This is just stupid. Everyone has opinions. That doesn't mean they can't impartial.Part of being on a jury is to be objective peers who will be guided by presented evidence to a conclusion on guilt or innocence.
So, equally a Trump supporter, alex Jones fan, or others who may have opinions on the guy should not have been part of the jury.
Just like if you were ever facing a trial, you would hope to have an unbiased jury hear the case, as opposed to people with preconceptions that might harm your case.
If this all proves true, he could argue for a mistrial. Particularly suspicious with the timing of that team of prosecutors who resigned.
Still shilling for Trump by trying to attack all the "activism" of others, while totally ignoring Trump's?
All 30,000+ of Trump's tweets, instantly searchablewww.trumptwitterarchive.com
Are you trying to suggest it's bad for people to do as you seem to be suggesting is bad or it's only bad if Democrats appear to be doing what Trump does every day of the week?
You might have some more credibility if you simply said the woman did not belong on the jury if this was proven to be the case, in the same way all those who voted to acquit Trump without hearing any evidence in what was supposed to be a trial and Mitch McConnell so much as stating their coordination with the White House (and the person impeached) and how they intended to and then worked to scuttle any hearing of evidence. Then they acquitted Trump without hearing any evidence under their duty to not only hold a trial, but be impartial.
Where were/are all your posts regarding that "activism", bias and impartiality?
At this point the ideology is that if you're a liberal and have expressed related opinions, you must fall under suspicion.This is just stupid. Everyone has opinions. That doesn't mean they can't impartial.
What's suspicious about the prosecutors resigning? They followed DOJ guidelines to a T and resigned because the president pressured the department to lessen the sentence recommendation for a friend.
You haven't been on here very long but in your short time you've proven to have a habit of pulling stuff out of your ass with absolutely no evidence to back up your silly conspiracy theories.
She obviously wasn't truthful in her statements about not being biased. She contaminated the jury.
No evidence has been publicly brought forth to suggest that that was the case with respect to the juror that Trump referenced.
In fact, the Washington Post reported on Thursday that the juror disclosed her political affiliation and past involvement with Democratic political campaigns during the selection process, as required.
|Recent Similar Discussions||Forum||Date|
|Federal judges' association calls emergency meeting after DOJ intervenes in case of Trump ally Roger Stone||Current Events|
|The Right's Big Lie About Roger Stone||Current Events|
|Roger Stone jury foreperson's anti-Trump social media posts surface after she defends DOJ prosecutors||Current Events|
|Trump Attacks Roger Stone Jury Foreman||Current Events|
|Recent Similar Discussions|
|Federal judges' association calls emergency meeting after DOJ intervenes in case of Trump ally Roger Stone|
|The Right's Big Lie About Roger Stone|
|Roger Stone jury foreperson's anti-Trump social media posts surface after she defends DOJ prosecutors|
|Trump Attacks Roger Stone Jury Foreman|