Comments by "Dale Crocker" (@dalecrocker3213) on "Legal experts explain why it was difficult to select a jury for Trump’s first criminal trial" video.

A fair trial is impossible. But who cares? This is just a circus anyway.
20
@busterofcoviddeniers No war for a start. Near full employment. Business stability.... Meanwhile the deficit increases, reaching braking point and America is helping finance a disastrous war which is going to fail, as the retreat from Kabul failed, further diminishing America's credibility in the eyes of the world. This wouldn't have happened under Trump. As for the pandemic, America would have done better if Trump had followed his instincts instead of being forced to listen to so-called "experts" whose advice vastly increased the death toll and whose strategies are even now being felt as excess deaths, especially among the young and middle-aged, continue to mount.
4
Apart from the four years when he was just that you mean?
3
@anniejuan1817 Because it would be impossible to find a jury whose members are not prejudiced either for or against him.
2
@porecemusnox8805 I really don't know. Perhaps not bringing the case at all would be the best answer.
2
@porecemusnox8805 I think every case should be treated separately. A famous film star, for instance, although people may admire him or not, can be expected to have his criminal behaviour separated from his activities as a film star in the minds of a jury. Politicians come into a different category, and politicians aiming for the highest position in the land come into an even further category. To stick to the case at hand it is clear to me that this case has been bought for political reasons, in order to reduce Trump's chances of becoming President. It has nothing to do with seeing that the law is respected. This immediately undermines the proceedings. If you maintain this is not so, and that Trump is just an ordinary businessman caught out in a bit of minor creative accountancy, then the case could proceed. But he is not. He is in a special category and if his activities are considered to be heinous, then the only charge that could justifiably be brought against him would be one of treason. Which is clearly ridiculous. Whoever wins this case, one thing is certain - the law has lost.
2
@porecemusnox8805 This scarcely applies if, for instance, the judge was shown to have political affiliations contrary to those of the defendant. The judge in this case faces the same difficulties as the jurors.
2
@porecemusnox8805 The Declaration of Human Rights is an interesting document, but one which suffers from close examination. All very worthy - but is it all practical? But, once again sticking to this particular case, Trump is not nor ever can be Mr or Mrs Smith. He is in a category of one. It really doesn't matter all that much if he is guilty or not. What matters are the reasons for the state bringing the prosecution in the first place. They could very well be more reprehensible than the crime itself - so where does that put us?
2
@busterofcoviddeniers Haven't I already answered you?
2
@porecemusnox8805 Because Trump has been subjected to so much vilification and so much praise that it is near-impossible to find anyone sufficiently unbiased to judge him fairly. But judging him is not the issue He is before the court to be pilloried, not to be judged. This trial is a theatrical proceeding, unfitting to be staged in a proper court of law.
1
@Robert-gb7ex And either answer should have disqualified them.
1
@porecemusnox8805 I see my original reply has been deleted by YouTube's new woke/fascist algorithm. May I refer you to a simpler version supplied to @anniejuan1817 elsewhere in this thread.
1
@porecemusnox8805 Among other things, yes. I might also qualify my statement to say that anyone who has been living under a stone for the last six or seven years might just qualify.
1
@porecemusnox8805 I have not read the indictment, nor do I need to. I have glanced at it, and it is clearly a farrago of nit-picking lawyerspeak, designed to obfuscate rather than to inform. I repeat: this case is not being brought because wrongdoing has come to light. It is being brought because alleged wrongdoing has finally been uncovered via a sustained campaign of vilification directed against one man by a corrupt state, fearful of losing an ill-gained power and authority. This undoubted fact undermines any procedures which may be in place to ensure fairness in judicial proceedings. When a game is being played with loaded dice, the rules of that game become fairly irrelevant.
1
@porecemusnox8805 It's not a question of either liking it or disliking it. It's a question of whether or not such an idealistic attitude is either practical or indeed desirable. In this instance I would suggest that it is not.
1
@porecemusnox8805 You're right about one thing - democracy is very much on trial here. It is not the be all and end all way of running a society that people think. It is very susceptible to being manipulated for purposes other than equable governance, and that is what is happening here.
1
@anniejuan1817 I don't know that it is.
1
@anniejuan1817 It's pretty much a waste of time wherever it takes place. If found guilty, Trump will have many reasons for appeal, and that procedure could take literally years. The only question is how much effect this farrago will have on the results of the election. Not much, in my view. The people who instigated this mockery of justice have the clout to ensure that their guy wins, by whatever means necessary
1