1
Politics & Religion / Re: Politics by Lawfare, and the Law of War
« on: Today at 08:15:36 AM »
They face pressure in deliberations from each other, but jurors also have to live with their verdict. Which result is easiest to say forever, 'hey that was the right decision'?
Speaking of living with the decision, the politics of the spouse (of the juror and of politicians in general) is underestimated in these things. "YOU VOTED TO ACQUIT HIM??!!"
You can hate Trump, want him to lose and never be President and still vote not to convict if that's what you see. There are liberal commentators who have doubts about this feeble case. Democrats can see that the persecution strategy is not been working to put him down. In fact it has helped him.
For both sides of it, can you (each juror) explain in a sentence or two why he is guilty or why the prosecution didn't fully make the case? It looks like he maybe had sex with a porn star lady doesn't do that. Proving crime tied to an underlying, proven beyond a reasonable doubt crime, did credible testimony do that? Pretty easy to say no. It hinged on the word of a convicted liar and no underlying crime was really pinpointed.
Can and will 1, 2 or 3 of them who don't fully buy it hold out and stand their ground to the end? You would think yes but other political jury verdicts in NY and DC indicate no. The (hate) politics of it will prevail is the betting line, I believe.
And then we have a "convicted felon" at the top of the ticket, even if overturned, like they wanted all along, and everyone will have their own opinion, like the OJ verdict - in reverse.
'Republicans don't accept election results. They don't even accept jury verdicts.'
Speaking of living with the decision, the politics of the spouse (of the juror and of politicians in general) is underestimated in these things. "YOU VOTED TO ACQUIT HIM??!!"
You can hate Trump, want him to lose and never be President and still vote not to convict if that's what you see. There are liberal commentators who have doubts about this feeble case. Democrats can see that the persecution strategy is not been working to put him down. In fact it has helped him.
For both sides of it, can you (each juror) explain in a sentence or two why he is guilty or why the prosecution didn't fully make the case? It looks like he maybe had sex with a porn star lady doesn't do that. Proving crime tied to an underlying, proven beyond a reasonable doubt crime, did credible testimony do that? Pretty easy to say no. It hinged on the word of a convicted liar and no underlying crime was really pinpointed.
Can and will 1, 2 or 3 of them who don't fully buy it hold out and stand their ground to the end? You would think yes but other political jury verdicts in NY and DC indicate no. The (hate) politics of it will prevail is the betting line, I believe.
And then we have a "convicted felon" at the top of the ticket, even if overturned, like they wanted all along, and everyone will have their own opinion, like the OJ verdict - in reverse.
'Republicans don't accept election results. They don't even accept jury verdicts.'