“There is no greater tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield of the law and in the name of justice.” --Montesquieu Those of us old enough to remember the infamous trial of O.J. Simpson will certainly remember the daily presence in the court of Jo-Ellen Demetrius, the jury consultant who determined which people among the jury pool would be likely to decide in Simpson’s favor.
Few of us had heard of jury consultants then, but they’ve certainly been around since the Simpson trial.
A jury consultant’s job is to research, as closely as possible, each prospective juror by any means necessary so that the defense can select the persons who may be most disposed to find their client not guilty.
Of course, prosecutors hire jury consultants as well to determine who among the pool will be likely to find the person on trial guilty. On its face, this seems to be an obviously unethical practice; depending on who got the most jurors of their choosing is likely to win.
How can this be legal, one might ask. It probably should not be, but one thing is clear: Juries are rarely a “jury of one’s peers” anymore. They are carefully and deceptively chosen. We can be certain that jury consultants were hired to select the people who would sit in judgment of President Trump for each of the numerous trials to which he has been so unfairly subjected.
Exactly what would the ideologically biased prosecutors in each of the absurd lawfare trials of President Trump be looking for?
That is an easy question. They would be looking for Trump-haters, people who watch MSNBC and The View, for example; people easily led and relatively ignorant of American history and current events beyond leftist talking points. They would know nothing about the fact that Trump led the U.S. to energy independence that made our gas prices low and brought in huge profits to workers' 401(k)s because we had enough oil and gas to sell to other nations. They would not know that Trump brought peace to the Middle East. They would most likely buy into the climate change hoax. They would be persons who leapt to be vaccinated with the wholly experimental mRNA jab that has caused thousands of deaths (perhaps more), especially of young people. They would be people who wanted to jail the vaccine-hesitant. In short, they would be people who are easily manipulated by the media and easier still by clever and deceitful lawyers intent upon destroying Trump. They would be sheep.
Jury consultants are sneaky. They will hire people to follow jurors to see if they have bumper stickers on their cars. They research each of the prospective jurors to determine their marital status, their kids, their jobs, what magazines they may subscribe to, whether they have financial problems or a criminal record. They will discover their voting record. There is nothing they cannot learn about each potential juror. They are self-proclaimed experts in body language and will know who wants to be on a high-profile jury. It is a nasty business, but somehow it is legal. So again, there is no “jury of one’s peers” in the American justice system today. We can all be sure that the jurors selected to sit in judgment of Trump were carefully chosen for all the wrong reasons.
Each of the prosecutors in these lawsuits against Trump will have likely sought out the angriest, unhappiest, most ideologically rigid people. They may be educated but would be, like most academics are, on the far left and certain of their own superiority. They would not be critical thinkers; academics are no longer critical thinkers. Prosecutors would look for people who already believe their client is guilty or who they believe they can manipulate. They would excuse potential jurors who seem to actually think for themselves, people who might pick up on the bias of the judge or who have been revealed to be even remotely conservative.
The judges in each of the lawsuits against Trump are outrageously biased against him and have no problem denying his basic Constitutional rights. That would and should enrage jurors who are able to think for themselves but, so far, each jury has fallen hook, line and sinker for the prosecutors’ and presiding judges’ patently obvious bias. Have these judges’ decisions been bought and paid for? Quite possible. The behavior of each of them, as well as the prosecutors, has been horrific. Each of them has denied justice in the most flagrant ways.
Judge Lewis Kaplan has presided over the absurd case brought by E. Jean Carroll, an apparently disturbed woman who has accused Trump of rape in a dressing room at Bergdorf Goodman in the 1990s. Her story appeared clearly fabricated, given its curious resemblance to a plotline viewed on an episode of Law & Order SVU, and was funded by big leftist donor Reid Hoffman. The case is also an apparent re-enactment of the fabricated case against Judge Brett Kavanaugh and his accuser, Christine Blasey Ford. Carroll and Ford were/are both tools of big Democrat donors who use their wealth to wield the power they can buy. In the Carroll case, the judge, Lewis Kaplan, refused to allow the jury to hear any of Trump’s defense!
How is this possible in what was once a Constitutional legal system?
Our system of justice has been weaponized against any and all conservatives. Lawfare is how the left takes out its opposition. The same goes for judges Tanya Chutkan in D.C, Judge Scott McAfee in Georgia is bad and Judge Arthur Engoron in New York looks like a certified lunatic, again denying Trump basic legal rights. The judicial bench in this country is appalling and the Trump-haters know exactly who to recruit -– radical activist judges who ignore the Constitution for political purposes.
And they are getting away with it. These ignorant-of-reality jurors come up with absurdly ridiculous financial damages: $148 million for former New York mayor and Trump lawyer Rudy Guiliani! $83 million for a woman who cannot even remember when she was allegedly assaulted. This decision may well be the greatest miscarriage of justice in U.S. history. Such judgments excite the mainstream media who love nothing more than being able to report bad news for President Trump.
Bottom line? The DAs like Letitia James in New York, Fani Willis in Georgia, Jack Smith, (the most corrupt of the bunch), et al. are thugs driven by hatred for Trump and his supporters and who have each sold their souls to take him down. They have no allegiance to the law or the Constitution. As for the jury consultants who weed out people capable of considering the facts presented, or not presented, fairly, a pox on all their houses. They have helped pervert our once-revered justice system.
It’s a Stalinist joke now and most Americans know it. “No oppression is so heavy or lasting as that which is inflicted by the perversion and exorbitance of legal authority”. -Joseph Addison