this post was submitted on 27 Jan 2024
537 points (98.4% liked)

politics

19143 readers
2564 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. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  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
 

Judge Lewis Kaplan purposefully did not disclose why he advised jurors to keep their identities secret in the high profile case

After the verdict was read in the defamation trial between writer E Jean Carroll and former president Donald Trump, the judge overseeing the trial suggested the jurors never reveal their identities.

At the end of the two-week trial, the jurors, who were purposefully made anonymous due to the high-profile nature of the case, are now free to identify themselves by name if they wish.

“My advice to you is that you never disclose that you were on this jury,” Judge Lewis Kaplan advised them in the courtroom.

Judge Kaplan did not explicitly explain why he was offering the advice, however, previous legal actions against the ex-president have led to threats of violence against both jurors and judges from Trump supporters.

all 47 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FuglyDuck 116 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Judge Lewis Kaplan purposefully did not disclose why he advised jurors to keep their identities secret in the high profile case

Isn't that pretty freaking self evident? "If they find out who you are... you're dead. Don't let them find out. We will help you."

[–] [email protected] 38 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Other jurors in his previous cases have gone public, or have even been doxxed before, so yeah, it probably needs to be said explicitly.

[–] FuglyDuck 25 points 10 months ago

and how many of them have received massive amounts of death threats and harassment?

I'm guessing... all of them.

[–] anarchy79 2 points 10 months ago

(We might not actually help you)

[–] DBT 115 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

His cult is a threat here so much so that the judge told them not to tell anyone they were involved.

Everyone knows this is a legit warning even though trump didn’t tell anyone to do anything here.

Imagine if trump actually told his supporters (cult) to take action. Something like, “go down to the capitol and fight like hell”! …. Oh wait…

[–] anarchy79 4 points 10 months ago

This is exactly like Hitler. Wow, for once it is literally Hitler.

[–] [email protected] 100 points 10 months ago

These are the kinds of instructions given for jurors of mafia and cartel trials. Which is perfectly fitting. Hope the jurors stay safe.

[–] [email protected] 97 points 10 months ago (2 children)

“I fully disagree with both verdicts and will be appealing this whole Biden Directed Witch Hunt focused on me and the Republican Party. Our Legal System is out of control, and being used as a Political Weapon. They have taken away all First Amendment Rights. THIS IS NOT AMERICA!” [Trump] claimed...

This mother fucker is so dumb he thinks civil suits are brought about by the federal government. Sometimes I still can't believe this guy was actually president.

[–] nyctre 55 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

That's for his followers, to rile them up and keep them loyal, that's not really what he believes. Not to say he isn't a dumb cunt, he is, but this is not an example of that.

[–] ripcord 20 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

I agree it's mostly for his followers, but I think it's arguable that it's an example of both. I'm sure he really doesn't know (or understand the difference) or confused this with another trial, or both.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 10 months ago (1 children)

He is not as smart as he thinks or would like everyone else to believe but he does know exactly what he is doing here. Truth does not matter to the right and right-wing authoritarians (who are the people who follow narcissistic fascists) just love this schtick.

This was written in 2006 and every time I read it, I have to check the date wasn't actually 2016:

So (to foreshadow later chapters a little) suppose you are a completely unethical, dishonest, power-hungry, dirt-bag, scum-bucket politician who will say whatever he has to say to get elected. (I apologize for putting you in this role, but it will only last for one more sentence.) Whom are you going to try to lead, high RWAs or low RWAs? Isn’t it obvious? The easy-sell high RWAs will open up their arms and wallets to you if you just sing their song, however poor your credibility. Those crabby low RWAs, on the other hand, will eye you warily when your credibility is suspect because you sing their song? So the scum-bucket politicians will usually head for the right-wing authoritarians, because the RWAs hunger for social endorsement of their beliefs so much they’re apt to trust anyone who tells them they’re right.

The Authoritarians

[–] RestrictedAccount 18 points 10 months ago (1 children)

It is also to drive donations

[–] [email protected] 13 points 10 months ago

I can already hear the outraged clucking from gaggles of fuckwits as they prepare to empty their retirement savings to send to him in support.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I swear in a hundred years there will be arguments in every history class about whether his entire political career was even real or some kind of parable to frighten young people into voting.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago

About 20 years ago, I used to work with an older dude who was just on the verge of retirement. That guy hated Nixon. He would occasionally go on rants about how much of a piece of shit ol' Tricky Dick was. But at the time, Nixon was 30 years removed from office, and all that shit happened before I was born. So I just kind of blew it off as an over-exaggeration of this one dude.

But yeah, in about 25-30 years, we'll be talking to kids in their 20s trying to explain the complete and utter shit-stain that was Donald Trump. And they'll humor us, but mostly they'll just be thinking "I'm sure it wasn't that bad. The guy was elected president after all."

[–] [email protected] 54 points 10 months ago

The jurors are heros. Let's make sure nothing happens to them.

[–] JeeBaiChow 51 points 10 months ago (1 children)

How much you wanna bet trump's legal team leaks some of the court documents? The ones that 'happen' to name the jurors?

[–] GroundedGator 14 points 10 months ago

Luckily they don't have access to those. I'm not even sure the judge did. I think only the Marshalls and the clerk of courts. Otherwise they are completely sealed.

Judge Kaplan said Trump will face an anonymous nine-person jury, with the names, addresses and places of employment of prospective jurors kept secret, saying he found "strong reason" to provide special protections for jurors at the civil trial.

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-e-jean-carroll-trial-judge-jury-1861347

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/25/nyregion/trumps-defamation-trial-carroll-jury.html

Kaplan also did this on the first Carroll case he presided over, for which this case was held to determine damages.

https://www.ncsc.org/newsroom/jure/2023/mar-31

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23721313-kaplan-ruling-in-carroll-v-trump-jury

[–] carl_dungeon 38 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Wow, trump is such a fucking loser.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago (2 children)

It's called the art of the deal, okay!!! 😤

[–] carl_dungeon 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

More like the “Fart of the Deal”

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago

The shart is for real.

[–] jaybone 2 points 10 months ago

The art of the steal.

[–] someguy3 26 points 10 months ago (1 children)

What are the chances someone at the court office leaks the list?

[–] Serinus 7 points 10 months ago

Pretty low. Most of those people respect the court regardless of any political affiliation.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I'm honestly shocked that American juries aren't anonymous by default.

[–] thedoctor692 18 points 10 months ago

They are, but you are allowed to reveal yourself. Hence the warning from the judge that would be a bad idea.

[–] RestrictedAccount 12 points 10 months ago (3 children)

When did assault become legal?

[–] Passerby6497 11 points 10 months ago (1 children)

When you're Republican, they just let you do it!

[–] [email protected] -5 points 10 months ago

Tara reade would like a word

[–] themeatbridge 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

If you're asking why Trump wasn't charged with sexual assault, it's because the statute of limitations had run out. She was able to prove to a jury in civil court that there was a preponderance of evidence that he sexually assaulted her. His deposition was played for the jury but he did not attend the trial. In the deposition, he denied ever meeting the victim and called her crazy. She testified for two days, had corroborating witnesses, and photos of her with Trump proving they had met. Trump was shown the photo in his deposition and confused the victim for his wife at the time, Marla Maples.

Two additional victims testified that he assaulted them in the same way, and they had the audio of the tape where Trump says he can grab women by the pussy.

So Trump's statements

  • He didn't know her, never met her
  • He wouldn't assault her because she's ugly
  • He didn't assault her, that's a lie she made up

Her evidence

  • Photo of them together
  • He thought she looked like his wife
  • Pattern of assault and private admissions that he assaults women

It feels icky disproving that second one, but it just demonstrates that every statement is a proven lie.

Would that be enough to convict him of sexual assault in New York? We won't know that for sure, but we do know that Trump sexually assaults women.

[–] RestrictedAccount 4 points 10 months ago

A Threat of violence is assault. He goes on his shitty platform and does just that.

Put the asshole in jail already.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago

Depends on how much money you have.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 10 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


At the end of the two-week trial, the jurors, who were purposefully made anonymous due to the high-profile nature of the case, are now free to identify themselves by name if they wish.

After approximately three hours of deliberations, the jury ordered Mr Trump to pay $83.3m in damages to Ms Carroll after he repeatedly rejected her claim that he sexually assaulted her in a department store dressing room in the mid-1990s.

The trial comes after a similar one last year where a jury found Mr Trump liable for sexually abusing Ms Carroll and defaming her.

“I fully disagree with both verdicts and will be appealing this whole Biden Directed Witch Hunt focused on me and the Republican Party.

THIS IS NOT AMERICA!” he claimed, despite there being no evidence that President Joe Biden has directed the Department of Justice to target Mr Trump.

The trial lasted two weeks in a Manhattan federal court, during which Mr Trump’s attorneys aggressively litigated the case while the former president went after Ms Carroll during press conferences and on Truth Social, potentially defaming her further.


The original article contains 432 words, the summary contains 182 words. Saved 58%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!