No, I am sure they think he is guilty even if the enough evidence give them enough to be reasonable doubt. But they think, according to the woke ideology, that this is for the greater good.
Here we go. hardwired AOC follower here. I found your logic faulty, but thought, exactly because you are on the TFP, you may be persuaded by the arguments. Sorry my mistake. Switch to VOX or WaPo. these would be your fulfilling pastures
The likely outcome of any juror or jurors not being persuaded by the prosecution in the Trump trial would have been a "hung" jury, not an acquittal, given the politics and culture of the locale.
I am suggesting that any a juror or jurors having thoughts of possibly voting "not guilty" could have been concerned about potential consequences -- and not without reason.
Jurors inevitably bring their biases, preconceptions, and worldviews into their decisions, no matter how seriously they take their role.
But the point about politics and culture was only to suggest that any "not guilty" juror would likely have been in the minority, so that the result of one or more unpersuaded jurors would most likely not have been an acquittal, but a hung jury.
The larger point I tried to make is that jurors could have been considering possible consequences for them personally -- and their families.
Alan Dershowitz, describing some of the consequences of taking a position against one of Trump's impeachments -- and other unpopular stances -- states that the price for him "has been very high": (https://youtu.be/cXtLtUq0mNY?t=45)
"I was very much accepted by my community. I spoke at the library every year. My books were in the library. I spoke at Temple Emanuel in New York, at the 92nd Street Y.
"I've been canceled from all of those venues because I stood up for principle -- because I defended the right of President Trump not to be impeached on unconstitutional grounds. It's been both personal and institutional.
"Personal -- I was seated next to Caroline Kennedy, the daughter of the former president, at a dinner party and she said if I knew you had been invited, I wouldn't have come. This is the ambassador to Australia -- who is supposed to be able to be in the same room with leaders of foreign countries -- who won't be in the same room with a man who showed a profile of courage (to paraphrase her father's book).
"The library canceled me. I used to speak there every year now they didn't even carry my books until I threatened to sue them, so the price has been very high.
"My wife worked out in the gym and somebody walked in and said oh that's Alan Dershowitz's wife -- we can't be in the same room with that person.
"Larry David came over to me while I was trying to have lunch and started screaming at me and yelling "you're disgusting, you're disgusting" because I patted Mike Pompeo on the back (he's my former student), congratulating him for the Abraham Accords.
"I have a thick skin but taking it out of my wife and my children -- and you know other lawyers have now called and said "We won't defend President Trump because we don't want to be 'Dershowitz'ed' -- we don't want to have happen to us what happened to you" -- so you know, it has an institutional impact."
Isn't it likely that the Manhattan jurors were well aware of at least some of the consequences experienced by individuals, like Dershowitz, who have stood up for Trump in some way? (How is the former mayor Giuliani doing these days?)
You think people in the jury voted to convict him even though they thought he was innocent because of where they live?
No, I am sure they think he is guilty even if the enough evidence give them enough to be reasonable doubt. But they think, according to the woke ideology, that this is for the greater good.
I heard the comments section at The Free Press was filled with nuts. I'm starting to understand what they meant.
Here we go. hardwired AOC follower here. I found your logic faulty, but thought, exactly because you are on the TFP, you may be persuaded by the arguments. Sorry my mistake. Switch to VOX or WaPo. these would be your fulfilling pastures
Because so many disagree with you?
Possibly out of self-preservation.
Have you heard Alan Dershowitz discussing the consequences in his life of "defending" Trump?
Most jurors do not have the resources of an Alan Dershowitz.
Are you suggesting that they would face consequences for finding him innocent? How so?
The likely outcome of any juror or jurors not being persuaded by the prosecution in the Trump trial would have been a "hung" jury, not an acquittal, given the politics and culture of the locale.
I am suggesting that any a juror or jurors having thoughts of possibly voting "not guilty" could have been concerned about potential consequences -- and not without reason.
Ask any trial lawyer. Juries do not bring politics into their decisions. They take their jobs seriously. You are engaging in baseless speculation.
I was a lawyer. I participated in trials.
Jurors inevitably bring their biases, preconceptions, and worldviews into their decisions, no matter how seriously they take their role.
But the point about politics and culture was only to suggest that any "not guilty" juror would likely have been in the minority, so that the result of one or more unpersuaded jurors would most likely not have been an acquittal, but a hung jury.
The larger point I tried to make is that jurors could have been considering possible consequences for them personally -- and their families.
Alan Dershowitz, describing some of the consequences of taking a position against one of Trump's impeachments -- and other unpopular stances -- states that the price for him "has been very high": (https://youtu.be/cXtLtUq0mNY?t=45)
"I was very much accepted by my community. I spoke at the library every year. My books were in the library. I spoke at Temple Emanuel in New York, at the 92nd Street Y.
"I've been canceled from all of those venues because I stood up for principle -- because I defended the right of President Trump not to be impeached on unconstitutional grounds. It's been both personal and institutional.
"Personal -- I was seated next to Caroline Kennedy, the daughter of the former president, at a dinner party and she said if I knew you had been invited, I wouldn't have come. This is the ambassador to Australia -- who is supposed to be able to be in the same room with leaders of foreign countries -- who won't be in the same room with a man who showed a profile of courage (to paraphrase her father's book).
"The library canceled me. I used to speak there every year now they didn't even carry my books until I threatened to sue them, so the price has been very high.
"My wife worked out in the gym and somebody walked in and said oh that's Alan Dershowitz's wife -- we can't be in the same room with that person.
"Larry David came over to me while I was trying to have lunch and started screaming at me and yelling "you're disgusting, you're disgusting" because I patted Mike Pompeo on the back (he's my former student), congratulating him for the Abraham Accords.
"I have a thick skin but taking it out of my wife and my children -- and you know other lawyers have now called and said "We won't defend President Trump because we don't want to be 'Dershowitz'ed' -- we don't want to have happen to us what happened to you" -- so you know, it has an institutional impact."
Isn't it likely that the Manhattan jurors were well aware of at least some of the consequences experienced by individuals, like Dershowitz, who have stood up for Trump in some way? (How is the former mayor Giuliani doing these days?)
Weren't two of the Jurors attorneys?