• @Buffalox
    link
    1001 year ago

    Ha I knew it! They have nothing, anyone can find a witness or 150 for something.

    • @TokenBoomer
      link
      -42
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Don’t forget these witnesses will be paid using your tax dollars. /s

        • @PetDinosaurs
          link
          171 year ago

          What! I’m getting robbed at 55 cents/mi!

          • AFK BRB Chocolate
            link
            71 year ago

            I don’t know if it was a California thing or not, but back in the day they used to pay you $5 a day for jury duty. The aerospace company I worked at paid full salary for jury duty days, but for a while they required your to reimburse the company for the $5/day. It sort of makes sense philosophically because you don’t need the court compensation if you’re getting guilt paid, but it always seemed kind of cheap. I think they stopped that because they realized it was costing them more to process the reimbursement than they were getting from it.

            • @luckyhunter
              link
              21 year ago

              I know in some states it’s law that if the employer agrees to pay your salary the jury duty wages may(must?) be claimed by the company as income, so they are selling your time at a loss basically. It’s meant to be an incentive for companies to do it, but at $5/day yeah that’s not worth the paper work.

              • AFK BRB Chocolate
                link
                01 year ago

                Agreed. Like I said it makes sense philosophically, it’s just the amount is so low it seems miserly.

                On the other hand, the company pays full salary for unlimited jury days, which I think is unusual, so I don’t think they’re being cheap at all in reality.

                • @luckyhunter
                  link
                  -21 year ago

                  They are just being efficient with their accountant and tax preparers time. The state policy to incentivize employers just isn’t working since there’s not enough value there. I’m a business owner with hourly employees, and as long as the program was optional and paid, oh, half the employee wages I’d be totally on board with it.

        • BlackbeardM
          link
          English
          251 year ago

          Witnesses and jurors should obviously be paid in Trump NFTs and 5.56 rounds like TRUE, unbiased patriots. /s

        • @Lemmygizer
          link
          141 year ago

          I assume TokenBoomber is implying that the 150 witnesses are being bribed by the DOJ with your tax dollars.

        • @luckyhunter
          link
          -131 year ago

          The circus will be in town for at least 4 months and news programs will be unwatchable for the entire time of it.

      • Flying SquidOP
        link
        161 year ago

        You mean like all trials? What’s the problem with that?

        • @TokenBoomer
          link
          -26
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The problem. The problem is there aren’t enough restrooms in the courthouse to accommodate that number of witnesses. The cost of sewage maintenance alone necessitates a delay for the trial.

          • Flying SquidOP
            link
            151 year ago

            What are you even talking about? Are you drunk?

            • @TropicalDingdong
              link
              121 year ago

              They are just static.

              If you can’t win, cause confusion.

          • gregorum
            link
            fedilink
            English
            131 year ago

            Even worse, the witness stand can’t accommodate 150 witnesses at the same time!

            /s

            My goodness, does the amount of dumb things you say have no limit? 

            • @TokenBoomer
              link
              -121 year ago

              If there is a limit, I haven’t found it yet. A judge ruled today that Cheesebro and Powell will be tried together. Explain that. Can the witness stand hold 2 chairs?

              • Flying SquidOP
                link
                81 year ago

                Uh… You do know that the people on trial don’t sit in the witness stand the whole time, right?

              • roguetrick
                link
                fedilink
                31 year ago

                Oh Patricia, you’re just so random. I’m sure you were hilarious in middle school.

                • @TokenBoomer
                  link
                  -41 year ago

                  Is recess over. You’re hilarious now.

              • @Anamnesis
                link
                31 year ago

                Lmfao how is everyone missing that this is a joke? Nice username btw.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            61 year ago

            Witnesses don’t have to attend all 4+months of the trial, only days they’re needed/scheduled to attend.

    • @formergijoe
      link
      71 year ago

      That sounds like it has the making to be a perfect phone call!

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    351 year ago

    Does Trump have to be present for the whole thing? My adhd is getting triggered just thinking about sitting still for a 4 month trial. Good luck orange dude 😂

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      481 year ago

      Fuck what Trump has to do. Feel bad for the 14 ish jurors who have to sit there for 4 months getting paid less than minimum wage. I’d say it’s likely they get sequestered at some point, meaning they don’t even see their families.

      • @MegaUltraChicken
        link
        421 year ago

        Those jurors are definitely going to need to be sequestered and will probably need protection too. The GOP is already openly supporting domestic terrorism so I don’t expect them to stop now.

      • @CaptainPedantic
        link
        61 year ago

        Being jurors on this case would suck. That being said, not shitty employers often pay your full salary for jury duty. And some states require employers to pay too.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        21 year ago

        It would suck. But also, you would be a part of history forever.

        Some people go overseas and risk their lives in the military and lose family time as well without having as much of an impact on the world. Here, the potential to have a positive impact on society is also profound. To show that all people are equal under the law.

        So, yes, it would suck. But it’s still worth it as a society to require people to do this and as a juror it’s better than the equivalent trial that nobody hears about for commercial fraud that takes the same amount of time.

    • @dogslayeggs
      link
      251 year ago

      Does Trump have to be present for the whole thing?

      That depends on whether the judge orders an appearance. The lawyers for Trump must be present the whole time, but Trump does not necessarily have to be there unless ordered to by the judge.

      My adhd is getting triggered just thinking about sitting still for a 4 month trial.

      It seriously sounds awful… couldn’t happen to a better person.

        • @tym
          link
          21 year ago

          Being infamous sells books. They’ll come out on top in the end, just not by his tiny grifting hand.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        51 year ago

        Oh I love this nuclear option. If Trump won’t shut up on social media the judge will just tell him he has to be present the whole time. Lol.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    271 year ago

    If you look at all the crimes the 18 defendants are charged with, I’d say that 150 is actually pretty freaking economical! If math is right, that’s like 4.92 indictments per witness.

  • @RedditReject
    link
    231 year ago

    This is the one that will be televised too. Probably is so long because of all the co-defendents

    • @qisope
      link
      131 year ago

      you just know they’re going to end season 1 with a cliffhanger

  • roguetrick
    link
    fedilink
    181 year ago

    I don’t even see how a jury would follow something like that. It’s a college course in the way of information overload.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      111 year ago

      If Trump and his team could dream it up in far less than a month, mere mortals will be able to follow it. It’s not really all that complex. Just f*** over the election counting process in a variety of ways.

    • @PetDinosaurs
      link
      41 year ago

      There’s too much search engine garbage to find an original source, but PhDs, scientists, physicians, and attorneys (of course) are basically disqualified from jury duty.

      Funny how demonstrating that you’re able to think for yourself with a degree disqualifies you.

      • roguetrick
        link
        fedilink
        14
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I’m a nurse and was on a murder jury trial with a sheriff deputy. They’re not allowed to ask your profession in voir dire. What you cannot do is provide expert testimony as a juror in deliberation. You are, of course, expected to use your experiences in your decision.

        • @PetDinosaurs
          link
          11
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          They don’t ask your profession.

          They ask things like your highest level of education or “if you use math at work”.

          That last one got one of my colleagues immediately dismissed.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            41 year ago

            They don’t want someone to start adding context or outside information during the jury deliberation. If you do, then the defense has no opportunity to argue against you.

            They don’t want any additional discussion that could sway the case unfairly one way or the other.

            • @PetDinosaurs
              link
              51 year ago

              That is my understanding as well.

              But that’s “lawyers vs justice”.

              The jury is supposed to think for itself.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                01 year ago

                No, you are supposed to be able to put up a defense.

                Who’s to say the jury is correct? What if the specialist made an assumption that was wrong, shared it with the jury, and found a person guilty because they trusted this expert. Now you have no way of challenging this, and rebutting the assumption.

                You DON’T want those “independent thinker” jurors you need them to only consider what’s been presented in the case. It’s the only way it can be fair.

                • @PetDinosaurs
                  link
                  1
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Yeah. That’s why I’m disqualified from jury duty.

                  Everything you have just said (except for being able to put up a defense) insults me and my understanding of justice.

                  I don’t want the people who may eventually try me to behave like you’re saying.

                  That’s lawyers vs justice.

          • mrnotoriousman
            link
            fedilink
            31 year ago

            I’ve had jury duty twice in NY. I’m educated and use math and programming in my work daily.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        51 year ago

        I’ve got two jury duty summons so far and haven’t even made it to any form of interview. It may be due to my age at the times, but my job pays me for jury duty so I’ll gladly do my duty.

    • @dyathinkhesaurus
      link
      71 year ago

      Sounds like winning to me… You think he’s tired of winning yet?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        5
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Well, he was literally begging for more indictments during a rally a few weeks ago, so maybe he needs to pad those numbers a bit more.

  • realcaseyrollins
    link
    fedilink
    -621 year ago

    LOL

    Who told them this was a good idea? Are they so uncertain of their case that they’re bringing for over a hundred witnesses, in case tons of their testimonies fall through?

    • Flying SquidOP
      link
      651 year ago

      Maybe there are 150 witnesses because 150 people witnessed the crimes of the 19 people on trial. Just a thought.

    • AFK BRB Chocolate
      link
      211 year ago

      My guess is that they have a sequence of events they want to prove took place, and they also want to prove that Trump knew what he was doing was wrong at each step. So maybe the first thing is that there was a plan in advance to subvert the election, and they get testimony from a few different people who were at a meeting about it, another couple people who were on an email discussion, and someone who Trump spoke to personally. Do that kind of thing for every step in a long chain, and it can add up. But any weakness in the chain could be grounds for reasonable doubt, so they have to make sure it’s all solid.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      17
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’m curious, what country do you live in?
      You obviously have no idea how the court system in the US works.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      161 year ago

      1 person says you did a crime vs. 150 people saying you did a crime.

      Which would you rather defend against?

    • @MotoAsh
      link
      9
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Wait… You think MORE witnesses mean less guilty?! … bahahahaha holy shit, you retards are truly beyond any ability for logic… Literally, a rock is smarter than you.

      No wonder he thinks he could shoot someone on Main St. and you morons would think he’s innocent if MORE witnesses mean less guilty. Again, you are literally too stupid to properly parse reality. Seek help. Preferably a conservatorship, because you are clearly too dumb to take care of yourself.