this post was submitted on 23 Apr 2024
148 points (94.6% liked)

politics

19047 readers
3931 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The judge kept the former president on a tight leash when jurors were in the courtroom.

As the various criminal proceedings against Donald Trump have traveled at times tortuous routes in recent years, a frequent refrain has been that he is escaping consequences for some of his most serious alleged misconduct. But this week he finally faced the start of a criminal trial, in the New York courtroom of Judge Juan Merchan. And as proceedings turn to opening statements Monday, what we have seen so far suggests that the artful dodger of accountability may have finally met his match. 

In Merchan’s courtroom, our country’s bedrock principle that no one is above the law is flourishing. In this first week of proceedings, the jury selection process proved resilient and, despite challenges, moved much faster than many thought.

Merchan has so far managed this trial just as judges all over the country run their criminal courts each day.

top 21 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 102 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Translation: Trump has not yet been able to derail the latest attempt to hold him accountable for his actions, and has been forced to endure the most basic levels of decorum in a courtroom setting, like not directly threatening jurors.

[–] firebyte@lemmy.world 32 points 5 months ago

Or remaining seated whilst the judge leaves the court.

[–] FunderPants@lemmy.ca 50 points 5 months ago (4 children)

One of the jurors gets all their news from Twitter and truth social. If this jury comes back anything but hung, I'll be shocked.

[–] lewdian69@lemmy.world 20 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Where did you see that information? Genuinely curious cause I love losing all hope again and again.

[–] FunderPants@lemmy.ca 13 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)
[–] quindraco@lemm.ee 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

🫡 Thanks for the source.

I wonder why the prosecution didn't use a peremptory dismissal on that juror.

[–] FunderPants@lemmy.ca 11 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

On legal breakdown they mentioned that the lawyers may have been satisfied based on other answers. They don't think it's a win, just hopeful this is the case.

To me, it should be disqualifying to get your news from the defendents organization.

[–] Chainweasel@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

There's 6 alternate jurors too, the second they show any kind of MAGA bias or proof they can't be impartial they'll pull them and replace them with one of the alternates.

[–] DontMakeMoreBabies@kbin.social 1 points 5 months ago

Jury selection is black magic, gut instinct, and random chance. Someone read their questionnaires/listened to the answers and told themselves a story that ended with 'better not preempt.'

Outside of those big money private firms paying money for body language experts, voir dire is a crap shoot where you're just hoping to get rid of the nut jobs.

[–] henfredemars@infosec.pub 9 points 5 months ago

I saw a matrix posted recently showing each juror number and what new sources they primarily use. I’m too lazy to look it up, but I believe that is public information.

Perhaps another user who is less lazy can find it.

[–] DontMakeMoreBabies@kbin.social 18 points 5 months ago

"I'm like really fucking stupid, basically retarded, but sure I can be fair and impartial."

If you're out of preempts, there's juror number 11.

JUSTICE.

[–] 0110010001100010@lemmy.world 13 points 5 months ago

Which, of course, is in Trumps best interest. A mistrial may cause it to go back through the court (delays) or may cause the case to be dropped. Regardless, the judge is unlikely to have much say once the jury is deliberating.

So yeah, I'm not getting my hopes up.

[–] aseriesoftubes@lemmy.world 8 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I’d be interested in seeing a source for the Truth Social claim. The New York Times article about the jurors doesn’t mention that at all. It seems like it would be a rather noteworthy thing if a juror got their news from a source owned by the defendant.

[–] xantoxis@lemmy.world 36 points 5 months ago

"Met his match"? Trump meets his match every time he encounters an 8-year-old boy with emotional control issues. He only gets away with shit because he's a useful pawn.

[–] PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works 32 points 5 months ago

I cannot imagine what this guy and his family are going through right now. I wish them all the best…it’s got to be stressful given what we’ve heard about some of the (potential) jurors already.

[–] eran_morad@lemmy.world 9 points 5 months ago

Merchan deserves no such indignity.

[–] bquintb@midwest.social 6 points 5 months ago (1 children)
[–] FenrirIII@lemmy.world 9 points 5 months ago

Never.

Why?

This.. is.. America! [kicks a homeless vet down a hole]

[–] itsgroundhogdayagain@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Surely this time it will be different!

[–] Reddfugee42@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

I can hear Capone and Gotti laughing and saying the same thing.