this post was submitted on 27 Jan 2024
494 points (98.4% liked)

politics

24740 readers
2130 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Judge Lewis Kaplan purposefully did not disclose why he advised jurors to keep their identities secret in the high profile case

After the verdict was read in the defamation trial between writer E Jean Carroll and former president Donald Trump, the judge overseeing the trial suggested the jurors never reveal their identities.

At the end of the two-week trial, the jurors, who were purposefully made anonymous due to the high-profile nature of the case, are now free to identify themselves by name if they wish.

“My advice to you is that you never disclose that you were on this jury,” Judge Lewis Kaplan advised them in the courtroom.

Judge Kaplan did not explicitly explain why he was offering the advice, however, previous legal actions against the ex-president have led to threats of violence against both jurors and judges from Trump supporters.

top 34 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 105 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Judge Lewis Kaplan purposefully did not disclose why he advised jurors to keep their identities secret in the high profile case

Isn't that pretty freaking self evident? "If they find out who you are... you're dead. Don't let them find out. We will help you."

[–] jonne 34 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Other jurors in his previous cases have gone public, or have even been doxxed before, so yeah, it probably needs to be said explicitly.

[–] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 22 points 1 year ago

and how many of them have received massive amounts of death threats and harassment?

I'm guessing... all of them.

[–] anarchy79@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

(We might not actually help you)

[–] DBT@lemmy.world 102 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

His cult is a threat here so much so that the judge told them not to tell anyone they were involved.

Everyone knows this is a legit warning even though trump didn’t tell anyone to do anything here.

Imagine if trump actually told his supporters (cult) to take action. Something like, “go down to the capitol and fight like hell”! …. Oh wait…

[–] anarchy79@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

This is exactly like Hitler. Wow, for once it is literally Hitler.

[–] rickyrigatoni@lemm.ee 91 points 1 year ago

These are the kinds of instructions given for jurors of mafia and cartel trials. Which is perfectly fitting. Hope the jurors stay safe.

[–] Pratai@lemmy.ca 88 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Didn’t disclose why?

It’s because MAGA are murderous cowards. That’s why.

[–] FenrirIII@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] Zink@programming.dev -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

My eyes drifted to the next reply before properly finishing your sentence and I read “And Trump is a dick-eater.”

Now, homophonic attacks aren’t good or encouraged, but it was such an unexpected bitter non sequitur that I had to chuckle.

[–] anarchy79@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

He could suck heterosexual dick too, bigot.

[–] Timwi@kbin.social 50 points 1 year ago

The jurors are heros. Let's make sure nothing happens to them.

[–] JeeBaiChow@lemmy.world 45 points 1 year ago (1 children)

How much you wanna bet trump's legal team leaks some of the court documents? The ones that 'happen' to name the jurors?

[–] GroundedGator@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago

Luckily they don't have access to those. I'm not even sure the judge did. I think only the Marshalls and the clerk of courts. Otherwise they are completely sealed.

Judge Kaplan said Trump will face an anonymous nine-person jury, with the names, addresses and places of employment of prospective jurors kept secret, saying he found "strong reason" to provide special protections for jurors at the civil trial.

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-e-jean-carroll-trial-judge-jury-1861347

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/25/nyregion/trumps-defamation-trial-carroll-jury.html

Kaplan also did this on the first Carroll case he presided over, for which this case was held to determine damages.

https://www.ncsc.org/newsroom/jure/2023/mar-31

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23721313-kaplan-ruling-in-carroll-v-trump-jury

[–] carl_dungeon@lemmy.world 35 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Wow, trump is such a fucking loser.

[–] crandlecan@mander.xyz 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

It's called the art of the deal, okay!!! 😤

[–] carl_dungeon@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

More like the “Fart of the Deal”

The shart is for real.

[–] jaybone@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

The art of the steal.

[–] someguy3@lemmy.world 24 points 1 year ago (1 children)

What are the chances someone at the court office leaks the list?

[–] Serinus@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Pretty low. Most of those people respect the court regardless of any political affiliation.

[–] dankm@lemmy.ca 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm honestly shocked that American juries aren't anonymous by default.

[–] thedoctor692@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

They are, but you are allowed to reveal yourself. Hence the warning from the judge that would be a bad idea.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 10 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


At the end of the two-week trial, the jurors, who were purposefully made anonymous due to the high-profile nature of the case, are now free to identify themselves by name if they wish.

After approximately three hours of deliberations, the jury ordered Mr Trump to pay $83.3m in damages to Ms Carroll after he repeatedly rejected her claim that he sexually assaulted her in a department store dressing room in the mid-1990s.

The trial comes after a similar one last year where a jury found Mr Trump liable for sexually abusing Ms Carroll and defaming her.

“I fully disagree with both verdicts and will be appealing this whole Biden Directed Witch Hunt focused on me and the Republican Party.

THIS IS NOT AMERICA!” he claimed, despite there being no evidence that President Joe Biden has directed the Department of Justice to target Mr Trump.

The trial lasted two weeks in a Manhattan federal court, during which Mr Trump’s attorneys aggressively litigated the case while the former president went after Ms Carroll during press conferences and on Truth Social, potentially defaming her further.


The original article contains 432 words, the summary contains 182 words. Saved 58%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (3 children)

When did assault become legal?

[–] Passerby6497@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago (1 children)

When you're Republican, they just let you do it!

[–] bigMouthCommie@kolektiva.social -4 points 1 year ago

Tara reade would like a word

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

If you're asking why Trump wasn't charged with sexual assault, it's because the statute of limitations had run out. She was able to prove to a jury in civil court that there was a preponderance of evidence that he sexually assaulted her. His deposition was played for the jury but he did not attend the trial. In the deposition, he denied ever meeting the victim and called her crazy. She testified for two days, had corroborating witnesses, and photos of her with Trump proving they had met. Trump was shown the photo in his deposition and confused the victim for his wife at the time, Marla Maples.

Two additional victims testified that he assaulted them in the same way, and they had the audio of the tape where Trump says he can grab women by the pussy.

So Trump's statements

  • He didn't know her, never met her
  • He wouldn't assault her because she's ugly
  • He didn't assault her, that's a lie she made up

Her evidence

  • Photo of them together
  • He thought she looked like his wife
  • Pattern of assault and private admissions that he assaults women

It feels icky disproving that second one, but it just demonstrates that every statement is a proven lie.

Would that be enough to convict him of sexual assault in New York? We won't know that for sure, but we do know that Trump sexually assaults women.

[–] RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

A Threat of violence is assault. He goes on his shitty platform and does just that.

Put the asshole in jail already.

[–] ouRKaoS@lemmy.today 4 points 1 year ago

Depends on how much money you have.