How can you give a former president a fair trial when the national jury pool has already been contaminated?
A Facebook friend posted an opinion piece from the NY Times last week, where the author expounded a case that former President Donald Trump’s faith should be decided by “12 Ordinary Citizens.” Quaint notion, but not in accordance with the law. Specifically, Amendment 6, “…the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed…”
No disrespect to “12 Ordinary Citizens,” but it will be difficult to find a jury of Trump’s peers, i.e., “a person who is the same age or has the same social position or the same abilities as other people in a group.” Seeing there are only 756 billionaires and five living former presidents (we can safely assume they all voted against Trump in the past)in the United States, that limits the jury pool. As far as finding an “impartial jury” from a wider pool is even more challenging.
The ”insurrection” indictments were filed Jack Smith for a hyper partisan attorney general in the District of Columbia, which voted 91% to 4% for Mrs. Bill Clinton in 2016, and 92% to 5% for Biden in 2020. Mr. Smith also charged the former president with stealing classified documents (the fact the current president has classified documents in his personal garage when he did not have declassification authority has not entered his mind). New York district attorney Alvin Bragg campaigned on investigating and charging Trump, in a city that voted 79% to 19% for Clinton. Fani Willis in Atlanta, will purportedly request a trial in Atlanta GA, where the counties voted for Mrs. Clinton 3-2 in 2016.
Looking at each of these cases, they are weak on the facts, but one question glares out. Why all this at one time? Unquestionably the charges were filed to insure the trials would occur in the middle of the presidential campaign, pulling President Trump into a court room at a critical time. Could this also be the greatest example of poisoning the jury pool of all time?
The most obvious example of this is DC. The bureaucracy hates Donald Trump, and to be honest, Trump is not fan of the Deep State. Will it take much for the residents of the capital area to make up their minds with the 45th president? I doubt it. In December 2019, “objective journalists” from the Washington Post celebrated Impeachmas. More likely they would want Trump executed for jaywalking, to borrow the phrase from Joe Biden.
Screen-Shot-2019-12-18-at-11.02.48-PM.jpg
Remember, this rag is actually read, and more importantly, believed by the DC Swamp.
Is jury tampering only an example from the past on how to insure a certain outcome in a critical case? Not really. May I present Derek Chauvin.
To get this out of the way, I do have issues with the way he handled that incident. Neck compression is a legitimate method for handing an out-of-control suspect. Chauvin was instructed and authorized by the city to use that technique. The game changes, however, when George Floyd stops breathing.
Before the Trump railroad, if any trial required a sequestered jury, it was the Chauvin case. But giving the defendant “due process of law” (I know I’ve heard that before…) to ensure a fair trial didn’t seem to interest the judge (emphasis mine):
Mr. Chauvin’s lawyer, Eric J. Nelson, had argued that the jurors should be ordered to avoid all media and spend the rest of the trial sequestered, because he feared that further unrest in the area where the shooting took place might limit their ability to be fair jurors. The judge denied that and said the situation in the area, Brooklyn Center, was different because the unrest was not after a jury verdict, but it was in response to a separate police shooting.
The unrest will be at “forefront of the jury’s mind-set,” Mr. Nelson said. “A verdict in this case will have consequences. They have been exposed to that already. The jury should be sequestered.”
Does that nullify the guilty verdict for second degree murder? Perhaps, or perhaps not. However, there is no question the jury was influenced by protests outside the courthouse, and the threat of BLM terrorists coming to their homes during or after the trial. Chauvin deserves another trial with a sequestered jury.
Back to the initial question, where do you get an impartial jury of your peers for Donald Trump? You can’t. However, you can do what you can to give him the least bias jury pool and jury. The federal charges must be moved completely out of the District of Columbia and its area, and the cases set for after the 2024 election. New York and Atlanta need to be moved from their solid blue areas to at least a pink voting area. And yes, all the juries need to be sequestered.
I know people will laugh, but for once can radical judicial bureaucracies’ give the appearance of propriety?
Michael A. Thiac is a retired Army intelligence officer, with over 23 years experience, including serving in the Republic of Korea, Japan, and the Middle East. He is also a retired police patrol sergeant, with over 22 years’ service, and over ten year’s experience in field training of newly assigned officers. He has been published at The American Thinker, PoliceOne.com, and on his personal blog, A Cop’s Watch.
Opinions expressed are his alone and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of current or former employers.
If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us Help keep us ad-free by donating here.
Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA
1 thought on “Due Process Of Law For President Trump?”