury's participants are public record.
https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-georgia-trump-indictment-grand-jurors-names-786743008561
Actually it was never the case for the grand jury. Grand jury names are always public by law in ga. They probably knew they would get doxxed.