ex-President Trump - Page 1635 - Politics and Society -- Two Plus Two Poker Forums

A motion from defense or prosecution easily dismissed by the judge in 99.9% of cases, given the applicability will be very limited.

Then jurisprudence will develop setting somewhat precise boundaries for the application of the waiver of random-civilian jury trials on case of exceptional notoriety.

And it could be easy the case that the easiest solution would be to have a 3 judges panel selected from the state or the federal district as jury.

The criterion for who exactly qualifies as a peer of the defendant would be the subject of countless pre-trial arguments. I don't think it's practicable. E.g. trump would argue that he can be tried only by a jury of 12 republican ex-presidents.

Quote

05-07-2024 , 05:10 PM

#40852

Luciom

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 7,040

Quote:

Originally Posted by d2_e4

Oh the peer criterion is inapplicable in today society where social status is clearly much more fluid than in the past.

I was just listing why historically juries made a lot of sense.

For politicians btw the Italian system until we amended the constitution in that part in the late 80s, was for our SCOTUS-equivalent to judge alleged crimes of prime ministers and ministers committed while in charge (so for trump the 3 other cases would qualify but not the hush money case).

But a favourable vote of Parliament is still necessary to proceed with the indictment

Quote

05-07-2024 , 05:19 PM

#40853

Luciom

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 7,040

Interesting politico article on why evangelics like trump

https://www.politico.com/news/magazi...ppeal-00156488

Quote

05-07-2024 , 05:22 PM

#40854

d2_e4

certifiable moron

Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 12,554

I don't really care much what adults who have imaginary friends think.

Quote

05-07-2024 , 05:35 PM

#40855

Luciom

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 7,040

Quote:

Originally Posted by d2_e4

I don't really care much what adults who have imaginary friends think.

I do when they are a significant chunk of voters in countries whose elections materially affect my life

Quote

05-07-2024 , 06:11 PM

#40856

thethethe

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 8,563

Also explains why they have quite a hankering for paedophilia and protecting it.

It's that damned lust!

Quote

05-07-2024 , 06:19 PM

#40857

rickroll

oddly catty

Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 23,081

if you think those kiddos are good looking now, just wait until they become adults!

Quote

05-07-2024 , 06:22 PM

#40858

rickroll

oddly catty

Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 23,081

but fwiw the correct term isn't pedophilia

epstein island and the bros were ephebophiliacs

she is young for sure, but to call that pedophilia is just wrong

Quote

05-07-2024 , 07:05 PM

#40859

thethethe

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 8,563

Ah I was going for a more broad approach, like supporting lowering age of marriage to 12, or one that might be getting close to Trump's heart/other heart - legal marriage between 1st cousins. Family values!

Quote

05-07-2024 , 07:47 PM

#40860

StoppedRainingMen

Player Hater of the Year

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 53,993

Beyond hilarious how the people who cry that trump is being persecuted and can’t get a fair trial will obviously say nothing about trump’s hand picked appointee intentionally sabotaging the only slam dunk against him

Quote

05-07-2024 , 08:01 PM

#40861

Luciom

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 7,040

except I pointed that out very clearly as something that is truly insane

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luciom

Speaking of possible conflicts of interest, the judge of the classified document case, Aileen Cannon, has been nominated by Trump (????) to that seat, it's truly incredible to think that American rules allow her to judge Trump himself.

I am not a bad faith leftist

Quote

05-07-2024 , 08:03 PM

#40862

StoppedRainingMen

Player Hater of the Year

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 53,993

Not sure I even remotely mentioned your name, chief

Stop telling on yourself

Quote

05-07-2024 , 08:06 PM

#40863

Luciom

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 7,040

sure sure 2 pages we discuss that he can't have an impartial jury (imho) in NYS, and I. the only one defending that hypothesis with everyone else claiming randos can objectively detach themselves from the personal opinions they have on the most controversial individual in politics of the last 20+ years, but suuuuuuurely you were not sub tweeting me (except you were, but I had the receipts to prove I am coherent in my stances)

Quote

05-07-2024 , 08:16 PM

#40864

StoppedRainingMen

Player Hater of the Year

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 53,993

Bro I have you on ignore. I only click ‘view post’ when I’m 99.9999% sure you’re addressing something I said that I may as well read

I promise you your insanity has been white noise for a while. I couldn’t even bring myself to keep reading this last post beyond ‘sure’

Quote

05-07-2024 , 08:17 PM

#40865

chillrob

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 21,630

So what do you think should be done with famous people, who no one can be impartial about, accused of a crime?

Quote

05-07-2024 , 08:18 PM

#40866

StoppedRainingMen

Player Hater of the Year

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 53,993

I know you badly want attention so I’m sorry if you’re hurt by these posts I made you might report

Last edited by StoppedRainingMen; 05-07-2024 at 08:19 PM. Reason: @luciom

Quote

05-07-2024 , 08:30 PM

#40867

Luciom

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 7,040

Quote:

Originally Posted by chillrob

So what do you think should be done with famous people, who no one can be impartial about, accused of a crime?

I literally wrote it in a previous reply.

waive jury trial and use judges in cases of exceptional notoriety.

iirc that's called "bench ruling" and usually can only be had if the defense asks for it (maybe only in some states?), or in a few rare cases otherwise, and for federal criminal prosecution it would need a constitutional amendment as the 6th a. currently guarantees a jury trial for federal crimes

Quote

05-07-2024 , 08:32 PM

#40868

d2_e4

certifiable moron

Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 12,554

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luciom

As far as I am aware the defense can always ask for a bench trial, so if Trump has elected to have a jury trial, he obviously feels that is in his interest.

Quote

05-07-2024 , 08:34 PM

#40869

chillrob

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 21,630

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luciom

Why do you think judges could be impartial about someone they know, if no one else can be?

Quote

05-07-2024 , 11:55 PM

#40870

The Horror

grinder

Join Date: Feb 2023 Posts: 459

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luciom

The argument against a bench trial is why take the judgment of a random academic over 12 people you can choose?

Quote

05-08-2024 , 12:04 AM

#40871

Montrealcorp

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 13,767

Why would a con man like trump would want one or 3 judges to determines if his guilty or not ?
He knows he couldn’t swindle judges about the law , it would be suicide lol .

trump loves non judicial jurors so he can try swindle them like he did half the country …

Quote

05-08-2024 , 03:59 AM

#40872

Luciom

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 7,040

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Horror

The argument against a bench trial is why take the judgment of a random academic over 12 people you can choose?

Because it isn't a random academic rather 3 in my proposal, and it isn't an academic rather a law expert trained to be impartial and selected ab origine by the political process, not self selected by the academic caste.

And remember that the idea starts from "we don't think we can select 12 impartial people", of course if you disagree with that we will keep the jury

Quote

05-08-2024 , 04:02 AM

#40873

Luciom

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 7,040

Quote:

Originally Posted by chillrob

Why do you think judges could be impartial about someone they know, if no one else can be?

I think they can be more impartial because of training, reputational damage, peer and media pressure.

And at the very least they can put their effort in it in full because they are being paid decent money to do so unlike the jury.

It isn't a perfect solution but it is better than the current situation, for cases of exceptional notoriety of the defendant.

Btw I also think Cannon should have recused herself, or be recused by the appeal court