Like it or not, NY city is a democrat city that actually voted people in office that promised to put Trump in jail. This makes the jury compromised (there would be social pressure to find Trump guilt) and
According to common law a change of venue should have been accepted. Of course, not for another state, but to one contested county on the state where the chances of people being less biased could be found. This was denied by the judge. To put it in another way: imagine if you are a black person being judged in a racist county. this law is put into books to prevent injustices and was ignored.
"The moving party has the burden of proof, and must make a convincing showing of the right to transfer. "
In other word, it SEEMS (I'm really not a pro here) that the case to move was not good enough. Trump is not black and explaining that because New-york is more encline to vote for democrats therefore the jury will be biased is simply putting the justice system into question. So the argument here is fallacious.
Say "I don't trust the justice system", it will be quicker.
No. It says here that the judge must "perform his duty" with impartiality. Absolutely
no one is impartial when it comes to Trump. SO demanding an impartial judge is simply naive at best. So again, your sentence here is fallacious.
When situations when the judge impartiality is put into question he must be excused and another judge put in charge of the trial.
Yes, IF the judge proceeds without impartiality, which doesn't seem to be the case here.
The judge on this trial was a Biden donor and his daughter is acquiring money from the trial. Not only that but he is a SUBSTITUTE JUDGE and not a active judge
Yeah he donated 15 $ to the democrate campaign and 20$ to other progressive groups.
Does this means that he can't do his job with impartiality ? Absolutely not. Being impartial is his job dude. So again, all I see here is fallacious rethoric and the questionning of the judicary system for absolutely no reasons.
This was allowed by the NY state but just imagine if it the judge was a Trump supporter and you would see the issue.
No. If the guy is doing his job correctly I see no reason to question the entire system.
Judges are human beings, they are not robots.
The prosecutor is another cam of worms because he is a enemy of Trump (he was elected promising to put Trump in jail).
The same logic that I mentioned about the judge applies in this case. Another person without ties to the case should be put in charge.
I didn't read that paper (too long) so can you direct me to the line where its says that the procecuter must absolultey have no ties with the case ?
This ''novel case theory'' is absurd from the start. In law there's a thing called statute of limitations, that limits when the trial should start. This was ignored for this case. To make the case more turns from a misdemeanor to a felony, they decided to accuse Trump of hiding a crime with his actions. The issue on this was that Trump was never found guilt of any crime before this. I will explain how it should work and how it is done and why this is incredible bad:
Let's assume Trump did commit election fraud and was found guilt. Then the prosecutor could found other actions and then apply this laws. In this way a jury could see the direct connection between cause and effect. Trump did X and those actions affected Y.
The way this is done was the opposite: they found something and directly acted as if he was guilt of a bigger crime to prosecute him.
And then this other crime was never properly revealed.
If you look at the actual jury instructions, you should have a idea of how bad this was. The exact wording was: ''That the defendant did so with intent to defraud that included an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof.'', which if you notice is basically asking NY if they think Trump was guilty of any crime during the 2016 elections and if his actions helped him. This is because NY city has a law that allow prosecutors to not disclosure the specific crime in those situations.
To help understand the issue, imagine if the election crime was specified to be colluding with russian hackers to attack the family of his opponent. The jury would be able, in this instance, to decide if the proofs have a connection or not to the crime and both the defense and prosecutors would be able to present a better case. The way it was worded was to make the jury derive intent and assume a crime that was never confirmed to even have take place. Basically, most democrats assume that Trump is a criminal and the judge instructions acted upon it.
>Why this is wrong:
To put this in perspective: imagine if you file your taxes wrong. This is a misdemeanor and not a big issue. But you are black/ asian /hispanic and a racist prosecutor decides to fuck you and says that this was made to hide another crime that you did. What crime? He never says. The jury is formed by white people in a racist county and the judge and his family is openly a KKK member. You ask to be judged in a more diverse county and it was denied. I think you can understand why this is a bad precedent to have.
Note that all those issues are just looking at the case at large and not at specific details. If we look at details the case is also riddled with it. This is not to mean that Trump is a innocent man and did nothing wrong in his life. But, I don't think anyone that looks at the actual case can see it as anything more than a political move that was used on him just because he's Trump.
On this, I can't actually answer, and you might have a case here, I'm not aware enough of the system so I will grant you that point. But you have to consider this fact :
Trump is not the average man and he is not minority.
He is a former president who incited an inssurection !
So on that front, thinking that the guys is a crook is not really a thought experiment.
This case is important because its uncharted territory and yeah, they might have bend the rule (I'm not a specialist). But we are again talking about a former
president that could be in office again that repeatitively lied face front in public, used his aura to incite an insurection, let hundreds thousands died because of his ignorance and is appealing to radical and dangerous fascist and white supremacist movement that could threaten the entire country (and the world).
So I'm sorry, but whether we like it or not,
this is a SPECIAL case. We can't judge Trump like any other man, simply because the guy has a power of destruction that is immeasurable.
And if the law needs to be bent to put down people of power that are extremely dangerous, then so be it. It will only make me trust the justice system more and not the opposite.
Again, bending the rules or playing with the rules when its necessary does not mean that we live in a dictature, it means that Justice will really work when its NOT blind. It means that we can't judge the same way the average men and the men in power, and that's actually a good thing.
Now, we must be indeed careful for this power not to be used by people who could seek more power.
For example, we will need to bend the rules to get people like Biden OUT of office, because the system will not permit us to do that:
Biden Administration passed an anti-semitism bill that makes it illegal to speak out against Israel. Saying they are genociders, commit war crimes, or is similar to other fascist regimes will count as anti-semitism, and protests of such would be illegal as well. Civil Rights movement all over again. Still has to be signed of to become law.
#salty
