His lawyers probably didn’t expect to juggle a dozen trials at the same time. That, and, no one even halfway competent would ever work for Trump. Most of his previous attorneys are codefendants in his criminal trials at this point.
Yes, because they fully believe that 40% of the nation would exonerate him. So they want jury trials to be stacked with loyalists. There is also the possibility that they want to know who will make the decision so they can be coerced.
It depends on where the jury pool comes from. I doubt that 4 people in Manhattan or Brooklyn would want to exonerate him, much less 40%. But if they can pull from Staten Island as well, his chances of finding at least one goober who would be willing to ignore the facts and exonerate him get larger.
Long trials tend to have a large jury pool to select from. I was recently in the pool for a 7 week trial in Oakland and there were 150 of us to choose from. The defense just needs to find 4 Republicans to get into the jury and the case is over. You would assume a staunch Republican would try hard to get on the jury to help protect trump.
I think you underestimate how much New Yorkers (Particularly NYC) loathe Trump. Brooklyn and Queens saw something insane like 75% of the vote go to Biden, in Manhattan and then Bronx it was closer to 85%. And we can’t assume the remaining 15% are full MAGA, either, they may have just not liked Biden but were ambivalent to Trump.
Staten Island is where NYC keeps its Conservatives, it went for Trump 52 to 42.
Given the stack of damning evidence against him, probably. Jury’s adds an unknown quantity. So if you think you can win without on, you should not request one.
I posted this story in politics from another source a few days ago and it was removed because apparently the source wasn’t good enough and people couldn’t find it anywhere else. It was the only source reporting it at the time, but ok then.
edit: guess it was farther back than I remember, here’s that article from ~3 weeks ago
Yeah when your lawyers have to record you (believe it’s something from Cohen’s testimony) to have a backup of what you requested, you don’t get the best lawyers. Trump would never hire someone that seems smarter them himself, he has to be the most intelligent person in the room (lol). No one intelligent would really act dumb enough to be hired by someone who is notorious for not paying, mean unless there’s other factors but he’s not getting a highly regarded and clean lawyer at this point.
So, I must have followed a link to one of their videos at some point, because the YouTube algorithm spammed me their shit for months until I blocked it.
What kind of content is it? The thumbnails and titles looked rage baity
It’s actually pretty decent legal oriented YouTube entertainment. He’s a practicing lawyer that talks about current events and discusses possibly relevant laws or sometimes legal procedures. Sort of a more serious version of attorney tom.
I’m just some idiot on the internet who doesn’t know what I’m talking about, but…
Is it possible this isn’t a mistake? If you’re going to try to win a trial through corruption and wrongdoings, it seems easier to illicitly win over (and have it stay quiet) one person than half of a jury, no?
The jury has to be unanimous no matter the decision. If they can’t agree, they either deliberate as long as it takes, or if the jury is hung, then they’ll reduce the charges.
That’s their play, they don’t want a jury because they’re trying to pay the groundwork for a mistrial via judicial bias but that is a high jump and they’re stumbling on molehills.
Isn’t that in the Torah? I have never met a Christian who didn’t mix meat with dairy, that’s Judaism. Imagine Christian America if you told them they can’t eat cheeseburgers lmao. Actually, I think that might be the best way to beat religion in America. Ban cheeseburgers on religious grounds. Fat white balding men the nation over will revolt, once their arteries clear up from not eating burgers, that is.
Well, it’s in Leviticus. Which is in the Old Testament in the bible that these fuckheads still espouse. And before anyone comes along and says: “But, Jesus swept all that away!!!” Remember that wingnuts still cite Leviticus (20:13, to be precise) as justification for persecuting homosexuals.
That makes sense, thanks. It’s been a couple decades since I’ve set foot anywhere Christian, and I hope to continue that streak for a few more, so I’d rather ask you than a Christian 😂
Here’s the trick. Jesus swept away the conviction rules but not the sin rules. As in some things aren’t bad per se, they’re just rules to show your devotion. Jesus made is so you don’t have to do those things anymore.
Now, what’s bad and what’s an arbitrary rule? Who the fuck knows? It’s a free pass to have your own rules.
Exodus. Exodus is part of the Old Testament, along with Leviticus.
Leviticus (11:9-12) is where shellfish are banned, mixed seed or fabrics (19:19) It is where modern Christians cherry-pick their justifications on being anti-LGBTQ. (Lev. 18:22, 20:13)
Point is, they cherry-pick from the Old Testament when it suits them, and if you look at the rest of the rules in the books they reference that they ignore (e.g. tattoos, touching pig skin, eating pork, shellfish, etc. etc. ) it’s totally fair game to point out the rules they ignore in the same books as the ones they cite.
He’s in a room full of people that were also taught evolution. How is he not cowering in fear under the desk one of his fellow congresspeople won’t shot him? Maybe, just maybe, evolution has nothing to do with it?
meidastouch.com
Oldest