• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Can you keep a Trump supporter off a Jury?

independentusa said:
Not necessarily. According to other jurors this woman wanted to vote no on all counts, but the other jurors convinced her that the evidence was so overwhelming that she could not do anything but rule for conviction on the 8 she agreed to. Apparently she decided that to vote no on these would look too prejudiced against any conviction and make here look stuppid.
Click to expand...

Where are you getting this information from?

Jury deliberations are private.
 
Mason66 said:
A. Prove Trump knew about any of this. I seriously doubt he did.
Click to expand...
You believe that Manafort and Trump Jr held a meeting in Trump Tower and Trump himself had absolutely no idea it was happening? If you seriously believe that you're suffering from a level of delusion that is seriously unhealthy man.

We have audio tapes of Trump saying that he knew about the payments to the porn stars.

Mason66 said:
B. You think this is all about leverage? I think this is about Muller justifying his role in this. At least he got a few convictions, right?
Click to expand...
So you think Mueller is just such a despicable man that he goes around putting people in prison just so that he can justify his job?

Mason66 said:
C. Nobody knows he is guilty of anything. They might think it, but they don't know.
Click to expand...
Yeah, we do. There is already enough evidence the public domain alone to conclude with 100% certainty that Trump is guilty of Obstruction of Justice and serious serious violations of campaign finance law. Those two things alone require impeachment, and the Russia issue requires an unfathomable amount of cognitive dissonance to continue denying.
 
MrWonka said:
You believe that Manafort and Trump Jr held a meeting in Trump Tower and Trump himself had absolutely no idea it was happening? If you seriously believe that you're suffering from a level of delusion that is seriously unhealthy man.

We have audio tapes of Trump saying that he knew about the payments to the porn stars.


So you think Mueller is just such a despicable man that he goes around putting people in prison just so that he can justify his job?


Yeah, we do. There is already enough evidence the public domain alone to conclude with 100% certainty that Trump is guilty of Obstruction of Justice and serious serious violations of campaign finance law. Those two things alone require impeachment, and the Russia issue requires an unfathomable amount of cognitive dissonance to continue denying.
Click to expand...

Try to follow along a simple conversation.

I said for you to prove Trump knew anything about what Manafort was convicted of.

Don't put words or characterizations in my mouth.

You don't know what the definition of know is.
 
MrWonka said:
One of the jurors was interviewed on Fox News.
Click to expand...

So you get second hand information and take it as gospel.

That is a bad idea.
 
Mason66 said:
So you get second hand information and take it as gospel.
Click to expand...

Umm... the juror was in the room. It's first-hand information. She was even a huge Trump supporter who openly stated that she went into the trial assuming Manafort was innocent only to find that the evidence left absolutely no doubt.
 
Mason66 said:
I said for you to prove Trump knew anything about what Manafort was convicted of.
Click to expand...
We don't need to know any of that. That's not what's going to bury Trump. My guess is that he did, and there's a decent chance Manafort might flip on him, but that's not really the specific thing they're after here.

We know that Manafort and Trump Jr had a meeting at Trump Tower with Russians who were offering to hack the DNC. That's what we know, and only a complete imbecile would believe that Trump himself had absolutely no idea that it happened.
 
MrWonka said:
Yeah, we do. There is already enough evidence the public domain alone to conclude with 100% certainty that Trump is guilty of Obstruction of Justice and serious serious violations of campaign finance law. Those two things alone require impeachment, and the Russia issue requires an unfathomable amount of cognitive dissonance to continue denying.
Click to expand...

No there is not "enough evidence in the public domain" to conclude any such thing as to obstruction of justice. :roll:

As for the point about "serious serious violations of campaign finance law?" There is almost no such thing. Obama was merely fined for spending $2 million in campaign funds in violation of campaign law. John Edwards was tried and found not guilty on one charge and had a hung jury on all others, which means he was never punished. Almost every Presidential candidate since the enactment of campaign finance laws have violated one or more of such codes and either been ignored or slapped on the wrist.

You have a tendency to make statements that exaggerate the facts to suit your narrative. Try a little restraint, it might help your discussion style. :coffeepap"
 
independentusa said:
It seems that a trump supporter on the Manafort jury tried to keep Manafort from being convicted on all 18 items charged and did eventually lock up ten of the charges so the judge went with mistrial on those ten. The other jurors finally got her to agree to the 8 he was convicted on since the evidence was so overwhelming and not based on anyone's word, but on the documents. So my question is can you keep a Trump supporter off a jury due to their inability to look at the evidence and not what it might do to Trump?
Click to expand...

*off a jury due to their inability to look at the evidence and not what it might do to Trump*

^^ This comment is obviously wrong because, as you stated, the juror was convinced by documented evidence.
 
MrWonka said:
We don't need to know any of that. That's not what's going to bury Trump. My guess is that he did, and there's a decent chance Manafort might flip on him, but that's not really the specific thing they're after here.

We know that Manafort and Trump Jr had a meeting at Trump Tower with Russians who were offering to hack the DNC. That's what we know, and only a complete imbecile would believe that Trump himself had absolutely no idea that it happened.
Click to expand...

*We know that Manafort and Trump Jr had a meeting at Trump Tower with Russians who were offering to hack the DNC.*

"offering to hack the DNC" ??

The DNC hacking, March 2016.
The Trump Towers meeting, June 9, 2016.

So no.
 
SheWolf said:
What are you talking about? And there are laws, no reason to take the law into your own hands and use violence.
Click to expand...

Naturally there are. And, when folks break them to commence violence on others because those others believe The Wrong Thing, I don't have much of a problem countenancing violence on them right back.
 
Mr Person said:
It's along the lines of saying "we'll crush them" or "we'll kick their asses", and I suspect you know that...
Click to expand...

No, it's not. "We will crush them" is a threat that can occur in all kinds of ways - the way one team "crushes" another on the basketball court, the way someone gets "crushed" in debate.

"Blowing in someone's doors" isn't a flexible metaphor. I've blown in people's doors before - never was it a non-violent act, nor did we ever do so when we weren't about to commit (at least that which was necessary to seize and take away) violence on those inside.
 
Captain Adverse said:
No there is not "enough evidence in the public domain" to conclude any such thing as to obstruction of justice. :roll:

As for the point about "serious serious violations of campaign finance law?" There is almost no such thing. Obama was merely fined for spending $2 million in campaign funds in violation of campaign law. John Edwards was tried and found not guilty on one charge and had a hung jury on all others, which means he was never punished. Almost every Presidential candidate since the enactment of campaign finance laws have violated one or more of such codes and either been ignored or slapped on the wrist.

You have a tendency to make statements that exaggerate the facts to suit your narrative. Try a little restraint, it might help your discussion style. :coffeepap"
Click to expand...

Actually Obama was fined 375 thousand dollars for getting reports in late.
 
cpwill said:
No, it's not. "We will crush them" is a threat that can occur in all kinds of ways - the way one team "crushes" another on the basketball court, the way someone gets "crushed" in debate.

"Blowing in someone's doors" isn't a flexible metaphor. I've blown in people's doors before - never was it a non-violent act, nor did we ever do so when we weren't about to commit (at least that which was necessary to seize and take away) violence on those inside.
Click to expand...


Oh, ok, whatever. Liberals want to blow up your doors.

:roll:
 
cpwill said:
That is what he said. :shrug:
Click to expand...

You're being ridiculous if you say he plans to or was inviting someone to literally go and set off explosives outside of Trump supporters' doors. (Or any sort of explosions). And I really don't believe you actually believe it.
 
cpwill said:
No, it's not. "We will crush them" is a threat that can occur in all kinds of ways - the way one team "crushes" another on the basketball court, the way someone gets "crushed" in debate.

"Blowing in someone's doors" isn't a flexible metaphor. I've blown in people's doors before - never was it a non-violent act, nor did we ever do so when we weren't about to commit (at least that which was necessary to seize and take away) violence on those inside.
Click to expand...

Ah you've "blown IN peoples doors before". Well that makes all the difference in the world. You just helped me make one of my oft seen points in these forums. Words mean everything and it is at least irresponsible if not unscrupulous to change or imply that the words one uses either in conversation or in print are something they are not. It is however Trumpian.

I don't ever remember coming off an athletic field after a win and hearing my teammates say "We blew their doors in". Now "We blew their doors off". Heard that a good deal as that is the rhetorical term of use. It is a term of use defined in the Urban dictionary and as an idiom is The Free Dictionary. I see no such reference for "I blew their doors in" I suspect because it would be taken for its literal as opposed to a rhetorical meaning. I suspect that on Nov 7th, a good many of us will be proclaiming joyously "We blew their doors off". In fact, I might just add it as a footer to my posts here. "We blew their doors off!!!!!!"

If you want to spar with me you better come better prepared than that. Someone here once called me insufferable. I am not insufferable. That doesn't get anywhere near it. I'm the Prince of f--king Darkness. Feel free to have some fun with that one as well if you choose. Might help you learn something.
 
cpwill said:
I'm quite the opposite of a Trump fan. But the increasing willingness on the left to countenance violence against them sure does leave me increasingly willing to commit violence in their defense.
Click to expand...

Since when does a comment on the coming 2018 election landslide equal "violence"? You appear to be looking for an excuse to blame anti-trumpers for "violence" when there is none.
 
cpwill said:
Naturally there are. And, when folks break them to commence violence on others because those others believe The Wrong Thing, I don't have much of a problem countenancing violence on them right back.
Click to expand...

I am still confused what you are referring to exactly. I am not aware of Trump supporters being violently attacked for their opinion. You might have a story here or there, but there is nothing to get worked up about.

I know about antifa using violence. Antifa and neo nazis have clashed in the streets before... but... haha... I don't think, and hope you're not, feeling sorry for neo nazis because they are getting slugged by antifa. Neo nazis are violent in and of themselves. I really hope you're not taking sides, or doing the lesser of two evil POV, and wanting to get violent yourself.
 
SheWolf said:
I am still confused what you are referring to exactly. I am not aware of Trump supporters being violently attacked for their opinion.
Click to expand...

Oh, I can think of a few examples of the left being willing to engage in violence because others had the wrong opinions, but the specific thing I'm referring to here (if you'll click back through) is someone saying it was time to start blowing in the doors of Trump supporters.

You might have a story here or there, but there is nothing to get worked up about.

I know about antifa using violence. Antifa and neo nazis have clashed in the streets before... but... haha... I don't think, and hope you're not, feeling sorry for neo nazis because they are getting slugged by antifa. Neo nazis are violent in and of themselves. I really hope you're not taking sides, or doing the lesser of two evil POV, and wanting to get violent yourself.
Click to expand...

If a non-violent advocate of an ideology I find abhorrent is attacked by someone whose ideology I even agree with, the victim of the attack is in the right, and I'm on their side.
 
jnug said:
Ah you've "blown IN peoples doors before". Well that makes all the difference in the world. You just helped me make one of my oft seen points in these forums. Words mean everything and it is at least irresponsible if not unscrupulous to change or imply that the words one uses either in conversation or in print are something they are not. It is however Trumpian.

I don't ever remember coming off an athletic field after a win and hearing my teammates say "We blew their doors in". Now "We blew their doors off".
Click to expand...

That's correct. Because it's not an analogy for winning, it's a physical description of an act.

If you want to spar with me you better come better prepared than that. Someone here once called me insufferable. I am not insufferable. That doesn't get anywhere near it. I'm the Prince of f--king Darkness. Feel free to have some fun with that one as well if you choose. Might help you learn something.
Click to expand...

:lamo


Bro. :) I sincerely doubt you know the pool you are sticking your toe into. "prince of f'ing darkness" :roll:
 
cpwill said:
That's correct. Because it's not an analogy for winning, it's a physical description of an act.



:lamo


Bro. :) I sincerely doubt you know the pool you are sticking your toe into. "prince of f'ing darkness" :roll:
Click to expand...

Twist somebodies words...pay the price for it. Notice I didn't twist your words at all. I didn't have to. You wrapped them around yourself. Go play in the kiddie pool for awhile.
 
Last edited:
hanger4 said:
*We know that Manafort and Trump Jr had a meeting at Trump Tower with Russians who were offering to hack the DNC.*

"offering to hack the DNC" ??

The DNC hacking, March 2016.
The Trump Towers meeting, June 9, 2016.

So no.
Click to expand...

You know what... you're right, Russia already had the information. They were trying to sell it for influence on the current President of the United States in that meeting. My bad.
 
jnug said:
What you are referring to is a Challenge for Cause.

A Challenge for Cause does require a reason and the Judge if he feels justified may contest the Challenge for Cause. Peremptory Challenges are those challenges allotted to each side that are beyond being contested or at least should be. I termed a Judge contesting a Peremptory Challenge as a Judge using a very high degree of discretionary control. Another way to say that would be balls of brass! If an attorney felt that a Trump supporter deserved using one of his Peremptory Challenges the attorney can use one that way and there is very little anybody can do about it.

Takes some real nuts to contest a Preemptory Challenge and it is a poor job by an attorney who leaves himself open to criticism for a Peremptory Challenge that he makes. Would have to screw up royally to get his butt in that predicament. But it is not at all unusual for an attorney's Challenge for Cause to be contested. Unless a perspective juror exhibited extreme bias or prejudice, I don't think just being a Trump supporter would get by as a Challenge for Cause.
Click to expand...



Thanks for the detail.

I just don’t get how the prosecution missed the one hold-out juror during jury selection. I’d think they would have asked the kind of questions to find out people who had such a bias that might favor the defendant. Or, those questions were asked but the juror gave deceptive answers.

Just as a matter of fact, not applicable in this case, it is prohibited to use a peremptory challenge to eliminate a prospective juror due to race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation and socioeconomic status. So, depending on the reason, a preemptory challenge can be refused.
 
bluesmoke said:
Thanks for the detail.

I just don’t get how the prosecution missed the one hold-out juror during jury selection. I’d think they would have asked the kind of questions to find out people who had such a bias that might favor the defendant. Or, those questions were asked but the juror gave deceptive answers.

Just as a matter of fact, not applicable in this case, it is prohibited to use a peremptory challenge to eliminate a prospective juror due to race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation and socioeconomic status. So, depending on the reason, a preemptory challenge can be refused.
Click to expand...

That is correct and its one of the reason I mentioned that the attorney has to pretty much be a dunce cap to have a peremptory challenge successfully challenged. If an attorney can't get get through jury selection without stumbling that badly......he certainly does not deserve to be a DC white shoe lawyer or a Federal Prosecutor working in the high profile districts around the country.

There really is no telling how much Trump yammering about Manafort into a jury that had not been sequestered effected that one juror. Also no telling how much impact the defense counsel had by doing exactly what the Judge had informed both sides not to do by telling the jury that this trial was in fact the "Trump witch hunt". The Juror might have been very receptive to one or both and simply did not expose it in any meaningful way during Jury Selection.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom