NEW! Jack Smith Wants To Ask Trump Jurors If 2020 Election Was 'Stolen' In Mar-a-Lago Classified Documents Case

MAGA Macho Man

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2022
8,987
20,843
2,288
Linear Time
[Florida federal prosecutors want to ask potential jurors in Donald Trump’s classified documents case if they believe the 2020 election was “stolen” and if they hold opinions about how the FBI executed a highly publicized search warrant at his Mar-a-Lago resort]

["Highlighting the politically charged nature of the case, prosecutors objected to a set of questions proposed by the defense asking jurors if they are registered to vote, whether they vote with a particular party"]

So Jack Smith want to ferret out anybody who isn’t getting news and information from sources NOT under the control of the CIA, FBI, and the Biden Administration. That’s act alone precludes a fair trial, and those questions SHOULD NOT be allowed. This is a violation of your first amendment rights. Apparently Jack Smith doesn't believe in a ‘jury of your peers.’


 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #5
It's the obvious question. Weed out the manipulated rubes.
This shows the absurdity of the attempt to prosecute the President.

There is NO jury in this country that won’t have partisan opinions of Trump, and that’s who’s really on trial.

The prosecution will argue essentially that there can be no Trump supporters...meaning that they will tolerate only Trump’s opposition. A politically biased jury is nothing but a kangaroo court, a political show trial.
 
[Florida federal prosecutors want to ask potential jurors in Donald Trump’s classified documents case if they believe the 2020 election was “stolen” and if they hold opinions about how the FBI executed a highly publicized search warrant at his Mar-a-Lago resort]

["Highlighting the politically charged nature of the case, prosecutors objected to a set of questions proposed by the defense asking jurors if they are registered to vote, whether they vote with a particular party"]

So Jack Smith want to ferret out anybody who isn’t getting news and information from sources NOT under the control of the CIA, FBI, and the Biden Administration. That’s act alone precludes a fair trial, and those questions SHOULD NOT be allowed. This is a violation of your first amendment rights. Apparently Jack Smith doesn't believe in a ‘jury of your peers.’


It's perfectly natural to want to identify those who tend to fall for discredited conspiracy theories. How can you expect an honest unbiased decision based on the facts from a conspiracy theory nut who believes the election was stolen.
 
It doesn't matter if you're a closed minded radical or an open-minded person. You should be able to see that these trials main purpose is to damage Trump and steer voters against him. It's taxpayer funded election tampering, plain and simple. So, it's a win-win for the unhinged TDSers. Very unfair. MAGA
 
It doesn't matter if you're a closed minded radical or an open-minded person. You should be able to see that these trials main purpose is to damage Trump and steer voters against him. It's taxpayer funded election tampering, plain and simple. So, it's a win-win for the unhinged TDSers. Very unfair. MAGA
You might be correct if there was no demonstrable evidence of trump actually breaking the laws for which he has been charged. Running for office doesn't make you immune from our legal system.
 
[Florida federal prosecutors want to ask potential jurors in Donald Trump’s classified documents case if they believe the 2020 election was “stolen” and if they hold opinions about how the FBI executed a highly publicized search warrant at his Mar-a-Lago resort]

["Highlighting the politically charged nature of the case, prosecutors objected to a set of questions proposed by the defense asking jurors if they are registered to vote, whether they vote with a particular party"]

So Jack Smith want to ferret out anybody who isn’t getting news and information from sources NOT under the control of the CIA, FBI, and the Biden Administration. That’s act alone precludes a fair trial, and those questions SHOULD NOT be allowed. This is a violation of your first amendment rights. Apparently Jack Smith doesn't believe in a ‘jury of your peers.’


/----/ OOOPSIE
The jurist says that briefs taking the position that the special counsel’s appointment was unconstitutional could be of ‘considerable help’ to her.
lctg=1535151599&recognized_email=michaelswedenberg%40gmail.com&newsletter-access&utm_source=MG&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Evening%20Sun%20%202024-03-07
 
:auiqs.jpg:

He doesn't want mindless cult zombies on the jury, ready to absolve Dear Leader, no matter what the evidence says.
/-----/ It's democRATs trying to destroy our democracy. (Yeah, I know we're a republic, but I have to talk to democRATs on their simplistic level.)
1710246833893.png
 
[Florida federal prosecutors want to ask potential jurors in Donald Trump’s classified documents case if they believe the 2020 election was “stolen” and if they hold opinions about how the FBI executed a highly publicized search warrant at his Mar-a-Lago resort]

["Highlighting the politically charged nature of the case, prosecutors objected to a set of questions proposed by the defense asking jurors if they are registered to vote, whether they vote with a particular party"]

So Jack Smith want to ferret out anybody who isn’t getting news and information from sources NOT under the control of the CIA, FBI, and the Biden Administration. That’s act alone precludes a fair trial, and those questions SHOULD NOT be allowed. This is a violation of your first amendment rights. Apparently Jack Smith doesn't believe in a ‘jury of your peers.’



If you believe things that are not true, you're not a good candidate for the jury.
 
It is very common for lawyers to try to eliminate fair jurors in favor of juror much more likely to decide the case in their favor before it even starts. Trump's attorneys will try the same. It is expected. The jury usually boils down to what is left over after both sides exercise their pre-emptive rejections, and both sides try to convince the judge to dismiss less favorable jurors for cause.

The key to this will be the judge. Will she allow either side to rig the case, or will she ensure fairness? If she will ensure fairness, what will that look like? I only see two ways to be fair:

1) Eliminate all questions about politics or about the defendant, thus making the jury politically a cross-section of Americans.

2) Let both sides ask whatever questions it wants, and give each a greater than usual number of pre-emptive rejections due to the highly political nature of the case.

3) The judge ask numerous questions about politics and eliminate anyone with a political opinion.

The first two would almost surely lead to a hung jury. The third, while very, very difficult to do, would more likely lead to a verdict one way or the other.

That is, barring the "stealth juror" problem that I talked about on another thread, which neither scenario, and likely no scenario can prevent.
 

Forum List

Back
Top