"My juror": Trump believed a loyalist on the jury could save him, until the very end
"My juror": Trump believed a loyalist on the jury could save him, until the very end
Award-winning news and culture, features breaking news, in-depth reporting and criticism on politics, science, food and entertainment.
You're viewing a single thread.
I wonder if others on the jury helped them see the light. Or maybe the nodding and smiling was sarcasm, or even intentionally trolling Trump. Fun to think about.
The thing is, you can sometimes get through to these Trump supporters if you can deprogram them from their echo-chamber... That requires very long conversations, an expose of facts, dismantling of their fallacies, and keeping them away from right-wing propaganda and peer pressure for an extended period of time.
... Which just so happens to be what jurors go through.
That's a nice wholesome take. Reminds me of this man:
Thanks for sharing, hadn't read this before!
Doing this right now with my in-laws who are from India and deeply Modi-fied.
Six weeks is all it would take to undo years of brainwashing from every direction? I doubt it.
Well, education in general..... Which is why they are so absolutely desperate to dismantle our education system.
I honestly don't think lawmakers put that level of thought into dismantling education. Votes are the only goal here.
Somewhere along the line, it was Limbaugh for me, conservatives noticed that educated people tend to vote liberal. Well hell, how do we explain this?!
The pundits launched a full-frontal attack on education and those "ivory tower liberals". Who the fuck are these people to tell me how to think when I got the Bible and my gut feelings?!
I watched this unfold. No one talked down on education in the 70s and 80s, nothing like the conservatives do now anyway. Then... Remember Rick Santorum baggin' on Obama for having 2 degrees? While Santorum had 3. FFS, Obama taught Constitutional law at Harvard and the GOP acted like that made him less able to judge Constitutional matters.
Now "education bad" gets votes, that easy. I don't think there was a real plan. As always, the GOP rolls with what works emotionally. (While the Democrats think they can win on logical arguments.)
After Sputnik went up, there was a giant call for the US to push more kids into STEM. Kids are always a political issue.
Heck, watch 'The Music Man' if you don't beleive me!
We don't need more kids to go into those fields we need more funding for those fields. If you want depressing look up what happens to the bulk of people with physics, or geologist, or chemistry undergrad degrees.
Back before Brown vs. Board of Education, US high school could produce kids who'd had four years of science, math, history, foreign languages, and could play an instrument. When they realized that they'd have to educate all the citizens to that level they dropped the level, hoping the colleges would train the leaders of tomorrow
Friend is heading to the Galapagos Islands for a vacation. He was appalled because none of the young people he talked to had any idea what they were.
In the defense of those folks, the knowledge of what the Galapagos are is pretty irrelevant unless you are into evolutionary biology or random islands for vacations. And even on thr vacation thing id rather go to Svalbard personally.
Shouldn't have to be "into" evolutionary biology. The foundational events of Charles Darwin's early research into evolution are basic biology. Darwin's finches should be middle school education along with Punnett squares and the scientific method.
If it makes it any better I was thinking of some more modern instances of folks replicating Darwins finches or atleast observing the same thing. Also I associate darwin with barnacles and inbred tomato. I have been brain poisoned by too much info.
At one time, not so long ago, Darwin was common knowledge. Something that you'd expect an intelligent 10 year old to know about. "Darwin" was one of the X-Men!
Without Fox News and others, who will tell them what to think/say/do? They probably had their first unobstructed, own thoughts in years.
Why does EVERYTHING give me new ideas for tv shows that I could create if I were in the entertainment business?
Ok, imagine this show:
A 60 year old man stars as the lead character. He's an overweight confederate flag wearing, racist, who just had his company relocate. Instead of working in Ohio, his factory is moving to Vermont. And so he's going there too.
Now out of his echo chamber, he continues to be himself, the only way he's ever known how. By repeating fox news talking points as his own original ideas. Completely unaware that he's now surrounded by NPR donating listeners who already know the talking points he's going to say for the day, and how to rebutte it before he even opens his mouth.
Faced with a new and challenging world changing around him, he feels he's going crazy, until a conversation on a park bench. He talks with an elderly homeless man feeding the ducks, who shows him the deception he's been led to believe, the brainwashing he's victim to, and the consequences it has for people he's never met. He has his eureka moment, and decides to change.
The show starts with him as the new manager of the factory, as the previous manager was shot and killed in a random public shooting that he had nothing to do with. He was just there. Being that the main character is the only other person to move from Ohio, he's the only one who knows how to run the business. So now he's working with an all new crew. Instead of 97% older whites, it's now a total hodgepodge of races, ages, and backgrounds working the factory floor.
The series follows his progression and growth from being a racist out of touch boomer who's only personality trait can best be described as "fox news", to a more mentally complete well rounded person with compassion and empathy for people who may not be just like him. You see him at times struggle with this. He may not have fox news in his ears anymore, but he did for 30 years previously. So he'll still slip up from time to time, and have to unlearn what his former life instincts would lead him to say and do.
He gets advice everyday from the elderly homeless man in the park. Whom on the last episode pulls his coat hood back, and it was Bernie Sanders all along.
Don’t make him the manager, make him a shift leader that is asked to be a union rep when the employees decide to unionize. As he looks closer at the shady practices of the private equity firm that bought the company and moved it, he begins to understand the incompatibility of Fox talking points and what’s happening in real life around him.
I like it!
I kinda wanna see a pilot script if you feel like trying your hand at it, just for shits and giggles.
It could very well be a case of “Never meet your childhood heroes”. Trump probably acted like a spoiled brat and the juror saw it first hand.
Trump did; it's a matter of public record. He violated court instructions about blabbing to the media ten times, and was held in contempt by the judge twice.
He repeatedly make false and misleading statements about the trial, the judge, the witnesses, and even the jury on social media and to the press in the entrance hall of the court building itself. The idiot just couldn't stop himself.
Had he been a regular citizen instead of a former president, he would have almost certainly done jail time just for his behavior during the trial.
*smelled
That's a good point.
Six weeks plus 11 people worth of peer pressure all getting increasingly pissed off at you for wasting their time with your obstinate dumbassery, I guess.
There was an article around here this week, and I didn't read further about it, saying it only takes a few days off FB to get people to turn around on conspiracy theories.
I guess lies take constant reinforcement?
Six weeks in a different environment is a long time. Talk to people about their first six weeks on a new job; or at boot camp; or even summer camp.
I’ve had some progress with a local trumpet, but he has too many friends pulling him back for the effects to last long.
He snaps out of it when I point out how capitalism (billionaires) is often the problem, or how the Rs block immigration reform. He’s been able to see some truth now and then. But later he turns his TV on and it’s all Hunter Biden’s fault for him again. Also for some reason we’re all gonna eat bugs lately.
The bugs thing is cause they dont understand synthetic meat. Its based off of an older conspiracy from the 90s though.
Yeah, I just said “you mean lab grown meat? if tasteslike hamburger and doesn’t have to be full of antibiotics (and methane) I’m for it.”
He actually liked the idea of no antibiotics (fits with his doctors bad mindset).
Fact is, sustaining an increasing population is going to involve using insects as food.
My understanding is that juries in America dont really deliberate on a verdict or a sentence. Thats up to the judge.
Instead, I believe they're presented with all the facts and arguments, then determine based on that information whether or not the the prosecution's claims hold up.
So its more of a "based on the facts you have been presented with, do you think the defendant did X", rather than "should the defendant be punished for this crime?"
Most Trump supporters understand that he's a criminal, but believe that his actions are in service of the greater good. So in a situation like this the distinction between "do the facts line up" and "should he be punished" is an important one.
I was on a jury in Texas in 2019 and we were tasked with both.
First part: Based on the facts you have been presented, do you think defendant did X?
If yes
Second part: You have determined that defendant did X. Now determine the punishment
That second part was by far the more difficult of the two
The judge gets to decide the sentence here.
The judge that Trump has insulted & threatened for the past 7 weeks.
I know. The original post sounded pretty universal so I was giving an example of how some states do it differently.
What was the process like of determining the punishment? I didn't know that was a potential duty that juries could be tasked with.
There's kinda like a second trial where they have friends and family of the defendant and victim come and tell you what s great guy he is or how much they miss the victim etc.
Then the judge lays out the range of possible punishments, including when parole might be available. We're not allowed to consider when parole might be available though.
Then we all go into the deliberation room and duke it out. When we were done, we go back into the court room and hand the judge the punishment which he then read as sentencing.
The punishment range given us was anything from two to ninety nine years or life, so basically, "do what you want you crazy jurors".
My understanding is that juries in America dont really deliberate on a verdict or a sentence. Thats up to the judge.
in a jury trial, the judge is there to manage the process and keep it fair. The prosecution presents their case, and the defense tries to poke holes and cause 'reasonable doubt'.
yes, there are controls in place, like instructions on what may and may not be considered during deliberations, and yes, that restricts the jury's decision significantly. For example, they're not allowed to consider that Trump is a lying asshole who stole nuclear secrets when he left office, raped E Jean Carol or tried to lead an insurrection on jan 6 to overturn the government.
None of that really matters to this case. But the 12 jurors were ultimately the ones deciding that guilt or innocence or whatever. And they did so unanimously. The judge didn't make the decision and tell them to come to a guilty verdict. (and the judge can only overrule such a verdict if it's blatantly obvious they fucked it up. usually at that point they start over with a new trial and a new jury.)
Close, but jury instructions are very particular.
"This is the exact law and how it works. Did the defendant run afoul of this law?"
A competent judge and prosecutor forces the whole show to stay exactly in those bounds.
It's... complicated, but sort of yes.
A jury isn't strictly bound by the facts. For example, a jury might feel that a law is unjust, and refuse to find someone guilty (called "jury nullification"). This is good and bad, such as by truly refusing to find guilt under an unjust law, but it has also been used by racist juries to let a white man accused of lynching a black man go free. And even without overwhelming evidence, a jury might find someone guilty, because "everyone knows they did it", or something like that. Or because they did something and they can't exactly prove that or another charge.
And then even after the jury returns their verdict, either the defense or prosecution may move to set aside the verdict. Those motions are rarely granted, but they happen.
I don't think a judge can overturn a jury verdict on their own authority.
Of course, all of this varies by jurisdiction. Federal law and each state's laws have their own quirks, and there are differences in civil and criminal law as well.
If that's what actually happened, I wonder if those things stick when he re-enters civilian life to go back to having Fox News blaring 24/7.
That's exactly the kind of thing a New Yorker would do. "Oh, yeah, sure, I'm on your side, buddy, we got so much in common."
Hahahaha, I very much want to believe this is what happened.
It’s my head cannon, don’t care if it’s true
I seem to recall seeing an infographic (uncertain of its provenance) indicating that one juror listed the NY Post as a frequent news source. That guy's presence on the jury certainly had me concerned.
The infographic I saw said one juror got their news from only Truth Social and Twitter.
I live in New York. I saw the Post's headline yesterday. "Injustice!"
There was one juror who got their news from Truth Social and Twitter so I am guessing they were not trolling.
I would tell you I got my news from God if it meant I could put a nail in Trump’s coffin ;)
One of the jurors followed Trump on truth social, it was maybe him?
Sometimes i flip on fox just to see what the monkeys are up to today.