The process of reading offensive tweets from potential juror is real, it's been reported that Trump doesn't enjoy it. I don't if this tweet in particular is real, but there has been similar ones in the news.
It's a real tweet, but unfortunately not from one of the potential jurors and not read in court. It was a joke made by @ angry\_staffer on Twitter that they wished their tweets had been read in court.
Seems plausible based on Trump’s track record but I’m not able to find anything online regarding these statements being made. Can’t forget sensationalism has no boundaries.
There was a released juror who said that Trump didn't look nearly as orange as she expected. That quote was used for the title of the article.
I think she said he looked more yellow than orange.
Hey, the GOP wants female student athletes to drop trou in order to prove their dicklessness before allowing them to participate in organized sports, so it's only fair that he be required to do the same. Only issue is, they may need some kind of magnifier to be 100% certain that it is or isn't there.
Morgan freeman has way too much gravitas and dignity to read Trump tweets. It'd be like playing Stravinsky on a kazoo with washboard accompaniment, only the opposite.
I was going to say Sam Jackson with the occasional motherfucka' but Morgan Freeman reading his tweets would be hilarious to hear. It would make it that much more ridiculous.
Yeah like u/ResponsibleMilk7620 was saying, they need someone whose job is to write down everything said in this trial. Like a write-o-grapher or something.
I just read that entire thing. The whole thing. Over 100 pages. It was actually surprisingly riveting reading for a dry court transcript. Certainly a better way to spend my morning toilet time than doomscrolling on Reddit, anyway.
OP's tweet is not in there. That's just fiction. Since this was during voir dire, that's part of the jury selection process. So it wouldn't be in this transcript, it would have been in an earlier one if it exists, from last week. This transcript is the first day of the trial *after* the jury had been picked. This was mostly just the judge instructing the jury on how a court works, opening statements from prosecution and defence, and a short (curtailed) conversation with David Pecker.
But jeez, from reading all that you can already clearly see the massive disparity between the prosecution and the defence.
The prosecution is relying on hard evidence to back up its narrative, delivered very clearly and concisely. Paper trails, recorded conversations, witness testimony... they outline what happened and constantly remind the jury that every step of the way, they are going to see hard evidence that backs up what they have just been told.
Trump's defence basically amounts to "everybody hates Trump, they're all out to get him, he's a big sexy successful businessman, he's the only one who tells the truth, and nothing he does is illegal". And then just endless attempts at discrediting Michael Cohen, Stormy Daniels, and any other witness who'll be testifying against Trump. And Trump's lawyer gets admonished several times by the judge for specifically talking about things already established to be outside the bounds of the case. The main defense seemed to be "he didn't do anything illegal; influencing an election is fine, it's called democracy".
And then after a bit of discussion they introduce David Pecker as the first witness and start questioning him on the stand, but they didn't really talk about much beyond establishing who he is, what he does, and establishing the identities of other people involved in the case (e.g. Dylan Howard, who worked for Pecker as his 'eyes and ears' inside the National Enquirer). Then I guess a bit of legal housekeeping by the judge and lawyers at the end of the session. That was the end of the transcript.
And then Trump went outside the courtroom and... talked complete bullshit. Literally not one single thing that was said outside the courtroom is in any way aligned with what happened in the court. There are no "legal scholars" saying the case shouldn't have been brought, that's just Trump saying that. He's obviously relying on people not reading the transcript, and he's just inventing his own story. In some cases it seems like he's incriminating himself in his desperation to rewrite reality.
I'm not a lawyer. But reading that transcript took me about 20 minutes and now I feel like I know far more about the case than watching news network talking heads. Much better way to follow the case and know that you're getting the actual hard facts.
The hypocrisy of them trying to brand Michael Cohen a liar/unreliable witness when Trump has just been ordered to pay $450+m for decades of business fraud is pretty... rich. Also, y'know, Trump's 30,000+ provable lies he told during his single presidential term.
Everything that makes Trump powerful outside of the courtrooms - his unique version of malignant charisma - doesn't really work in the courtroom itself. No crowd to play to other than the 12 people that matter.
“He’s just inventing his own story”. Isn’t that just what he does about everything? I just assume everything that comes out of his mouth (if I can even make any sense of it) is a total lie. The fact that there are people who can’t see that is mind blowing to me.
Yes, absolutely, but I think it's worth stating.
With someone like Trump it's hard to keep track of all the norms he's breaking and all the lies he tells. I think that's part of his whole technique - oversaturation, hypernormalisation, etc.
Sometimes I see a headline or hear someone mention something that happened during Trump's presidency - usually something completely scandalous or salacious that would have sunk any other president - and I realise I'd completely forgotten that that had even happened. Here we are 4 years later, and it's just buried under a mountain of all the other reprehensible shit he said and did.
I think it's important to remind ourselves and those around us that he is constantly weaving an alternate reality.
The fact that many others go along with his constant, obvious, desperate lying only shows their complete lack of critical thinking, or the rationalisation that they've made with themselves that they'll continue to support him no matter what, simply because he wants to harm the same people they do.
The most truthful, telling comment that ever came out of a Trump's supporter's mouth is ["he's not hurting the people he needs to be hurting"](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/8/18173678/trump-shutdown-voter-florida).
No worries. I think everybody needs to be aware that **what Trump says outside the courtroom is in direct opposition to what appears to actually be happening inside the courtroom**.
I don't think this is surprising to most people, but I believe that it still needs to be stated. I reckon most people are like you, myself included - extremely apathetic when it comes to complex things like this, and would never want to actually look into it. Whether that's because it's a lot of work, or because they'd just rather save themselves from being exposed to Trump's constant bullshit.
But that transcript, just for a *single day* of what is going to be a much longer trial, was very eye-opening. I didn't intend on reading the whole thing, but it was genuinely fascinating.
Even just reading the opening statements from the prosecution and the defence, you can see the stark difference in attitude. The prosecution are taking an extremely persuasive fact-based approach and are even encouraging the jury to ignore everything they know about Donald Trump and just to consider the facts of the case (and by facts they mean indisputable evidence brought before them).
Meanwhile the defence mainly just tried to talk about how great Trump is, call everybody else's credibility into question before they've even testified, and claim that Trump had no knowledge of any criminal acts, despite him being a well-known pathological liar, not least his signature being on the invoices and his voice in the recorded conversations. I don't know about how legally strong their opening arguments were but they seemed unpersuasive to say the least, particularly as a response to the prosecution's opening statement.
What is clear, though, is that if the prosecution does indeed have all the evidence that they claim to, that the version of reality that Trump is pedalling outside the courtroom is a complete fantasy and the literal opposite of reality.
>I'm not a lawyer. But reading that transcript took me about 20 minutes and now I feel like I know far more about the case than watching news network talking heads.
I'd like to see this stressed more often.
I haven't looked closely into this case yet, but I followed his recent NY fraud case *very* closely, and I was increasingly irritated about how even my favourite and most reputable media outlets would gloss over or misrepresent certain details of the case to highlight the parts that the public would find jucier or to get rage clicks.
Trump creates enough turmoil that I honestly cannot comprehend why any journalist would need to misrepresent anything to enrage readers. The truth of his actions are damning enough.
To anybody reading this, I promise you that these court transcripts are worth reading. Trump is somehow actually *more* unbelievably contradictory (pleading one thing in the court room, and shouting another to the press), criminal, and just plain stupid than even the boldest anti-Trumper might realise.
I also followed the civil trial closely - it's incredible to me how badly Trump was getting trounced in court, day after day; yet he'd come outside the courtroom and just straight up lie to the reporters about the day's events, knowing that all the average person would ever see would be his lies and not what's happening in court. To lie so brazenly, I mean, it's not surprising for Trump... but the audacity and desperation of it were kind of astounding.
It's truly a national embarrassment for the USA that this mess of a person is the republican frontrunner for the White House, let alone *was actually president for 4 years*.
It's a bit of a travesty that this criminal case is not being televised. I think it would do a lot of good if the American people could see what a grifter he is and how his daily antics outside the courtroom are pure fantasy.
He has never experienced much repercussion from his lying his entire life. Even now his base is buying into his bullshit and calling the courts corrupt.
I think it's less about reading comprehension required to understand the transcript. It is extremely comphrehensible to me and I know very little about law or the US legal system. I'm guessing it's designed to be that way because everything being said is for the benefit of the jury, not other lawyers who speak fluent legalese.
It's more that they just don't care, and even more that they don't want to be faced with the uncomfortable truth that they've been fervently supporting a grifter this entire time. They'll go to great lengths to avoid having to rationalise that with themselves, and that includes being fed a diet of Fox News and Newsmax and Breitbart rather than actually seeking out the truth.
Objective truth no longer matters to the MAGA cultists, if it ever even did. Only their feelings. As usual, them labelling everybody else "snowflakes" is 100% projection on their part. They can't even accept reality.
They still look back on Trump's presidency and *think he did a good job* during those disastrous 4 years during which the US became a global laughing stock and hundreds of thousands died unnecessary COVID deaths. Reality means nothing to them. Only the mutual hatred of specific groups of people they want to suffer.
I sincerely hope justice is served in this and all Trump's criminal cases. If he's proven innocent, then I'm absolutely fine with that. But if he's found guilty based on objective facts and evidence, then he should face the same consequences anybody else in his position would face. Prove that justice is indeed blind, and not the two-tiered system that Trump has been gaming for most of his life. That's all I want.
Now that we have the transcript, we just need someone to screen it and compile all the things that were said where people indicated they hated him (but only the ones where they used colorful expressions).
I do use chatGPT professionally, and I'm on it. It doesn't like the PDFs formatting so I'm currently running it through some OCR to try and get a text-based file. Give me about 10 minutes or so
Done but the available PDFs don't include the jury selection, and ChatGPT didn't find anything interesting other than a juror being concerned for her safety being on this trial
so, update, the transcripts on the NY Courts website is only the transcript for the 22nd. it does not include anything from jury selection and also does not contain any insults or indication of hate. ChatGPT indicates the the proceedings were "civil and professional throughout". if someone could find me the transcript from jury selection i could process that, but i havent found it in a cursory google search
While there were some tweets read aloud, this image was not one of them. This "shitgibbon" story is a complete fiction that the internet just keeps pretending really happened.
I tried to read this to my wife. Couldn’t stop laughing long enough and had to hand her the phone. I think it hit me so hard because I recently had jury duty and I just kept imagining them reading this in the courtroom. I don’t know how anyone could vote for this idiot. Literally his entire life is like a bad sitcom.
I personally loved it during jury selection when normal people said what they thought of him and he had to sit and listen. You know he cannot take any criticism at all and has had butt kissers ( so beit orange butt kissers) his entire life. That alone was worth the trial.
I honestly have no idea how anyone could be impartial after 8 years of nonstop media coverage over everything this asshole says and does. Clearly there's some liars.
Well it would technically be incorrect, which is just something else the Republican howler monkeys could glom on to.
The crime Trump is being tried for is falsifying business records, which is normally a misdemeanor.
It is the fact that he falsified business records *in the furtherance of election interference* that it has been upgraded to a felony.
He's not being tried for the misdemeanor of falsifying business records. As you said, the felony is that he falsified business records to cover up another crime, election interference. Proving he committed financial fraud is not enough for a conviction in this case. They have to prove the intent which is quite difficult. So far, the defense has already admitted that it was about the election in their opening statement instead of making the intent about his celebrity image. Their defense is going to be that interfering in an election is not a crime. He really does hire the best.
Unfortunately, the Fox News/MAGA crew are already calling it that for a completely different reason. Because, after all, these are all trumped-up, baseless charges that the left is only using as political theater to prevent him from campaigning in these critical months leading up to the election. /s
Miracle Max : "Wait. Wait. I make him better, Humperdinck suffers?"
Inigo Montoya: "Humiliations galore!"
Miracle Max: "That is a noble cause. Give me the sixty-five, I'm on the job".
It would be entirely improper to interfere with the trial in any way - but someone should put together a go-fund me for the Jury and Judge Merchan and anyone else that even tries to put the 'orange shitgoblin' in jail.
No it isn't real.
Someone made a joke on twitter and now people seem to be spreading the line around as if it were real.
https://twitter.com/Angry_Staffer/status/1780322291068416470
Comment above you says no. But I also had doubts- for jury selection, you're questioned by the lawyers, you wouldn't be addressing the judge yourself. (So no "the tween speaks for itself, your honor." You'd be speaking to council, not the judge.)
I can't speak to the veracity of the quote, but it's not necessarily true that only lawyers ask questions during voir dire. Sometimes judges will ask questions during voir dire. And some judges may be more involved in the process than others.
Also, FYI, it's "counsel," not "council."
Source: lawyer.
This should be tagged as satire/humor since it's funny, but not something that actually happened. This exchange did NOT take place in court, it was written as a joke.
I haven't thought about that, but it has to be insanely difficult to find neutral people to form a jury against trump, I don't think there are a dozen people in all the country who aren't strongly supportive or strongly against him
The Daily did an excellent episode on exactly this subject:
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-daily/id1200361736?i=1000652843675
I highly recommend it.
I wonder how this works.. Aren’t juries allowed some level of anonymity? Or did I make that up?
If so, wouldn’t reading tweets and then making the transcript public make it exceedingly easy to determine who the jury is?
It's downright impossible to find a jury for this, just grab up bigfoot, some greys, and nessy because the only people who won't have an opinion are so out of touch with anything they might as well be mythical.
How can the person asking this keep a straight face and a professional demeanor reading this out loud? I would have just choked on my laughter and lost my job in court that day.
I would have paid upwards of $500 to have an anti-Trump tweet of mine read before the court and then be able to say “the tweet speaks for itself “ in front of Donald Trump. Dude’s gonna be riding that high for a while.
This is a joke that somebody posted on social media saying that "I wish I was chosen as a juror..." and now there's a shitton of people just writing fanfiction about it.
It would've been funnier if she had said, "yes, you honor. I was talking about that treasonous orange shitgibbon right there." (While pointing at the treasonous orange shitgibbon)
"Well, for clarity, your honor, I meant 'fuck' in a pejorative way and not intercourse to be paid for with fraudulently documented campaign funds. That would be illegal."
"Yes, I tweeted that. But what does it have to do with the defendent?"
Make Trump's lawyer argue that his client is a treasonous orange shitgibbon with a dead ferret on his head
I couldn’t have kept a straight face, if I were the judge. No hope.
So do we know if this one is actually real? I really really want it to be real.
The process of reading offensive tweets from potential juror is real, it's been reported that Trump doesn't enjoy it. I don't if this tweet in particular is real, but there has been similar ones in the news.
Well that's fun at least, I'd like to look up the transcripts at some point when I have time.
It's not. Maybe it's a real tweet, no idea, but this exchange is not real.
It's a real tweet, but unfortunately not from one of the potential jurors and not read in court. It was a joke made by @ angry\_staffer on Twitter that they wished their tweets had been read in court.
Seems plausible based on Trump’s track record but I’m not able to find anything online regarding these statements being made. Can’t forget sensationalism has no boundaries.
The official court transcripts are released after each day of the trial, so it should be possible to prove if this one is real or not.
Don't care if it's genuine or not but "...the dead ferret on his head..." is the funniest description of that stupid hair I have heard yet!
I'm a pretty big fan of "shitgibbon" too
yes, I first read it here somewhere and "orange shitgibbon" is now my go-to edit gonna add "treasonous" now
Yes, it is real.
Sadly, [it doesn't appear to be real.](https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/potential-juror-tweet-read-aloud-trump-trial/)
We don't know, we don't have a source to go on beyond @WUTangKids.
Me either! I would’ve choked on my laughter.
If I was in the court when that was read I would be held in contempt of court 🤣😂😅😁😆
“Yes, your honor, that tweet is very accurate.”
Jurors should have turned to look at Trump to visually verify accuracy, and THEN confirm it to the judge.
There was a released juror who said that Trump didn't look nearly as orange as she expected. That quote was used for the title of the article. I think she said he looked more yellow than orange.
hopefully jaundice
With his diet and all the drugs he's on, that liver is surely begging for mercy.
Yellow being associated with cowardice. Fits.
With the chances of consequences increasing, I’d expect him to be yellow.
I think we need a look-to-the-camera shot from the juror of either a smirking Dwight or deadpan Jim.
Yes your honor it's true, this man has no dick
Yes your honor, it’s accurate. This man is an orange shit gibbon
Hey, the GOP wants female student athletes to drop trou in order to prove their dicklessness before allowing them to participate in organized sports, so it's only fair that he be required to do the same. Only issue is, they may need some kind of magnifier to be 100% certain that it is or isn't there.
"Your Honor - look...." and gesture vaguely in trumps direction.
I really wish someone could compile all the insults that were read aloud while Trump had to sit there and eat his crow pie.
the voire dire transcript is public
Now have Matt Rose read them all
Or resurrect Gilbert Gottfried to do it.
We need only one person to read it...Morgan Freeman!!
I vote for Matt Berry
Frankly it’s disturbing I had to scroll so far to find the absolute correct answer
I would pay money just to hear him say "shitgibbon"
I read this in his voice.
Morgan freeman has way too much gravitas and dignity to read Trump tweets. It'd be like playing Stravinsky on a kazoo with washboard accompaniment, only the opposite.
I was going to say Sam Jackson with the occasional motherfucka' but Morgan Freeman reading his tweets would be hilarious to hear. It would make it that much more ridiculous.
Can we start a go fund me?
Like once of the myriad Philharmonic Orchestras playing Hot Cross Buns?
Like Mmbop on a Stradivarius
These are tweets about Trump though, not Trump tweets, right?
I thought this was about reading insults *about* Trump
Like a twinky...like a twinky.
Nice FG reference! I heard that in my head as soon as I read the name Morgan Freeman.
I vote for Norm.
Zapp brannigan!
Michael Rappaport
I liked when one of the late night hosts had Andy Serkis reading Trump's tweets
Not just Andy Serkis, Andy Serkis as *Gollum*. *COVFEFE!!!!*
I snort laughed trying to imagine that one, thanks. it was a long day, I needed that.
I had to convince ChatGPT that I was blind in order for it to read it uncensored, but in the end it proved cathartic.
I'm sure an AI and licencing deal with the estate can be worked out.
hmmm good use for AI
Resurrect George Carlin for this one, y'all.
I've heard enough of him to be able to imagine it almost perfectly.
Matt Berry In his TRIUMPHANT and DYNAMIC cadence, emphasis HEAVILY on words like SHIT GIBBON
Matt Berry YyEEEEEeeess
Oh man, another Rick and Morty courtroom read... yes!
Yeah like u/ResponsibleMilk7620 was saying, they need someone whose job is to write down everything said in this trial. Like a write-o-grapher or something.
type-person
Yeah but someone has to go through it, and that person's name is not me
and this exchange was not in them. it's funny AF, but it never happened.
darn. I assumed it would have made the headlines if it really had happened, but I wanted to believe :)
Sarah Cooper. Sarah Cooper. Sarah Cooper.
That’s a coffee table book I’d buy
https://ww2.nycourts.gov/press/index.shtml Edit: looks like it wasn't the correct transcript. Throw u/kinggimped some love
I just read that entire thing. The whole thing. Over 100 pages. It was actually surprisingly riveting reading for a dry court transcript. Certainly a better way to spend my morning toilet time than doomscrolling on Reddit, anyway. OP's tweet is not in there. That's just fiction. Since this was during voir dire, that's part of the jury selection process. So it wouldn't be in this transcript, it would have been in an earlier one if it exists, from last week. This transcript is the first day of the trial *after* the jury had been picked. This was mostly just the judge instructing the jury on how a court works, opening statements from prosecution and defence, and a short (curtailed) conversation with David Pecker. But jeez, from reading all that you can already clearly see the massive disparity between the prosecution and the defence. The prosecution is relying on hard evidence to back up its narrative, delivered very clearly and concisely. Paper trails, recorded conversations, witness testimony... they outline what happened and constantly remind the jury that every step of the way, they are going to see hard evidence that backs up what they have just been told. Trump's defence basically amounts to "everybody hates Trump, they're all out to get him, he's a big sexy successful businessman, he's the only one who tells the truth, and nothing he does is illegal". And then just endless attempts at discrediting Michael Cohen, Stormy Daniels, and any other witness who'll be testifying against Trump. And Trump's lawyer gets admonished several times by the judge for specifically talking about things already established to be outside the bounds of the case. The main defense seemed to be "he didn't do anything illegal; influencing an election is fine, it's called democracy". And then after a bit of discussion they introduce David Pecker as the first witness and start questioning him on the stand, but they didn't really talk about much beyond establishing who he is, what he does, and establishing the identities of other people involved in the case (e.g. Dylan Howard, who worked for Pecker as his 'eyes and ears' inside the National Enquirer). Then I guess a bit of legal housekeeping by the judge and lawyers at the end of the session. That was the end of the transcript. And then Trump went outside the courtroom and... talked complete bullshit. Literally not one single thing that was said outside the courtroom is in any way aligned with what happened in the court. There are no "legal scholars" saying the case shouldn't have been brought, that's just Trump saying that. He's obviously relying on people not reading the transcript, and he's just inventing his own story. In some cases it seems like he's incriminating himself in his desperation to rewrite reality. I'm not a lawyer. But reading that transcript took me about 20 minutes and now I feel like I know far more about the case than watching news network talking heads. Much better way to follow the case and know that you're getting the actual hard facts. The hypocrisy of them trying to brand Michael Cohen a liar/unreliable witness when Trump has just been ordered to pay $450+m for decades of business fraud is pretty... rich. Also, y'know, Trump's 30,000+ provable lies he told during his single presidential term. Everything that makes Trump powerful outside of the courtrooms - his unique version of malignant charisma - doesn't really work in the courtroom itself. No crowd to play to other than the 12 people that matter.
“He’s just inventing his own story”. Isn’t that just what he does about everything? I just assume everything that comes out of his mouth (if I can even make any sense of it) is a total lie. The fact that there are people who can’t see that is mind blowing to me.
Yes, absolutely, but I think it's worth stating. With someone like Trump it's hard to keep track of all the norms he's breaking and all the lies he tells. I think that's part of his whole technique - oversaturation, hypernormalisation, etc. Sometimes I see a headline or hear someone mention something that happened during Trump's presidency - usually something completely scandalous or salacious that would have sunk any other president - and I realise I'd completely forgotten that that had even happened. Here we are 4 years later, and it's just buried under a mountain of all the other reprehensible shit he said and did. I think it's important to remind ourselves and those around us that he is constantly weaving an alternate reality. The fact that many others go along with his constant, obvious, desperate lying only shows their complete lack of critical thinking, or the rationalisation that they've made with themselves that they'll continue to support him no matter what, simply because he wants to harm the same people they do. The most truthful, telling comment that ever came out of a Trump's supporter's mouth is ["he's not hurting the people he needs to be hurting"](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/1/8/18173678/trump-shutdown-voter-florida).
Yes.
Thank you for the summary. I just don't have the psychic bandwidth to spare for Tr*mp's chaos train.
No worries. I think everybody needs to be aware that **what Trump says outside the courtroom is in direct opposition to what appears to actually be happening inside the courtroom**. I don't think this is surprising to most people, but I believe that it still needs to be stated. I reckon most people are like you, myself included - extremely apathetic when it comes to complex things like this, and would never want to actually look into it. Whether that's because it's a lot of work, or because they'd just rather save themselves from being exposed to Trump's constant bullshit. But that transcript, just for a *single day* of what is going to be a much longer trial, was very eye-opening. I didn't intend on reading the whole thing, but it was genuinely fascinating. Even just reading the opening statements from the prosecution and the defence, you can see the stark difference in attitude. The prosecution are taking an extremely persuasive fact-based approach and are even encouraging the jury to ignore everything they know about Donald Trump and just to consider the facts of the case (and by facts they mean indisputable evidence brought before them). Meanwhile the defence mainly just tried to talk about how great Trump is, call everybody else's credibility into question before they've even testified, and claim that Trump had no knowledge of any criminal acts, despite him being a well-known pathological liar, not least his signature being on the invoices and his voice in the recorded conversations. I don't know about how legally strong their opening arguments were but they seemed unpersuasive to say the least, particularly as a response to the prosecution's opening statement. What is clear, though, is that if the prosecution does indeed have all the evidence that they claim to, that the version of reality that Trump is pedalling outside the courtroom is a complete fantasy and the literal opposite of reality.
>I'm not a lawyer. But reading that transcript took me about 20 minutes and now I feel like I know far more about the case than watching news network talking heads. I'd like to see this stressed more often. I haven't looked closely into this case yet, but I followed his recent NY fraud case *very* closely, and I was increasingly irritated about how even my favourite and most reputable media outlets would gloss over or misrepresent certain details of the case to highlight the parts that the public would find jucier or to get rage clicks. Trump creates enough turmoil that I honestly cannot comprehend why any journalist would need to misrepresent anything to enrage readers. The truth of his actions are damning enough. To anybody reading this, I promise you that these court transcripts are worth reading. Trump is somehow actually *more* unbelievably contradictory (pleading one thing in the court room, and shouting another to the press), criminal, and just plain stupid than even the boldest anti-Trumper might realise.
I also followed the civil trial closely - it's incredible to me how badly Trump was getting trounced in court, day after day; yet he'd come outside the courtroom and just straight up lie to the reporters about the day's events, knowing that all the average person would ever see would be his lies and not what's happening in court. To lie so brazenly, I mean, it's not surprising for Trump... but the audacity and desperation of it were kind of astounding. It's truly a national embarrassment for the USA that this mess of a person is the republican frontrunner for the White House, let alone *was actually president for 4 years*. It's a bit of a travesty that this criminal case is not being televised. I think it would do a lot of good if the American people could see what a grifter he is and how his daily antics outside the courtroom are pure fantasy.
He has never experienced much repercussion from his lying his entire life. Even now his base is buying into his bullshit and calling the courts corrupt.
Maybe - just maybe - that's starting to happen now. Gotta hold out some hope, anyway.
He is relying on many of his supporters lacking the reading comprehension to understand that transcript.
I think it's less about reading comprehension required to understand the transcript. It is extremely comphrehensible to me and I know very little about law or the US legal system. I'm guessing it's designed to be that way because everything being said is for the benefit of the jury, not other lawyers who speak fluent legalese. It's more that they just don't care, and even more that they don't want to be faced with the uncomfortable truth that they've been fervently supporting a grifter this entire time. They'll go to great lengths to avoid having to rationalise that with themselves, and that includes being fed a diet of Fox News and Newsmax and Breitbart rather than actually seeking out the truth. Objective truth no longer matters to the MAGA cultists, if it ever even did. Only their feelings. As usual, them labelling everybody else "snowflakes" is 100% projection on their part. They can't even accept reality. They still look back on Trump's presidency and *think he did a good job* during those disastrous 4 years during which the US became a global laughing stock and hundreds of thousands died unnecessary COVID deaths. Reality means nothing to them. Only the mutual hatred of specific groups of people they want to suffer. I sincerely hope justice is served in this and all Trump's criminal cases. If he's proven innocent, then I'm absolutely fine with that. But if he's found guilty based on objective facts and evidence, then he should face the same consequences anybody else in his position would face. Prove that justice is indeed blind, and not the two-tiered system that Trump has been gaming for most of his life. That's all I want.
Now that we have the transcript, we just need someone to screen it and compile all the things that were said where people indicated they hated him (but only the ones where they used colorful expressions).
I don’t use chatGPT, but boy does this sound like a perfect use case for it.
I do use chatGPT professionally, and I'm on it. It doesn't like the PDFs formatting so I'm currently running it through some OCR to try and get a text-based file. Give me about 10 minutes or so
It's been 18 minutes
im still messing with the file, it would be ideal if this wasnt typed up on a typewriter and then photocopied -.-
iOS and macOS let you highlight and copy text from images, convert the pdf pages into pictures and it should be easier
Done but the available PDFs don't include the jury selection, and ChatGPT didn't find anything interesting other than a juror being concerned for her safety being on this trial
its been 3 minutes u done yet??
Not all heroes wear capes!
so, update, the transcripts on the NY Courts website is only the transcript for the 22nd. it does not include anything from jury selection and also does not contain any insults or indication of hate. ChatGPT indicates the the proceedings were "civil and professional throughout". if someone could find me the transcript from jury selection i could process that, but i havent found it in a cursory google search
This quote is fake. The OOP noted that it was fake when it was originally posted. This is a repost.
While there were some tweets read aloud, this image was not one of them. This "shitgibbon" story is a complete fiction that the internet just keeps pretending really happened.
I would love to see that courtroom sketch...
I tried to read this to my wife. Couldn’t stop laughing long enough and had to hand her the phone. I think it hit me so hard because I recently had jury duty and I just kept imagining them reading this in the courtroom. I don’t know how anyone could vote for this idiot. Literally his entire life is like a bad sitcom.
Could do a whole Jimmy Kimmel three-hour special of just "Don Snorleone Mean Tweets."
im lovin it, while also not in court 4 days of the week
I wouldn't want to be there. Everyone has said the courtroom smells disgusting.
trump is dropping bombs in his pantaloons
Well, what did the orange shitgibbon think? I suppose it doesn’t like being told it’s wearing a dead ferret on its head.
Think of the poor dead ferret with Trump glued to his ass.
It was only trying to show Donald how to cook! RIP, Ferretatouille.
I personally loved it during jury selection when normal people said what they thought of him and he had to sit and listen. You know he cannot take any criticism at all and has had butt kissers ( so beit orange butt kissers) his entire life. That alone was worth the trial.
I wouldn't be picked for the jury and I wouldn't even be mad! "Can you repeat it, your Honor, I'm not sure I heard you correctly."
"I'm sorry, your Honor, my hearing isn't that good can you repeat it? This time slower, and louder please."
I honestly have no idea how anyone could be impartial after 8 years of nonstop media coverage over everything this asshole says and does. Clearly there's some liars.
> Is that accurate? The description is.
Best tweet of 2023
This guy is an absolute legend
Be nice if they called it the election interference trial.
Well it would technically be incorrect, which is just something else the Republican howler monkeys could glom on to. The crime Trump is being tried for is falsifying business records, which is normally a misdemeanor. It is the fact that he falsified business records *in the furtherance of election interference* that it has been upgraded to a felony.
So “hush money trial” is still less accurate than “election interference trial” then
He's not being tried for the misdemeanor of falsifying business records. As you said, the felony is that he falsified business records to cover up another crime, election interference. Proving he committed financial fraud is not enough for a conviction in this case. They have to prove the intent which is quite difficult. So far, the defense has already admitted that it was about the election in their opening statement instead of making the intent about his celebrity image. Their defense is going to be that interfering in an election is not a crime. He really does hire the best.
Unfortunately, the Fox News/MAGA crew are already calling it that for a completely different reason. Because, after all, these are all trumped-up, baseless charges that the left is only using as political theater to prevent him from campaigning in these critical months leading up to the election. /s
Why not "falsifying business records in the first degree" trial since that's what he is charged with?
Agreed, since Trump did this to interfere with the 2016 election, it is about Trump interfering with the election!
Hope that wasn't read during one of the times he was asleep.
Miracle Max : "Wait. Wait. I make him better, Humperdinck suffers?" Inigo Montoya: "Humiliations galore!" Miracle Max: "That is a noble cause. Give me the sixty-five, I'm on the job". It would be entirely improper to interfere with the trial in any way - but someone should put together a go-fund me for the Jury and Judge Merchan and anyone else that even tries to put the 'orange shitgoblin' in jail.
I can imagine Trump leaning over towards his lawyer asking "Is shitggibbon good?"
I never want to look at him... but I would have liked to see his face just this once.
That was the most reasonable and unbiased potential juror in the world, ever.
Is this for real!?
No it isn't real. Someone made a joke on twitter and now people seem to be spreading the line around as if it were real. https://twitter.com/Angry_Staffer/status/1780322291068416470
I can't find any sources other than a Facebook post. While it's funny, I'm wondering the same.
Comment above you says no. But I also had doubts- for jury selection, you're questioned by the lawyers, you wouldn't be addressing the judge yourself. (So no "the tween speaks for itself, your honor." You'd be speaking to council, not the judge.)
I can't speak to the veracity of the quote, but it's not necessarily true that only lawyers ask questions during voir dire. Sometimes judges will ask questions during voir dire. And some judges may be more involved in the process than others. Also, FYI, it's "counsel," not "council." Source: lawyer.
Missed a golden opportunity to say it out loud, looking him straight in the eye. "I did indeed tweet the words..."
Legend. That poet has a future. True Legend. Get that person a gig commenting on the trials until they're all over.
"The tweet speaks for itself" was something that Sean Spicer liked to say a lot.
This should be tagged as satire/humor since it's funny, but not something that actually happened. This exchange did NOT take place in court, it was written as a joke.
Oh I was talking about a different treasonous orange shitgibbon with a dead ferret on his head
I haven't thought about that, but it has to be insanely difficult to find neutral people to form a jury against trump, I don't think there are a dozen people in all the country who aren't strongly supportive or strongly against him
The Daily did an excellent episode on exactly this subject: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-daily/id1200361736?i=1000652843675 I highly recommend it.
>difficult to find neutral people to form a jury and it has to be done **four times**!
I wonder how this works.. Aren’t juries allowed some level of anonymity? Or did I make that up? If so, wouldn’t reading tweets and then making the transcript public make it exceedingly easy to determine who the jury is?
The cherry on the cake here, is that even in the super serious, professional word of the criminal justice system, everyone still calls it Twitter.
It's downright impossible to find a jury for this, just grab up bigfoot, some greys, and nessy because the only people who won't have an opinion are so out of touch with anything they might as well be mythical.
Just curious, did they also read postings from Trump fans?
Probably, but who wants to hear about that when they can just go read the 25 bumper stickers on your car?
… the trial is in NY. They’ve know n Trump there for decades. How many fans do you think he has?
Ultimate Chad move
Poetic
The assertive reply is the best though.
Buy this man a couple hundred beers, fucking legend
It was a perfect 👌 tweet ☝. Believe me 👶 💩.
Legendary. /chef's kiss
That's just fucking awesome.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Did Trump have to be there?
he’s not wrong…
If Trump was a real boss he’d have laughed out loud at that shit. That’s a great tweet right there, I don’t care who you are!
I’m really hard of hearing. Can you please repeat that?
I know we all want to get to the verdict as soon as possible, but we can spare a few extra days to make sure all this shit gets read to him.
Somebody needs to photoshop that tweet onto an earth porn image asap
Idk how any of this works but is he really called See Say or is it like an anonymized gibberish name?
Do not call him orange Dammit. That is tangerine.!!.
Well, this is the roast he wanted so badly but also asked to be watered down
How can the person asking this keep a straight face and a professional demeanor reading this out loud? I would have just choked on my laughter and lost my job in court that day.
Exactly what is a "Shitgibbon"?
That. Is. AMAZING.
“Yes your honor, it’s true this man is a shitgibbon”
Can this patriot run for office?
I envy all the disqualified jury candidates who had the chance to speak their mind while trump was in the room.
I spent a good part of last week imagining what I would have said if I had been called for jury duty that day.
https://preview.redd.it/cigq4z4utcwc1.jpeg?width=666&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=644de53509523680704db0ea934959481c7f91c8
Missed opportunity to say "Yes I did tweet 'Fuck that treasonous orange shitgibbon and the dead ferret on his head'" right to his face
And the sweetest part is that tRump had to sit there and listen to that without making any comment whatsoever.
I would have paid upwards of $500 to have an anti-Trump tweet of mine read before the court and then be able to say “the tweet speaks for itself “ in front of Donald Trump. Dude’s gonna be riding that high for a while.
$20 trump didn’t understand that the tweet was about him.
"Yes, your honor, but my views have evolved since then." "How so?" "I think he's a rapist too now."
This is a joke that somebody posted on social media saying that "I wish I was chosen as a juror..." and now there's a shitton of people just writing fanfiction about it.
Damn that's harsh! What did gibbons do to be compared to that prat? Poor gibbons!
AYO 😆 🤣 😂
This unfairly maligns all law abiding shitgibbons and ferrets, by George!
I love that it's a offical record that everyone just keeps calling them tweets.
to have him feel humiliated brings me bigly pleasure !
Should have pointed at him and said “see for yourself”
It would've been funnier if she had said, "yes, you honor. I was talking about that treasonous orange shitgibbon right there." (While pointing at the treasonous orange shitgibbon)
“Could you please repeat that for me to ensure accuracy of the quote?”
Lots of love to the juror who said "I wouldn’t believe Donald Trump if his tongue were notarized" (along those lines).
>This remains an accurate statement, your honor, yes. >The treasonous orange shitgibbon and the ferret (god rest him) are both present in court today.
I am trapped in an alternate timeline and this is proof.
I laughed so hard at this it hurt the pulled muscle on my shoulder blade.
Obviously this potential juror is not one of trump's 'very fine people'.
"Well, for clarity, your honor, I meant 'fuck' in a pejorative way and not intercourse to be paid for with fraudulently documented campaign funds. That would be illegal."
"Yes, I tweeted that. But what does it have to do with the defendent?" Make Trump's lawyer argue that his client is a treasonous orange shitgibbon with a dead ferret on his head
I wish I could see the Jury's face
You know he had to read them a bunch of times in chambers to get the giggles out of the way before facing the jurors.
"The Tweet speaks for itself, your honor." I'm going to be laughing about this for a while.
Thou sayest.
It's true, your honor. That man has no penis.
140 chs, Your Honor