12 ms·

Even assuming the case where it was indeed politically motivated to bring a case forwards in the first place, a jury of peers had to be selected by the lawyers

Even assuming the case where it was indeed politically motivated to bring a case forwards in the first place, a jury of peers had to be selected by the lawyers of both sides. And that jury of his peers found him guilty, unanimously, on all counts. Thanks to that jury selection process, there's no informed way to claim that the jury was politically motivated so in the end his loss is going to hurt his chances.

judgemerchan 2y ago
[flagged]
- clipsy 2y ago
  None of that happened.
  - clipsy 2y ago
    Downvotes but zero evidence to the contrary; quelle surprise.
    - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
      What is asserted without evidence can be denied without evidence. So far as I saw from following the trial (not super closely, so I may have missed something), no defense witnesses were prevented from testifying if they had relevant evidence. (You don't just get to put, say, Trump's hairstylist on the stand, unless they have something to say that touches on admissible evidence.) The part that seems more in line with the claim by the green account was not about witnesses, but lines of argument. There's a claim called "advice of counsel". In this case, it would be claiming that Trump's lawyers told him to do this. Well, in a criminal trial, you don't get to just claim "my lawyer told me to do it" and that's automatically a get-out-of-jail-free card. No, the prosecution gets to examine that claim. In particular, they get to put your lawyers on the stand and ask them questions, under oath, even though those questions touch on matters that would normally be covered by attorney-client confidentiality. [That is, asserting that defense leads to loss of attorney-client confidentiality in areas covered by the claim of advise of counsel.] Trump's attorneys chose not to assert that defense. They told the judge, before the trial, that they weren't going to use that defense. Then, during the trial, they wanted to make an argument that was something like "recommendation of counsel", where it would sound to the jury like "advice of counsel", but the prosecution wouldn't get to grill the lawyers. That is, they wanted to have their cake and eat it too. The judge didn't let them do it. Trump's lawyers tried, at least twice with different wording, and the judge blocked it. Rightly so - you don't get to skirt the restrictions by trying to re-word the label.
- ChrisClark 2y ago
  None of what you said is true, you might want to take a look outside your safe spaces to get a broader perspective.
hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
Agreed. For all the craziness of American politics, I generally believe our jury system is the "shining star" of our country's institutions. I'm not saying it's perfect, but I generally believe that when you get 12 well-intentioned people together, the outcome is much better than when you have politicians giving quips to the cameras. Every single person I know that has served on a jury has said they were very impressed with the thoughtfulness and professionalism of their fellow jurors.
- ifyoubuildit 2y ago
  I was on a jury and some of them were reasonable, competent people, but I was shocked by a couple of them at how clueless and careless they were. They basically made a choice at the beginning of the trial and didn't seem to listen to anything after that.

judgemerchan 2y ago

[flagged]

clipsy 2y ago
None of that happened.
- clipsy 2y ago
  Downvotes but zero evidence to the contrary; quelle surprise.
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    What is asserted without evidence can be denied without evidence. So far as I saw from following the trial (not super closely, so I may have missed something), no defense witnesses were prevented from testifying if they had relevant evidence. (You don't just get to put, say, Trump's hairstylist on the stand, unless they have something to say that touches on admissible evidence.) The part that seems more in line with the claim by the green account was not about witnesses, but lines of argument. There's a claim called "advice of counsel". In this case, it would be claiming that Trump's lawyers told him to do this. Well, in a criminal trial, you don't get to just claim "my lawyer told me to do it" and that's automatically a get-out-of-jail-free card. No, the prosecution gets to examine that claim. In particular, they get to put your lawyers on the stand and ask them questions, under oath, even though those questions touch on matters that would normally be covered by attorney-client confidentiality. [That is, asserting that defense leads to loss of attorney-client confidentiality in areas covered by the claim of advise of counsel.] Trump's attorneys chose not to assert that defense. They told the judge, before the trial, that they weren't going to use that defense. Then, during the trial, they wanted to make an argument that was something like "recommendation of counsel", where it would sound to the jury like "advice of counsel", but the prosecution wouldn't get to grill the lawyers. That is, they wanted to have their cake and eat it too. The judge didn't let them do it. Trump's lawyers tried, at least twice with different wording, and the judge blocked it. Rightly so - you don't get to skirt the restrictions by trying to re-word the label.
ChrisClark 2y ago
None of what you said is true, you might want to take a look outside your safe spaces to get a broader perspective.

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago

Agreed. For all the craziness of American politics, I generally believe our jury system is the "shining star" of our country's institutions. I'm not saying it's perfect, but I generally believe that when you get 12 well-intentioned people together, the outcome is much better than when you have politicians giving quips to the cameras. Every single person I know that has served on a jury has said they were very impressed with the thoughtfulness and professionalism of their fellow jurors.

ifyoubuildit 2y ago
I was on a jury and some of them were reasonable, competent people, but I was shocked by a couple of them at how clueless and careless they were. They basically made a choice at the beginning of the trial and didn't seem to listen to anything after that.