The DC jury pool?
Take a look at this Emerson College poll from September 5.
Not only is the "DC jury pool" already predisposed to declare President Trump guilty, the prosecutors do not want to give President Trump the accepted periods of time to mount his own defense against their motions, let alone at the trial itself.
Demographics:
- Dem: 375 (75.1%)
- Rep: 25 (4.9%)
- Ind: 84 (16.8%)
- Unregistered: 16 (3.2%)
I guess the poll is representative of the DC area, but what it shows is a poisoned jury pool that cannot deliver a fair verdict.
Q: If you were a member of the jury in the trial of Donald Trump, how would you vote on the charge that he used unlawful means in an attempt to subvert the results of the 2020 presidential election?
Analysis: The DC jury pool has already made up its mind before hearing any evidence in a court of law.
- Innocent: 39 (7.7%)
- Guilty: 321 (64.2%)
- Unsure: 141 (28.1%)
Q: Regardless of your opinion about the verdict, do you think the jury at the trial of Donald Trump in DC will find him innocent or guilty?
Analysis: This question is asking whether one believes others on the jury would convict President Trump. This confirms that DC jury pool has already made up its mind, as residents believe their fellow community members would also convict.
- Innocent: 52 (10.3%)
- Guilty: 286 (57.2%)
- Unsure: 163 (32.5%)
CONCLUSION:
There is no way that this jury pool can produce a jury of "peers" required by the Constitution. They don't live in the same area as President Trump, they don't have similar work experiences as President Trump, and they don't have similar political or religious beliefs as President Trump.
Based on a poll like this, the only way for President Trump to get a constitutional jury of his peers is to get a change of venue.
-PJ
There is no place in the US where you could seat an impartial jury when it comes to President Trump.
Everyone knows him and everyone has an opinion.
Any trial will rapidly turn into a grotesque farce.
The only solution is to drop all charges and let the populace vote. And leave the millions of phony ballots and crooked voting machines out of it.
And strip Jack Smith of his job and law license, followed by a short bench trial for abuse of power.
While under normal circumstances I would agree, the conservative pundits including attorneys keep telling us the charges are weak at best & generally a nothing burger that easily should be dismissed or easily blown out of the water. With that being said, what defense is there to mount? This should be get it going and swat it down and move on. Or are these pundits and legal experts just bloviating to placate that part of the audience?