What would you say if you were being asked if you could impartially serve on Diaper Don's Jury?

[PurgedVoter]

My reply would probably go like this, and I wouldn't be allowed to finish before I was escorted out. "Well, out where I live, the only men that wear that much makeup know how to blend, and their wigs look a lot better on them. As far as suits go, I think a huge body in a suit like that call for a larger leg for ease and drape. I mean look at that line and you know his tailor hates him. That's my view but then I don't know much about trying to hide a diaper under a suit."

Then again, this might be my reply, "Innocent or guilty, getting that ugly orange painted face out of every single news article would be a public service."

Had to say, but it would not take a long search for them to figure out from social media that I wasn't what they were looking for.

[onecaliberal]

1. Nope. He is a criminal and he is guilty.

He has zero redeeming qualities. I don’t even know how anyone can sit there and look at him. I would be vomiting.

[Hugin]

2. I would probably be cut off before I could finish...

“There’s always time for a fair trial before…” “Next, PLEASE!”

It might be a little different if Team Trump ( ) had already blown through their 10 I-don’t-like-the-looks-of-this-ones.

[ripcord]

3. One person was excused for social media post of "Lock him up"

[kimbutgar]

4. No I hate him and think he is evil and I don't want my life destroyed by one of his magaloon cult members

Who might try to harm me or my family.

Anyone that serves on this jury is brave in my opinion!

[elocs]

5. I would honestly need to say, "no". n/t

[MOMFUDSKI]

6. I would say YES in hopes of making it on.

You know the rest.

[niyad]

7. well, they would not be able to find me on social media, and I look

like such a harmless old woman. . .I might make it through the first couple of questions from his shysters before I told them to f### off.

[Dem2theMax]

8. I would say

'He should have been put in prison on January 6, 2021 for treason.

I don't think they would want me as a juror.

[PurgedVoter]

9. Then again, I might be excused since if i saw Diaper Don in person I might start projectile vomiting.

Kind of like Triumph the Insult Dog.

[LoisB]

10. I hate to admit it but I would have to say no, I could not be impartial.

[Silent Type]

11. If I made it to jury, I might be first juror to jump out of the box and punch the defendant.

[bottomofthehill]

12. I could not serve

I would not be able to be fair or impartial.

[struggle4progress]

13. "I'm pretty sure I won't shoot that stinkin mofo if I find no loaded guns within reach"?

[Talitha]

14. Simple answer: "Fuck no!"

[Red Mountain]

15. I'd like to serve on his jury

it would be an honor.

[RockRaven]

16. I would say that I think he is a loud dumb immoral sack of shit but because

I am not like him, I would be able to honestly evaluate the evidence presented by the prosecution and by the defense in light of the instructions provided by the judge and without reference to outside/prior information or impressions. Whether that suffices as impartiality or not for a juror, the judge and lawyers can decide, and I don't care either way.

[H2O Man]

17. "Bring the guilty bastard in,

and we'll give him his fair trial."

Note: taken from what a judge said to my uncle in chambers, before starting a trial.)

[JustAnotherGen]

18. No

.

[Bundbuster]

19. "Read my 21 years of postings on Democratic Underground."

and I'd then be quickly escorted from the courtroom.

[Wonder Why]

20. I could be impartial - if I know we could bring a rope with us.

[Tree Lady]

21. No I think he has been

Guilty of crimes for decades.

[DavidDvorkin]

22. "Guilty!"

"Death penalty!"

[TSExile]

23. No way could I be impartial.

As I have mentioned on this forum before, I am a sexual assault survivor. Not only that, but my abuse occurred in 2015-16, the same time that horrible orange man rose to political power. I cannot separate those two separate occurrences from my mind. No way could I serve and be impartial.

[Ms. Toad]

24. Absolutely.

I'm really struggling with all of the people both on the jury and here who can't apply the law (given in the jury instructions) to the facts (developed at trial). It really has absolutely nothing to do with anything other than checking each one of a bunch of elements for each charge against the evidence. Whether I like someone or not is completely irrelevant to determining whether the state proved the case against them.

[Ohio Joe]

26. Agreed

Facts are facts, I’ll go where they take me.

[Retrograde]

25. In this particular case? Probably

Mainly because I'm not familiar with the particular New York laws he's being charged under - and MSM keeps calling this a hush money case instead of the business fraud case it is - and while I dislike the guy and would never vote for him I think I could put aside my opinion of him and judge just based on the facts presented in the courtroom. Did he have a one-night stand with Ms Daniels? Yes. Did he arrange for her to be paid? Yes. Was that illegal under NYS law at the time? I don't know.

I think the fact that I post frequently here would get me kicked off for cause.

[DJ Porkchop]

27. I showed up for jury duty today

For the first time ever. I wasn't selected.

But I took the oath. I have to say I could not be impartial.

Can I be excused?

[grumpyduck]

28. Tough question.

I believe on our justice system and I would be happy to be part of it, treat that person like any other defendant.

My hangup would be in how the case, i.e. the lawyers, present it. If the case is about fraud (which it is), I could be impartial. If it's presented as "hush money," then hell no, I would say hang the lawyers and the media. And him.

[-misanthroptimist]

29. My answer:

As adults, we are expected to put our feelings on hold to accomplish larger tasks. So, whatever my feelings, they pale in significance to my duty to be a fair juror. I believe that the Rule of Law is far more important than my opinion of Mr.Trump. If the State proves its case beyond a reasonable doubt, I'll vote guilty; if they don't prove their case, I'll vote not guilty (and I'll feel good about it, too.)

That said, I think Mr. Trump is the worst example of a human being in the history of human beings. He has absolutely no positive personality trait of which I am aware. He is singular in that respect.

[Voltaire2]

30. I would state that I could impartially serve. Nt.

[ProudMNDemocrat]

31. Here is what I would have said if asked...

"In this country, Americans are granted the Right to a speedy and fair trial, judged by a jury of one's peer's in a court of law based on the facts and evidence, guaranteed under the 6th Amendment of the US Constitution. Therefore, one is presumed innocent until proven otherwise. THAT has been the basis of the law since the Constitution had been drafted and ratified."

The Defense would not like my answer, but that is the truth. Simply put, I understand what is in the US Constitution and my intelligence would unnerve the Lawyers for TSF. THEY would disqualify me.

[NanaCat]

32. That it wouldn't matter to me who somebody is

All I care about is evidence and who can back it up.

Everything else is rubbish.

[Tom of Temecula]

33. My answer: "Of course I can serve with impartiality."

It wouldn't be the truth, but this is a special occasion.

[bluestarone]

34. I honestly feel i could be impartial.

My thinking is the truth is there in black and white. I would look at the testimony and make sure ALL juror's see and understand what has been presented.