Only 1 in 3 US adults think Trump acted illegally in New York hush money case, AP-NORC poll shows

[Valletta]

You may be referring to specific proceedings/ events/ people.
Yet expand - as in "a cloud of doubt"
hangs over all human activity, or at least all political, economic, religious, education activity by sinful people everywhere.

That's from the article. But it's wrong at so many levels. The judge's daughter worked for both the Harris and Biden campaigns. The judge should have recused himself, New York law requires it. The statutes of limitations had run out. The charge at most is a misdemeanor but has been illegally twisted into a felony. Trump hires bookkeepers and lawyers and accountants to do such work. Such entries are not unusual, and even the bookkeeper is not guilty of anything.

 

[Hank77]

Alan Dershowitz, who does not like Trump at all and absolutely will not vote for him,

I don't think that's true. He defended Trump in the past and I don't think he would have done that if he didn't like him at all unless, of course, he's the type of person that he was his attorney for money and fame.
Dershowitz still insists that his client O.J. was set up, and continued to advise him for years.

There were plenty of honest citizens who stated they were biased. Good for them. But unfortunately a smaller percentage of populations is dishonest. And in a heavily biased area chances are many will end up jurors. That's the reason for something called a "change of venue."

A change of venue usually occurs when there has been so much media coverage that jurors may have already made up their minds about guilt or innocence. In this case, no matter where you go in the country, much of the world, there has already been just as much coverage as in NYC.

 

[DaisyDay]

But unfortunately a smaller percentage of populations is dishonest.

Well, he's supposed to be tried by a jury of his peers....

 

[Handmaid for Jesus]

*clears throat*
<steps to mic>

America is not a democracy.

Right! It is a democratic republic.

 

[rambot]

I giggle at people who post opinion polls about someone's guilt IN A COURT, when 99.99% of them couldn't name more than 5 of the pieces of evidence against that person.

And the SURITY with which it is said. Good stuff

 

[Bradskii]

Swing states are states that are neither solid blue or solid red. If an area voted 90% for another candidate, the person being judged is unlikely to get a fair hearing because there's a 90% chance of getting jurors who don't like you.

Make sense?

No. The jury isn't voting whether they think he should hold office. They are there to decide if he's guilty or not. But you be sure to to hold on tightly to your views on the political make up of NY state. They'll come in very handy should he be found guilty. It'll be your get-out-of-jail card. If you'll excuse the way that's phrased.

 

[Bradskii]

That's from the article. But it's wrong at so many levels. The judge's daughter worked for both the Harris and Biden campaigns. The judge should have recused himself, New York law requires it. The statutes of limitations had run out. The charge at most is a misdemeanor but has been illegally twisted into a felony. Trump hires bookkeepers and lawyers and accountants to do such work. Such entries are not unusual, and even the bookkeeper is not guilty of anything.

Lucky you weren't selected for the jury. You're obviously biased.

 

[Valletta]

Lucky you weren't selected for the jury. You're obviously biased.

Here in the United States they generally try and find people who are unfamiliar with the defendant and wouldn't be swayed one way or another by the occupation, beliefs, gender, race, etc. of the defendant or by the particular crime. They normally seek out a good mix of U.S. citizens, a jury of Trump's peers doesn't mean a jury of left-wing Democrats. With such a well-known figure I think most people would have a bias so choosing a fair jury is a difficult and the venue should have been changed. Never in the history of our country has a defendant been faced with four criminal trials all going on at once in four different jurisdictions, it's no coincidence, this is blatant election interference by those who are willing to destroy our Constitutional rights in order to promote their own radical agenda. It is chilling how many Americans are willing to go along with this.

 

[Bradskii]

Here in the United States they generally try and find people who are unfamiliar with the defendant and wouldn't be swayed one way or another by the occupation, beliefs, gender, race, etc. of the defendant or by the particular crime. They normally seek out a good mix of U.S. citizens, a jury of Trump's peers doesn't mean a jury of left-wing Democrats. With such a well-known figure I think most people would have a bias so choosing a fair jury is a difficult and the venue should have been changed. Never in the history of our country has a defendant been faced with four criminal trials all going on at once in four different jurisdictions, it's no coincidence, this is blatant election interference by those who are willing to destroy our Constitutional rights in order to promote their own radical agenda. It is chilling how many Americans are willing to go along with this.

Some people seem to be living in an entirely different reality to the rest of the the world.

 

[Valletta]

Some people seem to be living in an entirely different reality to the rest of the the world.

People are inundated with the attacks on Trump and conservatives, the hard left leaders paint their opponents, particularly Trump, as crazies and killers. Here's Hillary pushing that type of baloney:

 

[Pommer]

People are inundated with the attacks on Trump and conservatives, the hard left leaders paint their opponents, particularly Trump, as crazies and killers. Here's Hillary pushing that type of baloney:

I haven’t heard from her in several years but then I’m not on the prowl for attacks on Dear Leader.

 

[Belk]

Here in the United States they generally try and find people who are unfamiliar with the defendant and wouldn't be swayed one way or another by the occupation, beliefs, gender, race, etc. of the defendant or by the particular crime. They normally seek out a good mix of U.S. citizens, a jury of Trump's peers doesn't mean a jury of left-wing Democrats. With such a well-known figure I think most people would have a bias so choosing a fair jury is a difficult and the venue should have been changed. Never in the history of our country has a defendant been faced with four criminal trials all going on at once in four different jurisdictions, it's no coincidence, this is blatant election interference by those who are willing to destroy our Constitutional rights in order to promote their own radical agenda. It is chilling how many Americans are willing to go along with this.

Citation?

 

[wing2000]

Never in the history of our country has a defendant been faced with four criminal trials all going on at once in four different jurisdictions, it's no coincidence, this is blatant election interference by those who are willing to destroy our Constitutional rights in order to promote their own radical agenda. It is chilling how many Americans are willing to go along with this.

A man reaps what he sows.

No man is above the law.

It's alarming to me how many Americans are willing to ignore these fundamental principles when it comes to Donald Trump.

Trump will be held to account by the citizens in the city where he committed the alleged crimes. That is how it should be.

 

[Valletta]

Citation?

A man reaps what he sows.

No man is above the law.

It's alarming to me how many Americans are willing to ignore these fundamental principles when it comes to Donald Trump.

Trump will be held to account by the citizens in the city where he committed the alleged crimes. That is how it should be.

Everyone involved, ever D.A., every judge that is attacking our Constitution, that has violated the law, needs to be held accountable. That is how it should be.

 

[rambot]

Everyone involved, ever D.A., every judge that is attacking our Constitution, that has violated the law, needs to be held accountable. That is how it should be.

No.

A criminal has left trail of evidence and you don't like it cause he bullies the people you wish you could bully.

He play himself as a victim while everyone around him is a criminal??? Smarten up and use your brain.

 

[rambot]

Citation?

20$ says ONLY trump has EVER said those words.

 

[wing2000]

Everyone involved, ever D.A., every judge that is attacking our Constitution, that has violated the law, needs to be held accountable. That is how it should be.

Funny you should mention the Constitution while defending Donald Trump. This is the man who is currently arguing that Presidents should have absolute power. Even 5th graders know our founders never intended such power to be in the hands of the Executive branch.

 

[Belk]

Everyone involved, ever D.A., every judge that is attacking our Constitution, that has violated the law, needs to be held accountable. That is how it should be.

That in no way shows "Never in the history of our country has a defendant been faced with four criminal trials all going on at once in four different jurisdictions,". Got anything resembling evidence or is this yet another bald faced assertion easily countered in reality?

 

[dogs4thewin]

Unfortunately a number of that one third may be jurors. I don't think Trump can get a fair trial in that location.

but if the jury does not come back all in favor of conviction Trump will either be aquitted or the judge may be forced to declare a mistrial at which point the DA could go for a second bite at the apple (a hung jury does not allow for the double jeparody defense) but if they chose to do that they would have to start ALL over and pick 18 new people and spend the money again.

For the record I do not think he could get a fair trial anywhere.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Citation?

References:

[1] Some vague sense of how jury trials work.

-------

Their is no requirement that the jurors have never heard of the defendant, or even the crime. What *is* a requirement is that the juror has not formed a firm opinion on either the facts of the crime, the defendant, or the guilt of the defendant prior to hearing the evidence.