Yes, the goal of a jury isn't to find a perfect candidate. It's to find people who can be fair.

The woman you describe and then fabricated statistics about likely has social media to be looked at and such. It's the job of Trump's lawyers to find if she actually hates him.

It is not sufficient nor should it be expected that jurors be a perfectly neutral demographic. They are individuals

And I know you don't actually believe what you're claiming here because these issues are common to all cases and aren't brought up as evidence against the jury process.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Jan 27 2024 01:51pm

And someone with even an ounce of civil libertarian ideals should reflexively oppose blatant kangaroo courts weaponized for political purposes.

I can at least understand how people could buy into the Russiaburger narrative given that Wikileaks absolutely helped push Trump over the line, at Putin's behest. And in reality was just Hillary's chickens coming home to roost in a few senses of the idiom. But this one? You have to disbelieve your own lying eyes and ignore the accusation being so absurdly vague and unprovable / unfalsifiable that she couldn't even tell you what year it was. And then you have to believe a playboy billionaire in his prime decided he'd banged enough 20-something supermodel and lusted after a post menopausal feminazi 50-something cat lady with a face like skeletor

Its a show trial. Future historians will write about this shameful chapter of history by pointing out how demented the hate for Trump in New York was, and probably include a hologram of E Jean Carroll's withered visage to punctuate it

Our court system has a lot of problems.

Billionaire white men getting harsh treatment is not one of them

Amazing that people will teardown an entirely functioning justice system in a country with a booming economy because their guy lost.

Tribalism is tearing you apart America.

If you actually watch jury selection in trials with high profile publicity and/or celebrity defendants, they do not actually grant dismissals even for people with obvious biases and political affiliations and expressed opinions on social media, not when it falls within the bounds of the average citizenry for that locale. Instead the judge will usually just ask them 'if they can set aside their beliefs' and issue a fair ruling, and take their word on it, as after all a jury is premised on the concept of people putting aside their biases to rule fairly. That 24 year old black woman could have a Biden bumper sticker on her car, march with Black Lives Matter and have social media posts saying she thinks Trump colluded with Russia. Turn that 99% into a 100%, it doesn't matter. And of course, if his lawyers tried to peremptory challenge it, it could be grounds to contest that as being racially motivated

This post was edited by Goomshill on Jan 27 2024 02:10pm

What a silly perspective. Having a critical perspective and then asserting ones opinion has nothing to do with tribalism, and the fact that you associate the two makes me wonder about your own intelligence.

By critical perspective you mean a lack of objectivity right?

Attacking my character doesn't change anything.

This post was edited by Prox1m1ty on Jan 27 2024 02:13pm

Fair point, it is more fun to be a bit more aggressive online, adds some tension.


There is definitely some bias, but there always will be. That is why the court is supposed to attempt to make a jury without bias.

I am simply an observer here and from my perspective it seems like one of the original crazy 'i got sexually harassed' people who ended up losing their job, contorted their story and got 5mil from Trump. Then, when Trump said it was bullshit online quite a few times online and in person went to get it overturned, ended up with an even bigger hit. At most, they should've done another similar punishment or kept it from being overturned.... Actually hitting him with these huge amount of punitive damages reeks of a political stunt to stain his name before elections, specially making the number big enough for it to be commonplace to be mentioned on the news.


Of course, we all know this is politics, 100%, if you don't agree and think I am being conspiracy, you are naive or delusional. Almost all the shit throwing going around for these politicians is just so. Even though there is a lot of shit to shovel up that is hidden beneath the soil of career politicians like Joe Biden. His son being a great example.

dragging your victim's name in the press after a judge already told you not to can be pretty expensive if youre a billionaire. all he has to do is shut the fuck up but he cant even do that, what does that tell you about his character? he'd rather lose 83 million than close his hog maw lol
its not like Carroll is the only victim either, Trump publicly bragged about grabbing vaginas and has had legal disputes with porn star prostitutes. this whole thing is par for the course