In Trump's first criminal trial, set for 3/25, judge rules jury will be anonymous for safety reasons

If I told you that we were bring charges against Obama in a deep red district in Alabama and we were going to have an anonymous jury so his lawyers couldn't ascertain whether the jurors are overtly biased and lying during their questioning.

Would you expect he could get a fair trial? Would it be reasonable for him to think, hey I might not get a fair trial by unbiased parties here?

 

If Obama was actively engaged in doing business there and the indictment looked plausible, go to it.

Of course, that’s hypothetical. Here, in reality, we’re dealing with things actually done by Trump. If proven, the allegations against him are serious crimes. I suspect that he’s “toast”, opined by William Barr.

 

We get so much more than their names dude. I get their voting registration, their education, spouses, cell phone number, address etc.
All in a nice little packet.

 

Never been to a trial before?

I remember my first beer.

 

yep, even when they are anonymous, it's just the client that doesn't get that info in a case like this

 

Not with an innominate jury you don't.

 

You didn't answer the question. I didn't say should we do it.

I said could he be expected to get a fair trial there?

 

Yes. Jurors take their jobs very seriously.

 

That's a joke right?

 

Yes, of course. Everyone knows George Soros has paid them all off and jurors don't take their duties seriously. Because you have such a firm grasp of juries, and stuff.

 

You drank beer before trying a jury trial?

 

Not before trying one and it wasn't my first beer. But the lads and I did consume a few drinks with lunch prior to wandering over to the Courthouse for our mandatory for law school viewings of trials.

Notice how I say "been to" not "tried a"? Dead giveaway.

The I remember my first beer is a euphemism implying someone is inexperienced in something quite basic.

 

Again: Not how it works.
They're anonymous to the public, not to the attorneys picking the ****ing array.

 

I know. A little levity.

 

Again that is how it works depending on the order. There are four types of anonymous juries and it depends upon whom the judge restricts the information from. In the case of the most recent order the judge is only keeping the information from the public. But in the E Jean Carroll case they kept it from the defense as well

 

For his own personal business dealings.

BTW the state is losing it's key witness did you hear?

Judge Rips Into Michael Cohen for Bank Fraud Trial ‘Perjury’

A federal judge has undermined the credibility of former Trump fixer Michael Cohen, the Manhattan District Attorney’s top witness in the Stormy Daniels hush money case.

...While the matter marks a minor personal setback for Cohen, who must continue to abide by the strict terms of his supervised release, it also calls into question the trustworthiness of the man who will serve as the Manhattan District Attorney’s lead witness just weeks before the former president faces his first ever criminal trial in New York City....

...On Wednesday, that exchange came back to haunt Cohen as another federal judge considered whether to shorten his supervised release. In his court order, U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman tore into Cohen for the high wire act, saying that he either lied at his August 2018 guilty plea hearing or at the recent bank fraud trial. Furman concluded that Cohen severely undermined the argument that his lawyer, David M. Schwartz, was trying to make to justify reducing the sentence.

“It gives rise to two possibilities: one, Cohen committed perjury when he pleaded guilty before Judge Pauley or, two, Cohen committed perjury in his October 2023 testimony. Either way, it is perverse to cite the testimony, as Schwartz did, as evidence of Cohen’s ‘commitment to upholding the law,’” Furman wrote...
https://www.thedailybeast.com/feder...hael-cohen-for-trump-bank-fraud-trial-perjury

The testimony of perjurors is not to be taken as fact. Go ask Bill Clinton.

So without her key witness what do James have?

 

That is up to The Jury...

 

And yet neither one have been convicted of perjury.

Cohen took the fall for Trump back in the days when they were still on the same team, so there is that.

Let the trial begin.

 

@Bluesguy, wrong again. That judge wasn't there to witness the testimony, but Engoron was there. Judge Engoron stated:

Michael Cohen was an important witness on behalf of the plaintiff, although hardly the linchpin that defendants have attempted to portray him to be,” Engoron wrote in his 92-page trial verdict, which ordered Trump to pay more than $355 million for conspiring to alter the value of his company to obtain tax and insurance benefits.

“His testimony was significantly compromised by his having pleaded guilty to perjury and by some seeming contradictions in what he said at trial,” he continued. “However, carefully parsed, he testified that although Donald Trump did not expressly direct him to reverse engineer financial statements, he ordered him to do so indirectly, in his ‘mob voice.”

Engoron added, “Although the animosity between the witness and the defendant is palpable, providing Cohen with an incentive to lie, the Court found his testimony credible, based on the relaxed manner in which he testified, the general plausibility of his statements, and, most importantly, the way his testimony was corroborated by other trial evidence.”

While claiming a “less-forgiving factfinder” may have thought differently, Engoron said he doesn’t believe pleading guilty to perjury means a person never tells the truth, adding that “Michael Cohen told the truth.”

https://thehill.com/regulation/cour...michael-cohen-testimony-credible-civil-trial/

 

I highlighted another section of your post. I've listened to Michael Cohen a few times, and he has always said, "Don't take my word for it, look at the rest of the evidence" (papers, briefs, etc).

 

@Bluesguy also stated that Michael Cohen also lied to further his own business interests. This is facially absurd. He committed perjury and took the fall for the Orange Turd, who threw him under the bus.

 

For matters of his own personal tax problems and other personal business matters.

 

And this judge sees the conflict between the testimony before Engoron and other courts and Engoron is incorrect, once you perjure yourself your other testimony is to be discarded as you have proven yourself will to testify falsely under oath. Cohen better be careful else he will be facing a perjury charge here.

 

Yes why won't the Garland DOJ charge him for the obvious perjury and obstruction of justice as this judge is point out?

 

And they should be so advised. So which story of the two conflicting he has told is true and if you can't prove which one how can you convict someone on either?