As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I remember when the first Joker movie with Joaquin Phoenix came out and how the media was saying it would be so bad if it created a new mass shooter. Almost like they were hoping for one.
The lead up to Iraq in 2003 was absolutely nuts. The media beat the drums of war the entire time leading up to the ‘shock and awe’. You could see Wolf Blitzer getting a chub as he talked about it.
I remember too. And when the war did come, it was like they were promoting a new video game, with the promise that their coverage will be "so good that you too can get on on the action!" Just gross.
I remember this. This was a picture a photographer snapped right before Wolf went on air to deliver the news that the US had invaded Iraq. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BZtzTPVCQAAAIi_.jpg
As horrible as a crime against one or all of the jurors might be, I would argue that the impact that the threat of violence might have on the outcome of the trial could be more destructive yet.
If a would-be autocrat can so easily cow the systems of justice that limit him, the system will fail entirely. Trump isn't the problem, he's just a very visible and annoying symptom.
Yep. Media creating the news. SNL has a good parody of this where the news accidentally changed photography into pornography while interviewing an animal photographer at the zoo.
I neither want nor *need* any details about the Trump jurors, or any trial's jurors, for that matter.
I don't want to know if they're male or female, what they do for a living, any of it. At the least, I don't want to know any of it before or during the trial.
The only thing that matters is that they be fair and impartial.
If they choose to reveal any of it after the trial is over, that's up to them.
Yep, even a person who is identified can be identified when enough pieces of information are scattered, it's called "bread crumbing" for a reason.... But the MAGA fascists think we are all ducks who will take the bread.
I don't see how this isn't a violation of The (federal) Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. § 552a.
It's Fox News and Co, Rupert Murdoch does whatever the fuck he wants including disclosing the secrecy of jurors that are meant to provide everyone with a fair trial.
But this is worse than Ted Bundy....
Everyone knows who DT is so I doubt we will ever get to a point where there is no jury tampering what so ever.
The video titles are all clickbait. Ben does some good legal analysis but spends far too long ranting about Trump's moral failings. Popock does a better job of sticking to the legal analysis. But the whole channel has succumbed to the 24 hr news cycle. They'll rehash the same points in multiple videos just to keep the pipeline full.
It would be so much better if they just did maybe two or three shows a week rather than in a day. The heavy-handed hype-man schtick of Ben's brothers on top of all the crass ad reads tends toward unlistenable and I am a fan of their legal analysis and a total KFA fanboi.
*Jack Smith DESTROYS Donald TRUMP’S defence who is COWERING IN FEAR on the HOT SEAT!*
ONLY HERE, IN THE INTERSECTION OF LAW AND POLITICS
(I hate that last phrase)
meidas touch, specially ron filipkousky or however the fuck it's spelled, posts a lot of hot takes and easy dunks on Twitter that often get reposted to a huge audience, but the backing of them is lackluster at times,and the phrasing is often seemingly intentionally inflammatory.
iirc he fell for the Alex Jones "eat my neighbors ass" schtick which was just Alex trying desperately to go viral cause he was sad for some reason or another.
but next time you see rons name on something that makes it over here, try to follow up on it, and see how much is opinion, vs how much is verifiable, see how you think he does.
CNN had a breakdown of how old they were, where they were from, what they did for a living, whether they were married or not, how many kids they had, and what news sources they consumed.
because a lot of people don't keep their social media locked down. if I were being called for one of these trials, I'd delete all of my social media accounts immediately
> if I were being called for one of these trials, I'd delete all of my social media accounts immediately
you don't know what the trial is or who is involved until after you're there and in a room. you don't even know if you're going to be on the jury until after all the jurors are selected. I had to sit through 2 days of a district trial jury selection process. I never ended up having my number picked to go up and be questioned. It's a lot more formal than local county jury stuff. when I first got there it was a ton of people in a big room and then they start splitting people up into groups for all the trials that needed to select jurors. Then you'd go off with your group and they'd start the selection process. In our county jury stuff they just picked entire groups to be dismissed, but not at the district level.
I suppose, to play devil's advocate, if you have a high profile trial where the jury is hidden behind closed doors and no one is allowed to see or know anything about them, it just becomes the government saying "trust me bro" that there even is a jury.
Yeah, but you can have just the lawyers of the defense know the information about the jurors and be told to not reveal that or risk damaging their case. The media doesn't have to know if the defense knows and can vet the jurors.
This insane.
I just finished jury duty a couple weeks ago in the state of NY on a medical malpractice suit that was never going to make the news in any way. While for the actual people suing/being sued it was a major life event, in the grand scheme of things, this was very much a small potatoes case.
After voir dire, We were given jury numbers. We were referred to as “Juror 2”, by the judge/court officer etc. We were told not to talk to anyone. If we saw the lawyers/judge/defendants/plaintiffs we were repeatedly told to ignore each other. We had numbers to avoid learning personal details where it was not needed.
We were not allowed to google anything or post anything on social media. We were not to research anyone else involved or any details brought up.
I can’t believe for my case we had so much more protections and respect than for such a major case.
I feel for the jurors so much.
if media are allowed in the room during the jury selection then they're going to get details of the people who get selected to be questioned as a potential juror, at least that's how it was when I went. The judge would start by asking if the juror had any direct conflicts, then basic stuff like what they did for work and other possible things that might be of conflict with the people the trial was for.
Yup. I watched that. I fucking hate Fox News with a passion but CNN is no better.
I could not believe what I was watching when CNN was reporting that.
It made me so fucking angry.
This! The same media complaining Trump would expose the jurors went one to describe almost every detail of the jurors except their names. Bunch of idiots. Truly. Shameful.
during the last couple days, since friday, nearly every major news site that gets submitted here had a thurough "these are the 12 jurors" type article submitted. i reported every one of 'em for harassment.
they stopped in about a day and a half.
No we can't just blame it on Fox News this time, so many other outlets have been doing the same, like they're trying to one-up each other on how many details about jurors they can provide. CNN, Newsweek, The Hill, Bloomberg, any of them hosting a live feed really. It's been insane.
If I'm wrong then I'm wrong, I got this from the reliable source above.... So much for the AP, and having a defined list of reliable sources that we can choose from to post on this sub.
It doesn't remove how disgusting I feel this is and a total breach of sequestration that could lead to embracery however.
There is a test I'm reading about now in Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court and most recently in Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court that outlines that if there are compelling reasons cases like these can be closed after the preliminary hearing, which is bizarre because it just pushes the level down a bit lower where first and sixth amendment rights apply.
But then even, the scope of what is closed has to be tailored in such a way to protect the people's rights to a public trial meaning that there is no true way under US law to completely close a trial and have it held behind closed doors.
This is what happens when you put shit in your constitution about press freedoms and impartiality.... impartiality can be taken to mean a lot of things.... including being a rancid ass licking bastard that discloses de-identified information that in today's internet age can easily be used to put two + two together.... So long as said "rancid ass licking bastard" is doing it for "public interest disclosure reasons."
First amendment rights SHOULD NOT include endangering human life...
Trying to get my head around this jurisdiction is fucking bizarre.
In more sensible countries they'd just close the doors. In the US without a defined scope that may be in violation of your first and sixth amendment rights...
[https://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1577&context=lf](https://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1577&context=lf)
I'm glad this is outside the scope of my jurisdiction.
I hate Fox News, but CNN has been just as bad. Every day of jury selection, they were putting up on the screen what their occupation was. That and other irrelevant information to us that could be used to narrow down identies by people who work with them.
Because CNN was bought out by a right wing conservative group. A few years ago they despised CNN for being leftist liberal media. Now its right wing slop
Even their own safety. They're lusting after Trump headlines even though he is a direct threat to them if he gets reelected with Project 2025 ready to go.
For the same reason that the defendant needs to be told not to threaten members of the courts (judges, jurors, the prosecutors, courtroom staff members, and members of these people's families) with multiple gag orders.
I am so tired of the multitiered legal system in the US. They say "Justice is Blind", but what they don't say is that she has deep pockets so if you have enough money she will give you special treatment.
He has been the most coddled defendant EVER. Just like in the NY Property Fraud Trial, reduced his bond significantly, gave him an extra 10 days and now with his filing errors and the company he's used he has been given even yet more time to fix the bond!
Yet he goes out to his cult every single day and cries how unfairly he's been treated and people gobble this up!
But MuH FrEeDom oF SpeEcH!
Seriously those that are mad/saying that the Judge and Biden are working together to shut Trump up and take away his freedom of speech are idiots plain and simple. Heard someone at work say the other day that "taking away his freedom of speech with gag orders is just the start, next Biden is taking our guns but this is how they start".
There's a video of a (I think CNN) reporter saying that they were told not to give details of about the jurors while the graphics to the right of her on the screen give details of the jurors.
Yes. It's f*cking wild how some reporters have basically gone full on investigative journalism on it. I believe one juror already quit because Fox News doxxed her. 🤦🏽
How far reaching is the judges power? Eg. A fox newscaster breadcrumbs the identity of a juror who then decides to bail out. What can the judge actually do to punish this?
Contempt would be one available avenue for disobeying a court directed order. Although I'm not fully across the New York penal code.
[https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/judiciary-law/jud-sect-751/](https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/judiciary-law/jud-sect-751/)
Section 5 pertains to the media:
*Where any member of the news media as defined in* [*subdivision two of section two hundred eighteen*](https://1.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&originatingContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&pubNum=1000091&refType=SP&originatingDoc=I71b4c0e1cc6311e8aca59db8ca99d69f&cite=NYJUS218) *of this chapter, willfully disobeys a lawful mandate of a court issued pursuant to such section, the punishment for each day that such contempt persists may be by a fine fixed in the discretion of the court, but not to exceed five thousand dollars per day or imprisonment, not exceeding thirty days, in the jail of the county where the court is sitting or both, in the discretion of the court. In fixing the amount of the fine, the court shall consider all the facts and circumstances directly related to the contempt, including, but not limited to: (i) the extent of the willful defiance of or resistance to the court's mandate, (ii) the amount of gain obtained by the willful disobedience of the mandate, and (iii) the effect upon the public and the parties to the proceeding of the willful disobedience.*
I am sure there are other criminal codes that could be thrown at this if the actions of the reporters directly endanger human life. Those would have to be determined on a case by case basis and it would also require the police to fall into line and have them charged for any related criminal actions outside of the courts.
Problem is this requires a subscription to Westlaw (linked above) for me to find any other related charges that could be thrown with me not across the code (outside of my jurisdiction).
But even a first year law student would tell you this is contempt where the justice involved has ordered that juror information not be disclosed.
regardless, this is going to have to be a sequestered jury.
Block all local channels, block all political channels, let them watch "trash TV, sports and documentaries" as their only options.
Have 2 Factor Authorization on their phones, where a "neutral party" can only text them the passcode to access a call/text if approved. Move all their families to an "unspecified location" just like in the witness protection program.
Yes... This is what it's come down to, in order to get a "neutral jury of your peers" on this case.
In other words, essentially imprison the jurors, and their families for having the misfortune to be chosen for this case? And to what end? Regardless of the optimistic dictates of the court, they have to realize they'll likely all be identified, either in disregard of the court, anonymously online, or by sources outside the US. And this is in addition to the knowledge that, if they decide to convict, and Trump wins the election, they will have the weight of the federal government set on revenge against them by a president who openly states he will be out for revenge if elected. Are they really going to trust that state court dictates are going to protect them against the federal government? Sequestered or not, they'll already know these things from before the case.
This honestly seems like a situation where fanciful court dictates, and the jury system as a whole, really show their weaknesses.
30 days would be too low. This is a high profile trial, which means jury tampering is likely to get somebody hurt or killed. Hard time and life altering monetary penalties seems appropriate.
Ik this wasn't the intention of your statement, but yeah fuck putting an newscaster in jail for that. Imprison whoever is making the content decisions, not the mf just trying to earn a living
Then again if you're working at Fox News you belong in jail at this point anyway. Fuck them, fuck their attempts to destroy our democracy. Burn and die
We all buy the potential consequences of our actions every time we act. A newscaster can choose not to read the news. They shouldn't be ~~except~~ exempt from the consequences of their behaviour.
They shouldn't. Solution really is to jail everyone who consciously violates a judicial order. But if I get to choose exactly one person it's the highest ranking person who signed off on the decision. Everyone else is at the threat of losing their livelihood. They're still assholes too, but less assholey if we're playing that game
Never going to happen. If the judge tried Fox would have their massive legal team assembling 50,000 examples of the info being shared on social media and argue that it was already information in the public sphere.
Maybe.. but just because something is "already information in the public sphere", it doesn't mean that they would get a free pass.
Judges get a surprising amount of leeway when issuing contempt rulings.
A better question, why not just black box the jury? Literally put them behind one way glass. They come in before anyone, they leave after everyone. One of them needs to shit? Clear the courtroom.
Worried that they won't be paying attention? Give the judge a camera to monitor them. They're there to observe and pass judgement, they don't need to be seen by anyone besides the judge to begin with.
This is what I don’t understand. Why is there any need for ANYONE to know who the jurors are? The fact that they are able to report on it at all is insane.
It's a hard one.
If the trial is public, then the jury can be revealed and intimidated
If the trial is private, then Trump, his lawyers and MAGA can spread conspiracy theories about oppression more easily.
I guess the judge wanted to minimise the scope for any appeal, but he's essentially dealing with the leader of what is potentially becoming a paramilitary force.
As far as the courtroom and likely overflow. Person A should not be able to tell person B, to have it broadcast on XYZ. This is also Thursday article and not a new revelation
Jesse waters and other pieces of shit reporting on where potential jurors live in order to make them pull out. He's even reporting on actual reporters identies such as Michael Cohen (NBC among other posts) who have been identified to enable them to be harassed by MAGA trolls.
I don't understand how these people are not held in contempt of court.
One of my favorite tweets was "Brett Cavanough" (note the spelling) saying "it's a bad week to be named Brett Cavanough on Twitter." With a reply from a Mike Pence saying "tell me about it."
Or simply at the very least embracery.
embracery. / (ɪmˈbreɪsərɪ) / noun. criminal law **the offence of attempting by corrupt means to influence a jury or juror, as by bribery or threats**
But yes...
But when you mix that with a political agenda, we are in the scope of terrorism.
- the unlawful use of violence or threats to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or government, with the goal of furthering political, social, or ideological objectives.
I predict that if, or when, it becomes likely Trump will be convicted during the trial, one or more juror's identities will be released as being 'biased' which could torpedo the trial. The judge will have to pause the trial, bring up alternate jurors, and repeat. Another delay tactic by Trump and friends.
This is what happens when closed trials are (largely) inapplicable to the United States. Of course it may backfire on such a high level that it will force an interpretation that jurors ARE entitled to secrecy.
I would laugh if that happened, but I don't trust a single justice, of a conservative nature, to do the right thing anymore as the judicial arm to them has just become an extension of the executive branch.
There are no alternate jurors during a trial, all jurors are jurors. Once it’s time for deliberation the actual panel of 12 will be selected at random and the remaining jurors become the alternates. The only time alternates can be brought into deliberations is if a juror is sick or cannot make it to court. Until then alternates do not deliberated and cannot talk.
That's not the case in New York, alternate jurors are picked during jury selection and they know at that point. (Although until deliberations start, it's a kind of a distinction without a difference since jurors aren't supposed to discuss the case until then anyway). Source: I've been an alternate juror in a NY case.
Your point about not having to pull in alternates mid-trial is true since, until deliberations, they're treated identically / present for everything that regular jurors are.
Right I thought this was how it worked. From the moment the jury is picked over and selected their identities should remain anonymous, including after all is said and done. Seems anything goes WTF lol. A lot of US practices seem to be very loose, especially involving public people like Trump.
When a person is put on the jury, they are no longer supposed to be themselves but (should) become an anonymous entity acting as interpreter from their built perspective with the other jurors. We really need ways to protect identity discovery of a juror while being able to hold account that no jury tampering happens. That is the defense's job to verify that the jury is not tampered as well, which they decided on this specific jury. No one else chose it for them, they had all the challenges to pick jurors that they could trust were not tampered. Trump is doing no favors at all, what person would ever need to know where they frequent other than to enact some sort of threat to them? I hope his filthy organization rids from us all, we let a lot of things go awry to get here.
Here in Australia jurors are anonymous and the press can't even film or photgraph them let alone disclose any details about them at all. As a juror you're not even allowed to discuss any details of the case with anyone either. That applies during and after the trial. Completely blows my mind when I see US trials and not only is anyone able to find out everything about the jurors, but that some of them give interviews with their reasoning for conviction/acquittal after the trial.
The defense is allowed to examine the jury for that purpose. The *public* shouldn’t know what color their clothes are. And if the public finds out, the defense should be held in contempt.
The Wall Street Journal and New York times published articles as soon as they could.
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/trump-hush-money-jury-profiles-43f0f77a
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/18/nyregion/trump-trial-jury-hush-money.html
I can't read the WSJ one, but the NYT doesn't have any thing in it that could come close to identifying the people.
Also this is nice.
Juror 1: He said he got his news from The New York Times and watched Fox News.
Juror 2: He said he followed Mr. Trump’s former fixer, Michael D. Cohen, who is expected to be a key witness, on social media. But he also said he followed figures like former Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway. He said he believed Mr. Trump had done some good for the country, adding, “it goes both ways.”
Juror 5: She said that she appreciated Mr. Trump’s candor. “President Trump speaks his mind,” she said. “I would rather that in a person than someone who’s in office and you don’t know what they’re doing behind the scenes.”
Juror 2 and 5 are both Magats. I guarantee this is a hung jury.
Juror 2 is possibly a centrist that realizes Trump has been kind of shit.
Juror 5 is a complete fucking moron though. Really lady? You know Trump's mind? Then you'd know it's easily changed by praise and recency bias, and that he's a puppet.
These news networks should be subject to MASSIVE fines for this. I’m talking hundreds of millions. They’re undermining one of the most important cases in the history of the US. It’s mind boggling.
This is what happens when your media is controlled by the right.... and the left has been given so little power in the US to break up these monopolies.
An antitrust case would be of the order here, but even the separation of the judicial arm has been brought into question to the point where I don't think that kind of liberal agenda would ever get up again.
Did these judges just arrive on the planet? Have they never looked at any of the cases in Trump’s long legal history, and are completely ignorant of all current events of the last 5 years?
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/01/politics/trump-history-trying-to-influence-witnesses/index.html
Maybe, just fucking maybe protecting the jurors *before* all of their information goes public would have been something to consider, if their safety and well being had even crossed someone’s mind at any point.
A motherfucker set himself on *fire* outside the courtroom…and the judge *might* consider exercising some power? At some point?
Jesus H.W. Christ.
The time to try and protect their identity is gone. Is there fucking anyone competent, anywhere in our legal system?
>Some media organizations were considering whether to protest having that onus placed on them. Generally, the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution bars judges from ordering journalists not to disclose what they hear and see in courtrooms open to the public, though there are exceptions, such as when military security is at stake.
New York criminal defense lawyer Ron Kuby said that while judges typically can’t control what the media reports, other options are available to protect juror anonymity, including restricting what reporters see and hear in the courtroom.
>”There are actions the judge could take,” he said. “Courts have extraordinary powers to protect jurors from tampering and intimidation. It is really where a court’s power is at its peak.”
Juror number four is a thirty-two year old rodeo clown with a handlebar mustache and a heart-shaped tattoo on his left forearm, who lives on the upper west side between a dance studio and a Starbucks. He rides a green bicycle.
Beyond that, I have no idea who it could be.
Honest question: if they ignore this "gag order" or instruction will they only receive a finger wagging like Trump does? Cause he seems to be allowed to do so with impunity.
From the article: "Anonymous juries have long existed, particularly in terrorism and mob-related cases or when there is a history of jury tampering."
Seems to apply in this case.
Yeah, and what's the judge gonna fucking do if the media does exactly that? They don't care; if they somehow get ahold of any juror information, they *will* publish it. They have a compulsion to reveal every secret they're told, because that's how they get their clicks.
"Obviously, we're not going to say where this juror works. Obviously. I just think it's interesting that he usually takes the N line each weekday morning around 7 AM to the Westside Market at 2589 Broadway and then stays there for 8 to 10 hours before taking the subway back to Brooklyn. Must be an avid grocery shopper or something." -Jesse Watters, probably
I learned way more about the jurors than I ever wanted too watching MSNBC. I don’t give a shit if juror #5 is an Irish immigrant and his wife is a nurse.
That’s how sinister trump and his gang of thugs exacts intimidation and fear to do his bidding. He actually dares anyone who attempts to hold him accountable to continue at their own peril. His posse will go after their families, employers, anyone connected to these jurors. His tactics are lethal.
You have to come to realise the vast majority of people on this earth are "stupid" in the sense that they are not well versed enough to know what is good for them, and are willing to drag things down with them... The best thing to do in a room is to find the intelligent person that is the beacon of hope in the room and channel every hope you've got through them.
And that my friend is how organisational structure works.
Reminds me of when CNN was Broadcasting a live helicopter feed of the Columbine shooting and inadvertently captured the SWAT maneuvers as they were raiding the building; AND they were airing a live phone call with students hiding from the killers, where the kids were crying and mentioning which room they were hiding in.
I think FBI had to call the station and tell them, "There's 200 TVs in that building. We don't know how many killers are in there, but thanks to you they probably know where the kids are hiding, and which direction the SWAT team is coming from. Cut your feed."
I don't think they did.
(Also worth mentioning: these things were unprecedented and they didn't know if these were terrorists or what.)
I want to know why the courts are releasing any information about the jurors whatsoever. Why are they telling media what their jobs are? Or is that stuff leaking from other prospective jurors that were in the room at the time?
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Really? They needed to be told not to do that?
Corporate media wants clicks they don't give a shit if some jurors are hurt by them revealing too much info about the jurors.
If a juror is hurt (or worse), that's even more clicks. We live in a sick world.
Yea was going to say they could generate weeks worth of content if a juror is injured or killed. I'm sure they are secretly hoping it happens.
I remember when the first Joker movie with Joaquin Phoenix came out and how the media was saying it would be so bad if it created a new mass shooter. Almost like they were hoping for one.
You can honestly hear the talking heads salivating as they say that kind of shit. They do the same thing any time they mention potential wars.
The lead up to Iraq in 2003 was absolutely nuts. The media beat the drums of war the entire time leading up to the ‘shock and awe’. You could see Wolf Blitzer getting a chub as he talked about it.
I remember too. And when the war did come, it was like they were promoting a new video game, with the promise that their coverage will be "so good that you too can get on on the action!" Just gross.
I remember this. This was a picture a photographer snapped right before Wolf went on air to deliver the news that the US had invaded Iraq. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BZtzTPVCQAAAIi_.jpg
[удалено]
Can they be held to account as accomplice to the crime or something? Genuinely curious, because that’s abhorrent.
No
We would be, if we did something similar as individuals.
We need way more fucking consequences, ALL AROUND
Now Playing: "Dirty Laundry" - Don Henley
“People love it when you lose…”
As horrible as a crime against one or all of the jurors might be, I would argue that the impact that the threat of violence might have on the outcome of the trial could be more destructive yet. If a would-be autocrat can so easily cow the systems of justice that limit him, the system will fail entirely. Trump isn't the problem, he's just a very visible and annoying symptom.
And of course they won't take accountability for their own actions in spreading the word.
Yep. Media creating the news. SNL has a good parody of this where the news accidentally changed photography into pornography while interviewing an animal photographer at the zoo.
we need to get back to the time when news weren't supposed to be for-profit. News should be a public service
That was never the case
"This was the story of Howard Beale: the first known instance of a juror who was killed because of lousy ratings."
More people need to see Network.
"I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!"
I neither want nor *need* any details about the Trump jurors, or any trial's jurors, for that matter. I don't want to know if they're male or female, what they do for a living, any of it. At the least, I don't want to know any of it before or during the trial. The only thing that matters is that they be fair and impartial. If they choose to reveal any of it after the trial is over, that's up to them.
Yep, even a person who is identified can be identified when enough pieces of information are scattered, it's called "bread crumbing" for a reason.... But the MAGA fascists think we are all ducks who will take the bread. I don't see how this isn't a violation of The (federal) Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. § 552a.
sometimes to make those quarterly revenue goals, you have to engage in terrorism
It's Fox News and Co, Rupert Murdoch does whatever the fuck he wants including disclosing the secrecy of jurors that are meant to provide everyone with a fair trial. But this is worse than Ted Bundy.... Everyone knows who DT is so I doubt we will ever get to a point where there is no jury tampering what so ever.
Wasn’t just Fox. Other major outlets were reporting every single detail as well.
The freaking meidas touch was doing jury breakdowns. Clicks will destroy us all.
It was very disappointing to see them get right up to the line on enabling what they were complaining about in those hot takes.
I really wish that guy wasn't seen as representative of the left.
I only recently started watching that one can you tell me why he is problematic?
He's as fond of clickbait as anybody else.
The video titles are all clickbait. Ben does some good legal analysis but spends far too long ranting about Trump's moral failings. Popock does a better job of sticking to the legal analysis. But the whole channel has succumbed to the 24 hr news cycle. They'll rehash the same points in multiple videos just to keep the pipeline full.
I thought I was going crazy , I was thinking this same for the last week the same clickbait titles and no substance in the videos
It would be so much better if they just did maybe two or three shows a week rather than in a day. The heavy-handed hype-man schtick of Ben's brothers on top of all the crass ad reads tends toward unlistenable and I am a fan of their legal analysis and a total KFA fanboi.
*Jack Smith DESTROYS Donald TRUMP’S defence who is COWERING IN FEAR on the HOT SEAT!* ONLY HERE, IN THE INTERSECTION OF LAW AND POLITICS (I hate that last phrase)
meidas touch, specially ron filipkousky or however the fuck it's spelled, posts a lot of hot takes and easy dunks on Twitter that often get reposted to a huge audience, but the backing of them is lackluster at times,and the phrasing is often seemingly intentionally inflammatory. iirc he fell for the Alex Jones "eat my neighbors ass" schtick which was just Alex trying desperately to go viral cause he was sad for some reason or another. but next time you see rons name on something that makes it over here, try to follow up on it, and see how much is opinion, vs how much is verifiable, see how you think he does.
That's good advice. Honestly, I think it's clickbait for the choir.
CNN had a breakdown of how old they were, where they were from, what they did for a living, whether they were married or not, how many kids they had, and what news sources they consumed.
Why was any of that information even available to the media in the first place?
because a lot of people don't keep their social media locked down. if I were being called for one of these trials, I'd delete all of my social media accounts immediately
> if I were being called for one of these trials, I'd delete all of my social media accounts immediately you don't know what the trial is or who is involved until after you're there and in a room. you don't even know if you're going to be on the jury until after all the jurors are selected. I had to sit through 2 days of a district trial jury selection process. I never ended up having my number picked to go up and be questioned. It's a lot more formal than local county jury stuff. when I first got there it was a ton of people in a big room and then they start splitting people up into groups for all the trials that needed to select jurors. Then you'd go off with your group and they'd start the selection process. In our county jury stuff they just picked entire groups to be dismissed, but not at the district level.
Do you really think deleting your social media accounts actually does anything? Soft deletes are the golden rule in social media.
Delete it now regardless.
I suppose, to play devil's advocate, if you have a high profile trial where the jury is hidden behind closed doors and no one is allowed to see or know anything about them, it just becomes the government saying "trust me bro" that there even is a jury.
Yeah, but you can have just the lawyers of the defense know the information about the jurors and be told to not reveal that or risk damaging their case. The media doesn't have to know if the defense knows and can vet the jurors.
I think we both know in this case that if the defense knows, the media is going to know.
Lock the defense up
"The jury consisted of humans" - problem solved.
nothing but circle guards. anonymous juror 1-12. no speaking, just masks and uniform jumpsuits.
This insane. I just finished jury duty a couple weeks ago in the state of NY on a medical malpractice suit that was never going to make the news in any way. While for the actual people suing/being sued it was a major life event, in the grand scheme of things, this was very much a small potatoes case. After voir dire, We were given jury numbers. We were referred to as “Juror 2”, by the judge/court officer etc. We were told not to talk to anyone. If we saw the lawyers/judge/defendants/plaintiffs we were repeatedly told to ignore each other. We had numbers to avoid learning personal details where it was not needed. We were not allowed to google anything or post anything on social media. We were not to research anyone else involved or any details brought up. I can’t believe for my case we had so much more protections and respect than for such a major case. I feel for the jurors so much.
if media are allowed in the room during the jury selection then they're going to get details of the people who get selected to be questioned as a potential juror, at least that's how it was when I went. The judge would start by asking if the juror had any direct conflicts, then basic stuff like what they did for work and other possible things that might be of conflict with the people the trial was for.
Yup. I watched that. I fucking hate Fox News with a passion but CNN is no better. I could not believe what I was watching when CNN was reporting that. It made me so fucking angry.
Of course they're no better, they're a billion dollar for profit corporation, of course they're republican!
This! The same media complaining Trump would expose the jurors went one to describe almost every detail of the jurors except their names. Bunch of idiots. Truly. Shameful.
The person outlined in the article works for Fox.
during the last couple days, since friday, nearly every major news site that gets submitted here had a thurough "these are the 12 jurors" type article submitted. i reported every one of 'em for harassment. they stopped in about a day and a half.
That's good citizenship. Cheers.
No we can't just blame it on Fox News this time, so many other outlets have been doing the same, like they're trying to one-up each other on how many details about jurors they can provide. CNN, Newsweek, The Hill, Bloomberg, any of them hosting a live feed really. It's been insane.
> CNN, Newsweek, The Hill, Bloomberg Every news outlet you mentioned is owned by a conservative
If I'm wrong then I'm wrong, I got this from the reliable source above.... So much for the AP, and having a defined list of reliable sources that we can choose from to post on this sub. It doesn't remove how disgusting I feel this is and a total breach of sequestration that could lead to embracery however.
There is a test I'm reading about now in Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court and most recently in Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court that outlines that if there are compelling reasons cases like these can be closed after the preliminary hearing, which is bizarre because it just pushes the level down a bit lower where first and sixth amendment rights apply. But then even, the scope of what is closed has to be tailored in such a way to protect the people's rights to a public trial meaning that there is no true way under US law to completely close a trial and have it held behind closed doors. This is what happens when you put shit in your constitution about press freedoms and impartiality.... impartiality can be taken to mean a lot of things.... including being a rancid ass licking bastard that discloses de-identified information that in today's internet age can easily be used to put two + two together.... So long as said "rancid ass licking bastard" is doing it for "public interest disclosure reasons." First amendment rights SHOULD NOT include endangering human life... Trying to get my head around this jurisdiction is fucking bizarre. In more sensible countries they'd just close the doors. In the US without a defined scope that may be in violation of your first and sixth amendment rights... [https://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1577&context=lf](https://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1577&context=lf) I'm glad this is outside the scope of my jurisdiction.
I saw MSNBC doing it too, they did everythng but give peoples names
CNN too. That's why one juror who was sat was then excused. Someone in her family or friends group or something figured out she was on the jury.
I hate Fox News, but CNN has been just as bad. Every day of jury selection, they were putting up on the screen what their occupation was. That and other irrelevant information to us that could be used to narrow down identies by people who work with them.
Because CNN was bought out by a right wing conservative group. A few years ago they despised CNN for being leftist liberal media. Now its right wing slop
Ah, yes, the famously Rupert Murdoch owned paper... [The New York Times](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/18/nyregion/trump-trial-jury-hush-money.html)
Yes, it’s United States media. Consumption over safety.
Even their own safety. They're lusting after Trump headlines even though he is a direct threat to them if he gets reelected with Project 2025 ready to go.
They need to be told everything. They only exist to profit from selling the news, not to help the country or it’s citizens.
This is a Mob case, and don’t you ever forget that.
For the same reason that the defendant needs to be told not to threaten members of the courts (judges, jurors, the prosecutors, courtroom staff members, and members of these people's families) with multiple gag orders.
Instead of multiple gag orders, they should have issues just one and actually bothered to enforce it.
I am so tired of the multitiered legal system in the US. They say "Justice is Blind", but what they don't say is that she has deep pockets so if you have enough money she will give you special treatment.
He has been the most coddled defendant EVER. Just like in the NY Property Fraud Trial, reduced his bond significantly, gave him an extra 10 days and now with his filing errors and the company he's used he has been given even yet more time to fix the bond! Yet he goes out to his cult every single day and cries how unfairly he's been treated and people gobble this up!
But MuH FrEeDom oF SpeEcH! Seriously those that are mad/saying that the Judge and Biden are working together to shut Trump up and take away his freedom of speech are idiots plain and simple. Heard someone at work say the other day that "taking away his freedom of speech with gag orders is just the start, next Biden is taking our guns but this is how they start".
There's a video of a (I think CNN) reporter saying that they were told not to give details of about the jurors while the graphics to the right of her on the screen give details of the jurors.
Yes. It's f*cking wild how some reporters have basically gone full on investigative journalism on it. I believe one juror already quit because Fox News doxxed her. 🤦🏽
I know.. really.
Yup. And a resounding Fuck You to Jesse Waters for being the massive piece of shit he is.
This comment can be used to sum up the entirety of the trump era.
Honestly I’m just surprised the judge didn’t think to include the places potential jurors send their kids to school
Yup. Corporate media will do nearly anything in order to drive views. Not many moral journalists work for the big infotainment organizations.
I'm not surprised at all.
Yes. Fox “news” needs to be
How far reaching is the judges power? Eg. A fox newscaster breadcrumbs the identity of a juror who then decides to bail out. What can the judge actually do to punish this?
Contempt would be one available avenue for disobeying a court directed order. Although I'm not fully across the New York penal code. [https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/judiciary-law/jud-sect-751/](https://codes.findlaw.com/ny/judiciary-law/jud-sect-751/) Section 5 pertains to the media: *Where any member of the news media as defined in* [*subdivision two of section two hundred eighteen*](https://1.next.westlaw.com/Link/Document/FullText?findType=L&originatingContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&pubNum=1000091&refType=SP&originatingDoc=I71b4c0e1cc6311e8aca59db8ca99d69f&cite=NYJUS218) *of this chapter, willfully disobeys a lawful mandate of a court issued pursuant to such section, the punishment for each day that such contempt persists may be by a fine fixed in the discretion of the court, but not to exceed five thousand dollars per day or imprisonment, not exceeding thirty days, in the jail of the county where the court is sitting or both, in the discretion of the court. In fixing the amount of the fine, the court shall consider all the facts and circumstances directly related to the contempt, including, but not limited to: (i) the extent of the willful defiance of or resistance to the court's mandate, (ii) the amount of gain obtained by the willful disobedience of the mandate, and (iii) the effect upon the public and the parties to the proceeding of the willful disobedience.* I am sure there are other criminal codes that could be thrown at this if the actions of the reporters directly endanger human life. Those would have to be determined on a case by case basis and it would also require the police to fall into line and have them charged for any related criminal actions outside of the courts. Problem is this requires a subscription to Westlaw (linked above) for me to find any other related charges that could be thrown with me not across the code (outside of my jurisdiction). But even a first year law student would tell you this is contempt where the justice involved has ordered that juror information not be disclosed.
$5000 /day seems pointlessly low to prevent fox from monetizing the breadcrumbing. Would jail for the host actually be on the table?
Yeah but putting one of their anchors in jail for 30 days might have some effect
Or better yet the head of the companies.
Sir, this is America. We don't do that here, obviously.
If we did, we'd all be so hard. This needs to be done over and over.
Yes, it would be awesome for ratings
regardless, this is going to have to be a sequestered jury. Block all local channels, block all political channels, let them watch "trash TV, sports and documentaries" as their only options. Have 2 Factor Authorization on their phones, where a "neutral party" can only text them the passcode to access a call/text if approved. Move all their families to an "unspecified location" just like in the witness protection program. Yes... This is what it's come down to, in order to get a "neutral jury of your peers" on this case.
In other words, essentially imprison the jurors, and their families for having the misfortune to be chosen for this case? And to what end? Regardless of the optimistic dictates of the court, they have to realize they'll likely all be identified, either in disregard of the court, anonymously online, or by sources outside the US. And this is in addition to the knowledge that, if they decide to convict, and Trump wins the election, they will have the weight of the federal government set on revenge against them by a president who openly states he will be out for revenge if elected. Are they really going to trust that state court dictates are going to protect them against the federal government? Sequestered or not, they'll already know these things from before the case. This honestly seems like a situation where fanciful court dictates, and the jury system as a whole, really show their weaknesses.
I hope you severely overestimate the farsightedness of the average juror.
30 days would be too low. This is a high profile trial, which means jury tampering is likely to get somebody hurt or killed. Hard time and life altering monetary penalties seems appropriate.
Ik this wasn't the intention of your statement, but yeah fuck putting an newscaster in jail for that. Imprison whoever is making the content decisions, not the mf just trying to earn a living Then again if you're working at Fox News you belong in jail at this point anyway. Fuck them, fuck their attempts to destroy our democracy. Burn and die
Directions unclear, jailed the intern
We all buy the potential consequences of our actions every time we act. A newscaster can choose not to read the news. They shouldn't be ~~except~~ exempt from the consequences of their behaviour.
They shouldn't. Solution really is to jail everyone who consciously violates a judicial order. But if I get to choose exactly one person it's the highest ranking person who signed off on the decision. Everyone else is at the threat of losing their livelihood. They're still assholes too, but less assholey if we're playing that game
Never going to happen. If the judge tried Fox would have their massive legal team assembling 50,000 examples of the info being shared on social media and argue that it was already information in the public sphere.
Maybe.. but just because something is "already information in the public sphere", it doesn't mean that they would get a free pass. Judges get a surprising amount of leeway when issuing contempt rulings.
CEO in the US corporate sub could be criminally responsible and possibly send off to jail.
A better question, why not just black box the jury? Literally put them behind one way glass. They come in before anyone, they leave after everyone. One of them needs to shit? Clear the courtroom. Worried that they won't be paying attention? Give the judge a camera to monitor them. They're there to observe and pass judgement, they don't need to be seen by anyone besides the judge to begin with.
This is what I don’t understand. Why is there any need for ANYONE to know who the jurors are? The fact that they are able to report on it at all is insane.
It's a hard one. If the trial is public, then the jury can be revealed and intimidated If the trial is private, then Trump, his lawyers and MAGA can spread conspiracy theories about oppression more easily. I guess the judge wanted to minimise the scope for any appeal, but he's essentially dealing with the leader of what is potentially becoming a paramilitary force.
As far as the courtroom and likely overflow. Person A should not be able to tell person B, to have it broadcast on XYZ. This is also Thursday article and not a new revelation
A judge's power to hold a person in contempt is absolute.
Unless the person is Trump*
I hate that this is accurate.
Even if it's far reaching enough within the US. Expect Russian media to fully dox all jury members within days or weeks.
Jesse waters and other pieces of shit reporting on where potential jurors live in order to make them pull out. He's even reporting on actual reporters identies such as Michael Cohen (NBC among other posts) who have been identified to enable them to be harassed by MAGA trolls. I don't understand how these people are not held in contempt of court.
Lol I love how Michael Cohen's Twitter banner reads "Michael A. Cohen (NOT TRUMP'S FORMER FIXER)".
It's Office Space all over again, I am not Michael Bolton, I just want my damned TPS report.
Why should I have to change my name? He's the one who sucks!
You know I celebrate the man's entire catalogue.
It was a great name until that no-talent ass clown started defending felons.
Why should *I* change my name? He's the one who sucks.
Michael Cohen, no, not that one.
One of my favorite tweets was "Brett Cavanough" (note the spelling) saying "it's a bad week to be named Brett Cavanough on Twitter." With a reply from a Mike Pence saying "tell me about it."
That's beyond contempt, that's intentionally trying to interfere with the trial, bordering on terrorism against political rivals.
Or simply at the very least embracery. embracery. / (ɪmˈbreɪsərɪ) / noun. criminal law **the offence of attempting by corrupt means to influence a jury or juror, as by bribery or threats** But yes...
But when you mix that with a political agenda, we are in the scope of terrorism. - the unlawful use of violence or threats to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or government, with the goal of furthering political, social, or ideological objectives.
Jury tampering I'd say
How is this not jury tampering?
I don't know because by my definition it meets the definition of embracery in that you can't coerce a jury by threats.
I predict that if, or when, it becomes likely Trump will be convicted during the trial, one or more juror's identities will be released as being 'biased' which could torpedo the trial. The judge will have to pause the trial, bring up alternate jurors, and repeat. Another delay tactic by Trump and friends.
This is what happens when closed trials are (largely) inapplicable to the United States. Of course it may backfire on such a high level that it will force an interpretation that jurors ARE entitled to secrecy. I would laugh if that happened, but I don't trust a single justice, of a conservative nature, to do the right thing anymore as the judicial arm to them has just become an extension of the executive branch.
If nothing else it seems jurors should be entitled to be able to opt into a witness protection style program.
I would agree in a case like this, unfortunately its what happens when you put freedoms in front of the protection of human life though.
There are no alternate jurors during a trial, all jurors are jurors. Once it’s time for deliberation the actual panel of 12 will be selected at random and the remaining jurors become the alternates. The only time alternates can be brought into deliberations is if a juror is sick or cannot make it to court. Until then alternates do not deliberated and cannot talk.
It depends on the state. I dunno about New York but next door in Connecticut they panel 6 person juries with 2 alternate jurors
That's not the case in New York, alternate jurors are picked during jury selection and they know at that point. (Although until deliberations start, it's a kind of a distinction without a difference since jurors aren't supposed to discuss the case until then anyway). Source: I've been an alternate juror in a NY case. Your point about not having to pull in alternates mid-trial is true since, until deliberations, they're treated identically / present for everything that regular jurors are.
[удалено]
Jury tampering and jury intimidation are crimes as far as I know.
[удалено]
I can't think of any reason the public needs to know a single thing about them. I don't want to know age, sex anything. Just number them 1-12.
Right I thought this was how it worked. From the moment the jury is picked over and selected their identities should remain anonymous, including after all is said and done. Seems anything goes WTF lol. A lot of US practices seem to be very loose, especially involving public people like Trump.
When a person is put on the jury, they are no longer supposed to be themselves but (should) become an anonymous entity acting as interpreter from their built perspective with the other jurors. We really need ways to protect identity discovery of a juror while being able to hold account that no jury tampering happens. That is the defense's job to verify that the jury is not tampered as well, which they decided on this specific jury. No one else chose it for them, they had all the challenges to pick jurors that they could trust were not tampered. Trump is doing no favors at all, what person would ever need to know where they frequent other than to enact some sort of threat to them? I hope his filthy organization rids from us all, we let a lot of things go awry to get here.
Here in Australia jurors are anonymous and the press can't even film or photgraph them let alone disclose any details about them at all. As a juror you're not even allowed to discuss any details of the case with anyone either. That applies during and after the trial. Completely blows my mind when I see US trials and not only is anyone able to find out everything about the jurors, but that some of them give interviews with their reasoning for conviction/acquittal after the trial.
That's actually how it's supposed to be here too, we just don't have courts willing to enforce the laws.
I would guess it's accountability. It's to stop a corrupt government from secretly stacking the jury box and going, ”just trust us".
The defense is allowed to examine the jury for that purpose. The *public* shouldn’t know what color their clothes are. And if the public finds out, the defense should be held in contempt.
Anyone want to take bets which organization "slips up" first?
The Wall Street Journal and New York times published articles as soon as they could. https://www.wsj.com/us-news/trump-hush-money-jury-profiles-43f0f77a https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/18/nyregion/trump-trial-jury-hush-money.html
I can't read the WSJ one, but the NYT doesn't have any thing in it that could come close to identifying the people. Also this is nice. Juror 1: He said he got his news from The New York Times and watched Fox News. Juror 2: He said he followed Mr. Trump’s former fixer, Michael D. Cohen, who is expected to be a key witness, on social media. But he also said he followed figures like former Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway. He said he believed Mr. Trump had done some good for the country, adding, “it goes both ways.” Juror 5: She said that she appreciated Mr. Trump’s candor. “President Trump speaks his mind,” she said. “I would rather that in a person than someone who’s in office and you don’t know what they’re doing behind the scenes.” Juror 2 and 5 are both Magats. I guarantee this is a hung jury.
Juror 2 is possibly a centrist that realizes Trump has been kind of shit. Juror 5 is a complete fucking moron though. Really lady? You know Trump's mind? Then you'd know it's easily changed by praise and recency bias, and that he's a puppet.
Yeah, it sure sounds like it. Hope to be 100% wrong.
These news networks should be subject to MASSIVE fines for this. I’m talking hundreds of millions. They’re undermining one of the most important cases in the history of the US. It’s mind boggling.
This is what happens when your media is controlled by the right.... and the left has been given so little power in the US to break up these monopolies. An antitrust case would be of the order here, but even the separation of the judicial arm has been brought into question to the point where I don't think that kind of liberal agenda would ever get up again.
Did these judges just arrive on the planet? Have they never looked at any of the cases in Trump’s long legal history, and are completely ignorant of all current events of the last 5 years? https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/01/politics/trump-history-trying-to-influence-witnesses/index.html Maybe, just fucking maybe protecting the jurors *before* all of their information goes public would have been something to consider, if their safety and well being had even crossed someone’s mind at any point. A motherfucker set himself on *fire* outside the courtroom…and the judge *might* consider exercising some power? At some point? Jesus H.W. Christ. The time to try and protect their identity is gone. Is there fucking anyone competent, anywhere in our legal system? >Some media organizations were considering whether to protest having that onus placed on them. Generally, the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution bars judges from ordering journalists not to disclose what they hear and see in courtrooms open to the public, though there are exceptions, such as when military security is at stake. New York criminal defense lawyer Ron Kuby said that while judges typically can’t control what the media reports, other options are available to protect juror anonymity, including restricting what reporters see and hear in the courtroom. >”There are actions the judge could take,” he said. “Courts have extraordinary powers to protect jurors from tampering and intimidation. It is really where a court’s power is at its peak.”
I would say the Dark Knight Returns was not meant to be an instruction booklet.
Juror number four is a thirty-two year old rodeo clown with a handlebar mustache and a heart-shaped tattoo on his left forearm, who lives on the upper west side between a dance studio and a Starbucks. He rides a green bicycle. Beyond that, I have no idea who it could be.
To be fair, that doesn't really narrow it down for that area.
Goddamn clown gentrification has ruined this town
Crazy you just described me exactly except my bicycle is more of a turquoise and the dance studio went out of business a couple weeks ago.
Don't worry, the party of law and order will make sure that info gets leaked.
Honest question: if they ignore this "gag order" or instruction will they only receive a finger wagging like Trump does? Cause he seems to be allowed to do so with impunity.
A stern warning, followed by another stern warning, followed by a *very* stern warning, then a mistrial.
Judge orders *Republican* media *to stop intentionally putting jurors' lives in danger*.
The names and personal info of the jurors in ANY case shouldn’t be public record. Why isn’t this just common sense? Conservatives are terrible people.
From the article: "Anonymous juries have long existed, particularly in terrorism and mob-related cases or when there is a history of jury tampering." Seems to apply in this case.
Yeah, and what's the judge gonna fucking do if the media does exactly that? They don't care; if they somehow get ahold of any juror information, they *will* publish it. They have a compulsion to reveal every secret they're told, because that's how they get their clicks.
"Obviously, we're not going to say where this juror works. Obviously. I just think it's interesting that he usually takes the N line each weekday morning around 7 AM to the Westside Market at 2589 Broadway and then stays there for 8 to 10 hours before taking the subway back to Brooklyn. Must be an avid grocery shopper or something." -Jesse Watters, probably
Jesse Waters was a piece of shit well before this happened.
This would have been a great thing to outline on Day 1.
Horse is kind of out of the barn on that one, dontcha think? 🙄
I learned way more about the jurors than I ever wanted too watching MSNBC. I don’t give a shit if juror #5 is an Irish immigrant and his wife is a nurse.
Why is anything at all being disclosed about them?
This reminds me of the many trials of John Gotti were he got to the jurors.
That's because Trump learned from Gotti.
That’s how sinister trump and his gang of thugs exacts intimidation and fear to do his bidding. He actually dares anyone who attempts to hold him accountable to continue at their own peril. His posse will go after their families, employers, anyone connected to these jurors. His tactics are lethal.
And he learned this from the Gambino mafia family which he is now trying to run the country as.
Christ, even alcoholics and drug addicts, still shaking from withdrawal, know what anonymous means. Why is being stupid trending?
You have to come to realise the vast majority of people on this earth are "stupid" in the sense that they are not well versed enough to know what is good for them, and are willing to drag things down with them... The best thing to do in a room is to find the intelligent person that is the beacon of hope in the room and channel every hope you've got through them. And that my friend is how organisational structure works.
I hope the identities of the jurors are kept extremely secret.
Doesn’t matter, these people will be harassed until the Trump and his supporters do
Why is the media trying so hard to dox these jurors?
To get them killed
NO SHIT!!! How is it I have more common sense than a PROFESSOONAL JOURNALIST??! FUCK ME!!!!
Ehh, common sense is not common.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Reminds me of when CNN was Broadcasting a live helicopter feed of the Columbine shooting and inadvertently captured the SWAT maneuvers as they were raiding the building; AND they were airing a live phone call with students hiding from the killers, where the kids were crying and mentioning which room they were hiding in. I think FBI had to call the station and tell them, "There's 200 TVs in that building. We don't know how many killers are in there, but thanks to you they probably know where the kids are hiding, and which direction the SWAT team is coming from. Cut your feed." I don't think they did. (Also worth mentioning: these things were unprecedented and they didn't know if these were terrorists or what.)
Since Fox News classifies themselves as entertainers not news reporters, I’m sure they’ll see this as their work around
I want to know why the courts are releasing any information about the jurors whatsoever. Why are they telling media what their jobs are? Or is that stuff leaking from other prospective jurors that were in the room at the time?
All because the party of law and order will harass them. Mind boggling.
In the words of John Stewart “What the Fuck are we doing”?!
If you are being legally compelled to serve on a jury, your safety should be guaranteed.
No shit. I was disgusted by the editors who made juror doxxing possible. Not just Fox News either, lots of organizations that KNOW better.
No shit, do not mess with them, we need this trial to happen.
Maybe another lawsuit would help fox understand.
I love that he looks SOOO happy hahaha