2. The jury pool is tainted and judges are politicians
When the defendant has just run for President of the United States in the most contentious election in modern times, finding a pool unbiased jurors would be an impossibility. The voir dire process would likely eliminate anyone who cast a vote in the presidential election (with the possible exception of third-party voters). Okay, half of the eligible voters didn’t vote, so no problem, right? Not really. Even those who didn’t vote were likely exposed to news coverage about the controversies and ultimate indictment and possibly hundreds of politically charged-memes on social media.
So, putting that aside, let’s assume that somehow, the court is able to procure a jury of twelve people who have no opinion about Hillary Clinton and are unaware of the scandals that sparked the indictment against her. It’s the judge that directs the court proceedings, and judges can, by virtue of their role as referee, facilitate trial outcomes.
Judges, too, have party affiliations, either by having been appointed or having been elected. Every sustained objection would represent a political act. Every overruled objection would be seen as proof of a conspiracy. No judge in his or her right mind would want the case. It’s a surefire career-killer.
Even if you believe it would serve justice, finding an unbiased trier of fact is just too problematic.
6 comments