this post was submitted on 18 Apr 2024
79 points (95.4% liked)

politics

19105 readers
2836 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
top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] themeatbridge 83 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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..."

[–] dhork 22 points 7 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Red_October 43 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] dhork 6 points 7 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] FuglyDuck 4 points 7 months ago

“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.

[–] IphtashuFitz 3 points 7 months ago

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.

[–] insaneinthemembrane 4 points 7 months ago

Can't they just ask that though instead of asking for your current employer?

[–] Supervisor194 9 points 7 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)
[–] [email protected] 6 points 7 months ago

Two dismissed now*

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I was really excited about this trial until I realized he will probably not do any prison time even if convicted.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago

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.