this post was submitted on 11 Oct 2023
159 points (92.1% liked)

politics

19148 readers
4191 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Special counsel Jack Smith on Tuesday filed a motion that urged U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan to put guardrails in place to protect the possible jurors in Donald Trump’s election-subversion case.

Former U.S. Army prosecutor Glenn Kirschner suggested Smith hadn’t just “taken off the gloves” with the move. It “looks like he’s boxed them up, taped up the box, and sent them to long-term storage,” Kirschner said on a new episode of his “Justice Matters” podcast.

Smith encouraged Chutkan to streamline the jury selection process with a questionnaire for potential jurors, ban their details from being public, and prohibit direct contact between attorneys and jurors.

The motion referred to Republican 2024 front-runner Trump’s attack on social media of a court official in his civil fraud trial in New York, which prompted a judge to slap the former president with a gag order.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] njm1314 13 points 1 year ago (2 children)

If I'm being honest I would have hesitation being a juror in this kind of trial for the exact reasons the special prosecutor is talking about.

[–] logicbomb 10 points 1 year ago

I would love to be a juror in that trial. If soldiers can give their lives fighting for our country, this sort of civic duty seems like the least I could do.

[–] Nightwingdragon 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

This is one of the things that worries me. The damage may have already been done and may be irreversible.

I'm also going to be completely honest: If there were any chance I'd be sitting on a jury for a Trump trial, I'd skip jury duty and take the punishment for that before even considering showing up. Take a look at the rise in political violence. Take a look at what happened to the two election workers from GA. Take a look at the grand jurors who have had their information doxxed. Prosecutors and judges having to take on extra security. Witnesses who need to go into hiding. And he hasn't even been convicted yet. Heck, the trials haven't even begun.

Nope. Slap me with a fine. Throw me in jail for a few days. I'm OK with that. What I'm not OK with is my life and the lives of my family members being completely upended and receiving regular death threats because a lone-wolf MAGA nut thinks I might be on a jury. I'll pass, thank you. Never mind the stress of it all, I wouldn't have anywhere close to the money necessary to keep myself and my family safe if either Trump or one of his followers decide that I look like a good enough target.

I would not be surprised if there are many others who feel the same way. I could easily see any of these cases come grinding to a screeching halt because jury selection is nigh-on impossible. There are plenty of RICO cases right now that have been stalled in the courts for months because of jury selection issues, and if they have that much trouble seating juries for that, imagine what seating a jury for a Trump trial is going to be like with all the credible threats of violence flying around.

And IMO, if anything happens to any of the people involved in these cases, good luck getting a jury to be seated at all; it'll be virtually impossible to do so once they can say "I'll pass after what happened to the last guy."

[–] PyroNeurosis 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Recognizing your solid points: it is because this case is so high profile that you can continue to find jurors. People will be willing to become jurors even if it means they become martyrs because this would fix them on the right side of history.

[–] Nightwingdragon 4 points 1 year ago

The problem with that is (a) finding enough of them that are willing to take the risk, and (b) having them not be weeded out during the jury selection process for being too biased against Trump. I do agree that some would be willing to do it, but I'm skeptical about whether they'd be able to get the chance.