Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
Because they have been disclosing the jurors' employers, and someone figured out who she is, and she asked to be excused. They will no longer disclose the jurors' employers.
It's weird that they disclosed them at all. Every article was like "The anonymous juror who is the night manager at Debbie's Bakery in Brooklyn..."
It is legitimate for the court to ask. After all, if someone worked at a hotel or real estate firm which is in direct competition with Trump properties, their objectivity might be called into question. And in the interest of transparency, it is normally good to default to making the information public, as a check on the decisions being made by the judge.
But this all shows how we're in uncharted territory. The media is desperate for any information at all, and the defendant has a history of encouraging stochastic terrorism against people he perceives as a threat. I wonder if he considers the fact that he basically intimidated a juror into leaving a victory.
Of course it's reasonable for the court to ask, but the court knowing, and that information being released outside of the court, are two different things. This isn't the first time we've had a defendant that would encourage retaliation against a jury, there's no way the court system doesn't have any idea how to protect a jury.
Yeah, but the right to a public trial is so important that it's right there in the Constitution, next door to the presumption of innocence. That means that trials must be as transparent as possible, even to the media. Any unusual act that the judge takes to limit that transparency must be justified. This trial is too important to risk getting its verdict overturned on any technicality.
“We have a defendant who very publically threatens and abused judges, prosecution, officers of the court, any one who stands up to him”
… seems pretty fucking justified.
The American people- and specifically the people in New York are also entitled to a fair trial.
When I sat on a jury a couple years ago the judge & both attorneys knew my employer as part of the juror selection process. It was one of the questions on the questionnaire we had to fill out. The defense attorney did ask me one or two questions about my job before agreeing to have me as a juror. But there was absolutely no need for that information to go anywhere beyond those few people.
Can't they just ask that though instead of asking for your current employer?
Can they not anonymize these jurors due to Trump's threatening behavior? Sequester them? For fuck's sake, he's putting their families at risk. Why's he got to be in the courtroom for the selection process? Why do reporters have to be there? This is bullshit.
Two dismissed now*
I was really excited about this trial until I realized he will probably not do any prison time even if convicted.
That's not so clear — Michael Cohen has already served prison time for his part in this, as others have done on a regular basis for similar crimes
Even if he doesn't end up serving time a criminal conviction would likely sway enough Americans to keep Trump out of office.
If there is precedence for no prison time for this charge, which there is, then Trump won’t do any. Our justice system continues to show that they have no desire to hold him accountable.