Trump's 'dirty war' on media

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

What many see here, and not without precedent, is yet another attempt by the media, most especially CNN, to bully and intimidate private, everyday citizens into convicting Manafort.
Just funny to see the breitbart miss information posted as some how True

Is it false to say "what many see here" followed by the rest of your sentence? I admit it is a rhetorical trick, but so is saying something is a "complete fabrication" when that is not demonstrably true. Many may well see a bullying tactic, and the precedents that Breitbart lists may well be seen by many as bullying as well.

Bullying is one of those current trigger words--you know, like racist, sexist, and various phobes, and lots of other stuff. They are quite effective in riling folks up against other folks.

Names are only released after a trial everyone knows that except breitbart readers one example The Communist News Network will use any tactic necessary to deprive Americans of their rights, including the right to a fair trial.

Typically the first amendment guarantees the public has a right to know the jurors' key words after the trial

The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on that particular privacy issue (apparently, re Roe v Wade, privacy is an important right). Various state courts are leaning to giving jurors that right.

And if the First Amendment gives the public a right to know the jurors, there is no specification as to when that right kicks in. One could assume if the public has that right, it would have it before or during as well as after the trial.

There seems to be a lot in dispute and undecided about the issue. And about even if you have the right to publish names and addresses, is it ethical to do so. And maybe even about "What many see here".

[scottw]

BOSTON — A judge has rejected a motion by The Boston Globe to publicly release the names of jurors in the Boston Marathon bombing trial.

Judge George O'Toole Jr.'s ruling Monday came more than three months after a federal jury convicted Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (joh-HAHR' tsahr-NEYE'-ehv) in the deadly 2013 attack and voted in favor of the death penalty.


I'm pretty sure the Manafort jury is still deliberating

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by scottw

BOSTON — A judge has rejected a motion by The Boston Globe to publicly release the names of jurors in the Boston Marathon bombing trial.

Judge George O'Toole Jr.'s ruling Monday came more than three months after a federal jury convicted Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (joh-HAHR' tsahr-NEYE'-ehv) in the deadly 2013 attack and voted in favor of the death penalty.


I'm pretty sure the Manafort jury is still deliberating

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

[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]

[QUOTE=wdmso;1149168]Names are only released after a trial everyone knows that .. which is why they are asking for names and addresses now?

the Media is trying to intimidate the Paul Manafort jury(yes) or that the request was a move that is both disturbing(yes) and almost unprecedented(yes).

[/QUOTE

MANAFORT TRIAL

Manafort trial Day 14: Jury 'scared' as it heads home without a verdict
Manafort's attorney Kevin Downing said the ongoing deliberations favor his client.


Paul Manafort's trial will stretch into a fourth week, as jurors headed home Friday without reaching a verdict for the second straight day and 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.

By DARREN SAMUELSOHN and JOSH GERSTEIN 08/17/2018 10:37 AM EDT Updated 08/17/2018 05:42 PM EDT

[wdmso]

[QUOTE=scottw;1149172]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Names are only released after a trial everyone knows that .. which is why they are asking for names and addresses now?

the Media is trying to intimidate the Paul Manafort jury(yes) or that the request was a move that is both disturbing(yes) and almost unprecedented(yes).

[/QUOTE

MANAFORT TRIAL

Manafort trial Day 14: Jury 'scared' as it heads home without a verdict
Manafort's attorney Kevin Downing said the ongoing deliberations favor his client.


Paul Manafort's trial will stretch into a fourth week, as jurors headed home Friday without reaching a verdict for the second straight day and 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.

By DARREN SAMUELSOHN and JOSH GERSTEIN 08/17/2018 10:37 AM EDT Updated 08/17/2018 05:42 PM EDT

when they ask means nothing ... unless you wear a tin foil hat

And do you know who are making theses threats ?? I know i don't

[scottw]

[QUOTE=wdmso;1149180]

Originally Posted by scottw

And do you know who are making theses threats ??

crazy leftists obviously....

[DZ]

So what would you think could happen if the jurors names were released? Do you have any doubt that the press would look into and publish everything about them they could find? Looking for any kind of dirt or bias in their social media profiles? IMO jurors have served an important obligation of citizenship and deserve some sense of privacy in today's "tabloid journalism" conduct in much of the mainstream media.

[detbuch]

[QUOTE=wdmso;1149180]

Originally Posted by scottw

when they ask means nothing ... unless you wear a tin foil hat

In the memorandum that the media who petitioned for names and addresses of jurors, requesting when the information should be released, they wrote:

"Therefore, the Media Coalition respectfully requests that the Court issue an order directing the clerk to make publicly available the names and addresses of the jurors and alternates who heard this case, at the latest immediately upon return of the jury of its verdict.

So, the media would have liked to get the info before the verdict, but no later than immediately after the verdict.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

So, the media would have liked to get the info before the verdict, but no later than immediately after the verdict.

It doesn't say that, they're just planning ahead for when the trial is over.

[scottw]

[QUOTE=detbuch;1149238]

Originally Posted by wdmso

"Therefore, the Media Coalition respectfully requests that the Court issue an order directing the clerk to make publicly available the names and addresses of the jurors and alternates who heard this case, at the latest immediately upon return of the jury of its verdict.

So, the media would have liked to get the info before the verdict, but no later than immediately after the verdict.

immediately upon,,,,,,,like ....right away

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on that particular privacy issue (apparently, re Roe v Wade, privacy is an important right). Various state courts are leaning to giving jurors that right.

And if the First Amendment gives the public a right to know the jurors, there is no specification as to when that right kicks in. One could assume if the public has that right, it would have it before or during as well as after the trial.

There seems to be a lot in dispute and undecided about the issue. And about even if you have the right to publish names and addresses, is it ethical to do so. And maybe even about "What many see here".

This link is not about possible pending court case or the issue of privacy.. and that was not the Idea floated in the story ..

... the issues is very clear a request for the names of those seated is not outrageous or intimidation or disturbing and almost unprecedented. as claimed by the link provided .. thats it


But Truth isnt Truth either a breitbart reader on the interview with chuck todd

"what show were *you* watching? He made Chuck U. Toad look like a moron.