Trump's NY Election Interference Trial (Hope Hicks Testimony Concludes)

[Engorgeous George 1,213]

1 hour ago, BeachGuy23 said:

How often does a judge change venues based on the makeup of the jury pool? That would be the most common reason to grant a change of venue.  Change of venue motions are rarely granted.

And do you think Judge Cannon should recuse herself? Probably not based alone  upon Trump appointing her to the bench.  Appointments at the District Court level do not involve the interaction that appointments to the Courts of Appeals or the Supreme Court do.  Her involvement in the Federalist Society does raise questions for me as it may indicate a political philosophy may direct her judicial considerations. Frankly I have problems with all activist judges.  I would think it best she recuses herself, yes.

In historic cases I have real concerns over the appearance of a bias, whether there may actually be one or not.

[squistion 901]

40 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

This is an historic trial and will be a precedent setting trial.  As such I would prefer it be free of extraneous issues.  The judge could very easily have eliminated two extraneous matters by simply recusing himself and by granting a change of venue to a nearby county where the demographics on voter registration were more evenly distributed.  

You don't get a change of venue because the political party of potential jurors is not to your liking. At least I've never seen a change of venue granted for that reason or anything close to that reason. 

[Engorgeous George 1,213]

4 hours ago, squistion said:

You don't get a change of venue because the political party of potential jurors is not to your liking. At least I've never seen a change of venue granted for that reason or anything close to that reason. 

Nor have I.  The question is whether a person is likely to get a fair trial based on opinions being formulated and hardened due to infamy or pretrial publicity.  This is a matter of first impression, or nearly so, where politics is so inextricable woven into the fabric of the case and the defendant that the politics of the jurors is essentially tantamount to having prejudged the matter.  The general principle of fundamental fairness, of not having prejuded the matter before the evidence is presented is the question and on that question there should have been a change of venue.

[shadrap 117]

56 minutes ago, squistion said:

Like who, Alan Dershowitz? 

he is one.  another:

https://www.foxnews.com/media/democratic-lawyer-calls-ny-trump-trial-embarrassment-legal-system

[Hardcore troubadour 12,722]

5 minutes ago, squistion said:

You don't get a change of venue because the political party of potential jurors is not to your liking. At least I've never seen a change of venue granted for that reason or anything close to that reason. 

Then what’s the reason for one? 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,722]

35 minutes ago, Fnord said:

I listen to public radio. The good kind, that plays cool music. The Current from Minneapolis is a GREAT radio station for those that like a variety of music.

I have never listened to a moment of NPR unless someone else has it tuned in. Wrong again!

[IGotWorms 3,326]

4 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

Nor have I.  The question is whether a person is likely to get a fair trial based on opinions being formulated and hardened due to infamy or pretrial publicity.  This is a matter of first impression, or nearly so, where politics is so inextricable woven into the fabric of the case and the defendant that the politics of the jurors is essentially tantamount to having prejudged the matter.  The general principle of fundamental fairness, of not having prejuded the matter before the evidence is presented is the question and on that question their should have been a change of venue.

That’s a stupid argument. Donald Trump is known all over the country so there’s no reason to change the venue on that basis. It will be just as hard to find twelve jurors who’ve never heard of him in Nashville as it would be in New York.

Bottom line you don’t like that NY is blue, and like sqisition said, that is not, and never has been, a basis for changing venue.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,722]

9 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

That’s a stupid argument. Donald Trump is known all over the country so there’s no reason to change the venue on that basis. It will be just as hard to find twelve jurors who’ve never heard of him in Nashville as it would be in New York.

Bottom line you don’t like that NY is blue, and like sqisition said, that is not, and never has been, a basis for changing venue.

They could have moved it to less blue areas of NY. You trying to portray it as the same is laughable. 

[Engorgeous George 1,213]

21 minutes ago, IGotWorms said:

That’s a stupid argument. Donald Trump is known all over the country so there’s no reason to change the venue on that basis. It will be just as hard to find twelve jurors who’ve never heard of him in Nashville as it would be in New York.

Bottom line you don’t like that NY is blue, and like sqisition said, that is not, and never has been, a basis for changing venue.

You are entitled to your opinion.  As for moving the trial to Nashville I never advocated that .  They could have moved it to Westchester county.  They would not have gotten jurors who have never heard of Trump, but they would have gotten a jury pool of approximately 50% democrats and 50% republicans in  trial uniquely impacting politcal affiliations.  Your holding on to what has never before happened in a matter involving something which has never before happened is interesting.  They say you are a lawyer.  Do some lawyrering.  What is the reason for a change of venue? Is it to obtain as unbiased a jury as is practical in a trial where it appears likely that the jury will be skewed if the trial is not moved?  if so, and we both know it is so, this trial should have been moved.

 

Why are so many afraid of a fair trial or a trial without a skewed jury?  We both know the answer I suppose, that being one partisan for Trump on the jury will in this day and age result in a hung jury. Partisans for Trump are as unlikely to be reached by evidence in this trial just as partisans for Biden do not even need the evidence to convict.  How the rule of law can prevail in this charged environment I do not know but I would hope it would start with lawyers at least acknowledging the purpose of changes of venue.

[BeachGuy23 527]

2 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

You are entitled to your opinion.  As for moving the trial to Nashville I never advocated that .  They could have moved it to Westchester county.  They would not have gotten jurors who have never heard of Trump, but they would have gotten a jury pool of approximately 50% democrats and 50% republicans in  trial uniquely impacting politcal affiliations.  Your holding on to what has never before happened in a matter involving something which has never before happened is interesting.  They say you are a lawyer.  Do some lawyrering.  What is the reason for a change of venue? Is it to obtain as unbiased a jury as is practical in a trial where it appears likely that the jury will be skewed if the trial is not moved?  if so, and we both know it is so, this trial should have been moved.

 

Why are so many afraid of a fair trial or a trial without a skewed jury?  We both know the answer I suppose, that being one partisan for Trump on the jury will in this day and age result in a hung jury. Partisans for Trump are as unlikely to be reached by evidence in this trial just as partisans for Biden do not even need the evidence to convict.  How the rule of law can prevail in this charged environment I do not know but i would hope it would start with lawyers at least acknowledging the purpose of changes of venue.

Why is your baseline assumption that the political party of the jury influences their decision?  Isn't that against the whole jury system that has served the country well until Trump is involved, and now we have to make adjustments?

The jury is sworn to put forth a verdict based on the evidence.

Why do we have to change things up now?

[Hardcore troubadour 12,722]

Just now, BeachGuy23 said:

Why is your baseline assumption that the political party of the jury influences their decision?  Isn't that against the whole jury system that has served the country well until Trump is involved, and now we have to make adjustments?

The jury is sworn to put forth a verdict based on the evidence.

Why do we have to change things up now?

Yeah idiot. Let’s compare this trial and the defendant to the rest. Go away with your nonsense. 

[BeachGuy23 527]

16 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Yeah idiot. Let’s compare this trial and the defendant to the rest. Go away with your nonsense. 

TRIGGERED!!

[squistion 901]

Uh Oh!

 

[Fnord 1,143]

40 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Yeah idiot. Let’s compare this trial and the defendant to the rest. Go away with your nonsense. 

Always an excuse from Whataboutadour. Poor, poor Trump.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,722]

When do we get to the crime? 

[Mike Honcho 4,045]

20 hours ago, Ron_Artest said:

First Matc0ck thinks he cracked the Trump Hush money case, now Codumbo has secret evidence about the Central Park 5 

He was probably there beating the false confessions out of the suspects. 

[Mike Honcho 4,045]

2 hours ago, BeachGuy23 said:

How often does a judge change venues based on the makeup of the jury pool?

And do you think Judge Cannon should recuse herself?

Based on her decisions and actions, I don't think she will need to recuse herself, I think the 11th might just remove her.

[Hardcore troubadour 12,722]

17 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

He was probably there beating the false confessions out of the suspects. 

No evidence of beatings during the interrogations. 

[Mike Honcho 4,045]

27 minutes ago, squistion said:

Uh Oh!

 

POW

Also, if I was Trump, I would have been paying people to publish the MDougal story...I would have had her picture on the Goodyear Blimp flying over the Super Bowl with the lne "I HIT THAT!!!"

[Tree of Knowledge 850]

Who is more fixated on that Pecker?  Squidward or Kyle Griffin?   

[Hardcore troubadour 12,722]

5 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Based on her decisions and actions, I don't think she will need to recuse herself, I think the 11th might just remove her.

Why? 

[thegeneral 1,435]

1 minute ago, Tree of Knowledge said:

Who is more fixated on that Pecker?  Squidward or Kyle Griffin?   

Trump had this Pecker in his back pocket cockblocking negative news for him left and right. At the same time spraying fake news all over the place for him. 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,722]

8 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

Based on her decisions and actions, I don't think she will need to recuse herself, I think the 11th might just remove her.

I love the vague wording and how Honcho acts like he knows all about the circuits.  Focker wouldn’t know the 11th circuit from circuit city with out this sham trial. Just repeating things. 

[Mike Honcho 4,045]

4 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

Why? 

 

Just now, Hardcore troubadour said:

I love the vague wording and how Honcho acts like he knows all about the circuits.  Focker wouldn’t know the 11th circuit from circuit city with out this sham trial. Just repeating things. 

You really didn't need two posts.  But for the "Why" it's explained on that same page you provided the board the other day when we asked you to provide more info and sources. Look there.

 

[Ron_Artest 699]

23 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

No evidence of beatings during the interrogations. 

aka they got away with it.

[Tree of Knowledge 850]

20 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

Trump had this Pecker in his back pocket cockblocking negative news for him left and right. At the same time spraying fake news all over the place for him. 

You’ve put waaaay too much thought into Trump’s Pecker.  

[thegeneral 1,435]

10 minutes ago, Tree of Knowledge said:

You’ve put waaaay too much thought into Trump’s Pecker.  

i bet the Trump Lego Dong Gold Edition is in your cart right now at Gateway Pundit

[Hardcore troubadour 12,722]

34 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

 

You really didn't need two posts.  But for the "Why" it's explained on that same page you provided the board the other day when we asked you to provide more info and sources. Look there.

 

So you don’t know. Got it. If you did you would have said what it was. 

[Mike Honcho 4,045]

3 minutes ago, Hardcore troubadour said:

So you don’t know. Got it. If you did you would have said what it was. 

You should go with that---instead of the thought that you are being treated in the same manner you treat everyone else. 

[Hardcore troubadour 12,722]

35 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

You should go with that---instead of the thought that you are being treated in the same manner you treat everyone else. 

I’m able to say things in my own words. You are not. You must be a millennial and run to google in the middle of conversations. 

[Engorgeous George 1,213]

2 hours ago, BeachGuy23 said:

Why is your baseline assumption that the political party of the jury influences their decision?  Isn't that against the whole jury system that has served the country well until Trump is involved, and now we have to make adjustments?

The jury is sworn to put forth a verdict based on the evidence.

Why do we have to change things up now?

We have always recognized the potential for bias, thus challenges for cause to the potential  jurors, preemptory challenges to the potential jurors, and changes of venue.  We are not changing up anything now.  Sorry but you are simply factually wrong.

[Strike 3,999]

3 hours ago, shadrap said:

he is one.  another:

https://www.foxnews.com/media/democratic-lawyer-calls-ny-trump-trial-embarrassment-legal-system

https://1ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2024%2F04%2F23%2Fopinion%2Fbragg-trump-trial.html

[Engorgeous George 1,213]

1 hour ago, Mike Honcho said:

POW

Also, if I was Trump, I would have been paying people to publish the MDougal story...I would have had her picture on the Goodyear Blimp flying over the Super Bowl with the lne "I HIT THAT!!!"

Full agreement.

[jonmx 1,612]

1 hour ago, thegeneral said:

Trump had this Pecker in his back pocket cockblocking negative news for him left and right. At the same time spraying fake news all over the place for him. 

You fuking idiots act like this doesn't happen at CNN or NYT.  You leftist bastards have 100 times more power controlling narrative and suppressing news stories to advance your braindead candidate.   

[thegeneral 1,435]

1 minute ago, jonmx said:

You fuking idiots act like this doesn't happen at CNN or NYT.  You leftist bastards have 100 times more power controlling narrative and suppressing news stories to advance your braindead candidate.   

You have Fox, radio screamers, et al.

If there was ever a case being made against some lib you’d be talking it up with all your bullshit. Stfu cry baby

[thegeneral 1,435]

10 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

1 hour ago, Mike Honcho said:

POW

Also, if I was Trump, I would have been paying people to publish the MDougal story...I would have had her picture on the Goodyear Blimp flying over the Super Bowl with the lne "I HIT THAT!!!"

Full agreement.

Your mail order bride taking half your shet might make you pause and there’s also that whole evangelical vote you were trying to court. 

[Engorgeous George 1,213]

2 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

Your mail order bride taking half your might make you pause and there’s also that whole evangelical vote you were trying to court. 

My mail order bride would have signed a pre-nup and would understand she is a prop.  The evangelical vote has nowhere else to go, though they could stay home.  Karen McDougal is so fine those folks who were not high-fiving me would at least be understanding of my human frailty.

[thegeneral 1,435]

2 minutes ago, Engorgeous George said:

My mail order bride would have signed a pre-nup and would understand she is a prop.  The evangelical vote has nowhere else to go, though they could stay home.  Karen McDougal is so fine those folks who were not high-fiving me would at least be understanding of my human frailty.

I realize this is a bit tongue in cheek but there’s a reason Don wants this all kept secret. Melania keeps reupping her deal with all this leverage

From a side piece ranking perspective KM is a huge step up from Stormy however. Agree there.

[Engorgeous George 1,213]

1 minute ago, thegeneral said:

I realize this is a bit tongue in cheek but there’s a reason Don wants this all kept secret. Melania keeps reupping her deal with all this leverage

From a side piece ranking perspective KM is a huge step up from Stormy however. Agree there.

The difference between rancid ground chuck and dry aged kobi beef tenderloin.

[Mike Honcho 4,045]

16 minutes ago, thegeneral said:

Your mail order bride taking half your shet might make you pause and there’s also that whole evangelical vote you were trying to court. 

Worth it (you gotta admit, I make a very convincing argument).