Trump's 'dirty war' on media

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Names are only released after a trial everyone knows that .. the issue at hand is the false claim

the Media is trying to intimidate the Paul Manafort jury or that the request was a move that is both disturbing and almost unprecedented. when it clearly is not new

The claim is that "what many see here" is that some of the media is trying to intimidate the jury. Is that a false claim? Can you support that it is a false claim?

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The claim is that "what many see here" is that some of the media is trying to intimidate the jury. Is that a false claim? Can you support that it is a false claim?

Yes its called Normal! to request such information AKA precedent


Can you support how this isn't a false claim or how the request is an attempt to intimidate the jury or how that would even happen

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

(Quote: Originally Posted by detbuch
The claim is that "what many see here" is that some of the media is trying to intimidate the jury. Is that a false claim? Can you support that it is a false claim?)

Yes its called Normal! to request such information AKA precedent

You didn't answer my question. Breitbart did not directly say that the media request was intimidation. Breitbart claimed that "WHAT MANY SEE HERE" is an attempt at intimidation. Do you contend that many do not see that? That that is a false claim?


Can you support how this isn't a false claim or how the request is an attempt to intimidate the jury or how that would even happen

Apparently, many do see it as intimidation. I certainly can't disprove that. Can you? The Judge has gotten threats and has U.S. Marshal protection. The jury was scared. I don't think it is a stretch to say that many can see, and do, that revealing the juror's names and addresses would be intimidating in light of threats already being made.

And did you read the entire Breitbart article, including the blue links embedded in the article which added to the credence of the Breitbart article?

And the jury is not sequestered, so it could have heard about the request to post their names and addresses. And the media requested the info AT THE LATEST immediately after the verdict. So, possibly, before that.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Apparently, many do see it as intimidation. I certainly can't disprove that. Can you? The Judge has gotten threats and has U.S. Marshal protection. The jury was scared. I don't think it is a stretch to say that many can see, and do, that revealing the juror's names and addresses would be intimidating in light of threats already being made.

Where is a first hand report of the jury being scared?

And the jury is not sequestered, so it could have heard about the request to post their names and addresses. And the media requested the info AT THE LATEST immediately after the verdict. So, possibly, before that.

How is that in any way trying to influence the Jury?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Where is a first hand report of the jury being scared?


How is that in any way trying to influence the Jury?

it's like the mafia letting them know they're being watched and they know where they live...typical leftist intimidation tactics lately...plenty of examples

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Where is a first hand report of the jury being scared?

The judge said so. I don't know how many hands were involved. But he is pretty close to the jury's concerns.

How is that in any way trying to influence the Jury?

The word being used was "intimidation." Not everyone is as self-assured, brave, with nerves of steel as you. My understanding is that the locality in which the trial is being held is anti-Trump. I can see how a juror wouldn't want some hot-head looney in that community to know his name and address if the verdict was not guilty. It might influence a juror to decide that discretion is the better part of valor, and discretely vote for conviction.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The word being used was "intimidation." Not everyone is as self-assured, brave, with nerves of steel as you. My understanding is that the locality in which the trial is being held is anti-Trump. I can see how a juror wouldn't want some hot-head looney in that community to know his name and address if the verdict was not guilty. It might influence a juror to decide that discretion is the better part of valor, and discretely vote for conviction.

The judge didn't say anything about juror intimidation, he said he had personally received threats. I'm all for keeping them private for now but I would fear more from Trump supporters than I would from the media.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

The judge didn't say anything about juror intimidation, .

from the POLITICO article....for the second time

" the judge overseeing the case alluded to "threats" the jury may be receiving.

“I had no idea this case would incite this emotion,” U.S. District Court Judge T.S. Ellis III said in an open court hearing, responding to a motion from seven news organizations, including POLITICO, seeking access to sealed materials related to the trial that would have publicly identified the jurors.

Ellis denied the motion, telling the courtroom that jurors were "scared” and “afraid.” As a result, Ellis said, he didn’t “feel right” releasing the names of the 12-person jury.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

I'm all for keeping them private for now but I would fear more from Trump supporters than I would from the media.

Yes, the media is the problem...

You should repeat what you are about to post in front of the mirror and see if your own eyes roll before you submit reply
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device