Trump's 'dirty war' on media

[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]

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.

[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.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by 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.

yeah...next thing you know Antifa is camped out on your yard...but that would give CNN, Washington Post, BuzzFeed, Politico, the New York Times, NBC, and the AP something to cover...

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by 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.

Or if they worked for the government would they get a call that the "Big Boss" was upset about their verdict convicting a "good" guy?
Nobody knows yet who threatened the Judge, maybe some fixer?
But I don't think in any case Jurors names need to be released, they suffered enough, the pay is not that good and who wants to spend days in a room with a bunch of lawyers.

[spence]

Originally Posted by 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.

The media is always hungry for the story and who can tell it better. The make up of the jury is a huge part of this story...doesn't mean there's anything nefarious behind it...it's how the press works.

They're not sequestered so releasing names now wouldn't be prudent. In some cases like the marathon bomber I'd wager they felt there was a long-term threat so they've kept it sealed. This case is likely somewhere in the middle, but if and when the guilty convictions start to drop I think it's safe to say these jurors will be getting death threats from Trump's base.

[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]

Originally Posted by spence

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

sounds like far left media collusion to me...that's a VERY odd way of wording "just planning ahead"
"

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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

I don't know from where you get your "interpretation." I know you subscribe to judicial interpretation by whim or personal opinion. Or, perhaps, you're just resorting to some sort of mental channeling?
I go by the memorandum's actual words, a sort of textual originalism,-- the media coalition requested the names and addresses "at the latest immediately upon return of the jury of its verdict."

If it was requesting the info only after the verdict was rendered, it would not require, in a legal memorandum of request, to add the words "at the latest". That clearly is a request to get it before "the latest" if possible.

[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