Trump was forced to listen silently as potential jurors offered their unvarnished assessments of him
Trump was forced to listen silently as potential jurors offered their unvarnished assessments of him
Over the past week, Donald Trump has been forced to sit inside a frigid New York courtroom and listen to a parade of potential jurors share their unvarnished assessments of him.
New Yorkers who said they couldn’t approach the case fairly were excused during jury selection. But one of the women with the harshest assessments of him will be among those who will determine his fate on 34 counts of falsifying business records.
“I don’t like his persona, how he presents himself in public,” said the woman, who has lived in upper Manhattan for the last 15 years. The woman said she didn’t agree with some of Trump’s politics, which she called “outrageous.”
“He just seems very selfish and self-serving, so I don’t really appreciate that in any public servant,” she said, adding that while she doesn’t “know him as a person,” how he “portrays himself in public, it just seems to me it is not my cup of tea.”
Trump’s legal team took issue with her responses, but they were out of challenges by the time she was up for consideration.
You're viewing a single thread.
“Sometimes the way he may carry himself in public leaves something to be desired. At the same time, I can relate to sometimes being a bit unfiltered,” she said. “I see him speak to a lot of people in America. I think there is something to be said about that."
Seems like even the ones who don't like him, still get the appeal. I can't see it personally, call me crazy.
Or they knew to temper their words lest they be dismissed. I imagine some want to be on the jury.
Only a complete idiot wants to be on this jury.
Ignoring that jury duty, in general, sucks from a monetary, social, and even mental health standpoint (probably a lot of others too that i just was too lazy to think through as I wrote an aside considerably longer than the sentence up until now): The identify of these jurors will get out and their lives will be hell.
The idea of John Cusack and Rachel Weiss manipulating lawyers so they can get justice by sneaking themselves onto a jury is very much fiction.
Are you kidding? I'd give up weeks, months of my time and income for the opportunity to actually ensure justice is upheld against that slippery snake. I'd still render a fair verdict on the actual evidence, but reality is heavily biased against him
He literally led a violent insurrection against the United States and, unless I missed one (there are a few...), has seen no legal repercussions from that.
And if he is still alive by the next time there is a republican in office? He'll walk free.
But hey. I am sure that this time will be all the difference and the identify of those jurors won't be leaked and they and their familes won't face violent retaliation from republican political organizations who experience no repercussions.
And, has been repeatedly demonstrated: Nobody will have your back. Or your family's back.
Cool thing about state level crimes is the president can’t pardon them.
I can think of no better hill to die on. Too bad i won’t get the chance
Standing up against fascists is too much for many people. And people wonder how the Reich ever took hold...
Ditto!
I hate Trump too but even I can see that you're too biased to deliver justice.
As in, it's fine to say you'd give up your time to make sure he gets convicted. That outcome might even be "just".
It's not objective and impartial enough to be "justice" though.
YOU may not want to be on this jury, but having a jury of one's peers is a fundamental protection against tyranny. Inevitably some people recognize that and are willing to accept the risks of being on this particular jury to ensure due process is actually followed.
Yeah, I’d gladly serve on a jury just like I gladly pay my taxes and contribute to mutual aid. I want the results of people doing these things, so I’ll give more than I get because others need more than they can give
Is a juror allowed to write a book about their experience after the trial? If so, I bet at least one juror already has feelers out to find a publisher.
It's happened before, yes. IIRC, one of the judges in another Trump case advised the jury to never reveal themselves, but outside of confidential information, they can't really control what they do after the trial.
I would also assume that most publishers are treating this like a frigging demon core. Because it will instantly make the publisher the enemy of significant parts of the country (or world) and it will be parsed by lawyers(' legal assistants) with a fine tooth comb for ANYTHING that can be deemed libel.
People don't really understand that most of the right wing tell all bullshits are mostly just money laundering schemes. Nobody gives a fuck what eric trump snorted coke off of. But various republican "donors" gladly buy large quantities of that book to give money to other orgs.
That's the 101 level course on how to launder campaign money to an individual.
I would pay to see that movie, however
... 2003's Runaway Jury. It is probably on a streaming service or two
He's shameless, and a part of me envies him for that. I have been held back by shame and self-doubt - what if I hadn't been?
You, an average person? Probably homeless after you offended the wrong rich person.
If you're rich though, you are immune to consequences.
Shameless doesn't mean stupid - a smart, shameless person wouldn't feel guilt or embarrassment if he offended people, but he would still avoid offending the wrong people if it would have negative consequences for him.