After Helping Trump Threaten Jurors, Pundits Whine “Not OUR Fault’

You know what? Some things are so obvious any person, even dimwitted ones have enough common sense to know. Somewhere along the line growing up in school we no longer needed the teacher to tell us how much trouble we’d be in if we copied off someone else’s test. Or, if an angry dog is straining the the leash trying to attack you don’t try to pet it. Or that stuff at work shouldn’t be talked about outside of work. If you’re part of a team assigned to develop a brand new product or idea, you don’t go bragging to your pals you took the same classes with in college and who work in the same field but for different companies “Hey. guess what WE are doing these days!”

And a professional journalist who makes a living by protecting confidential sources knows the necessity of being careful in what they reveal so that source can remain confidential!

Having said all that let’s turn to why I’m writing this.  It’s official. We have a jury and alternates selected and sworn in for Trump’s first criminal trial. For now. Ten bucks says that come Monday at least one, and perhaps two or three will as has already happened contact the judge and ask to be excused. If opening arguments haven’t begun I wonder if they can re-open jury selection? I also wonder if six alternates will be enough. This has been ugly so far and the ugly is I fear just getting started. Worse, journalists or rather “journalists” have aided and abetted Trump’s efforts to intimidate jurors. To corrupt the process and even by effectively doxxing them put them in danger!  But the pundits are “Shocked! Shocked I say!” at suggestions they played any role in making jurors afraid to serve. Enough in fact to quit, citing (real and justifiable) fear over too many people knowing they aren’t actually anonymous after all.

Prior to Monday it was assumed jury selection alone would take at least two weeks. To everyone’s surprise in just two days we already had seven, count em seven jurors selected and sworn in and told to report to court Monday for opening statements. Even with Wednesday being an off day (as it will be throughout the trial) it became a foregone conclusion that a full panel of twelve jurors and six alternates would be selected and sworn before the end of today. Especially since by Tues. night both side had used up six of their ten peremptory challenges. Judge Merchan is moving things along.

Ah, but it turned out in their quest to show how clever they were journalists revealed information they should have known better than to reveal. Enough that jurors found themselves being queried by those who knew them, even casually if THEY were on or being considered for Trump’s jury! What’s sickened me is their mealy-mouthed excuses for their idiocy. Or desire for ratings or combination of the two. Common sense should have told them to not say jack about any of the jurors, or at least far less than they did. The MOST they should have reported was jurors represented mix of gender and work histories. Medical, Tech, Business and even Legal without naming specific job titles like Nurse, Lawyer etc.  I’ll talk more about that later.

I also can’t help but recall most of these same talking heads so seriously discussing what the judge in one of Trump’s more recent civil trials said to the jury before thanking them for their service and dismissing them. He  advised them, for their own safety to never reveal they’d served.  Think about THAT, and what so many of these same journalists/talking heads have done this week.

The point is that Wednesday turned out to be a long day and one of the already sworn in jurors contacted the judge that night and said she could no longer serve. She was brought to court yesterday morning and it call came tumbling out. All the people she knew contacting her wanting to know if it was in fact HER. Offering their own thoughts. And how if people could figure out so quickly she’d not only been at the courthouse for jury duty but been put in the “Part” where Trump’s trial is taking place her safety. She was excused. (so was another juror but for some additional reasons) All because from what was publicly reported it was easy for people she knew even casually to work out who she was. I’ve got a huge problem with all this and it turns out I’m not alone. And one journalist and outlet is calling out the media for it having helped Trump engage in jury intimidation!

USA Today has an opinion column where writer Rex Huppke calls out fellow journalists for lack of foresight, the urge to generate some minor insight into this or that prospective Trump juror that “outs” them to everyone, including MAGAs willing to do a bit of online research. Knowing that MAGAs can pretty easily figure out where you work, the neighborhood where you live and so on means they can quickly find out who you are.

Even for someone with a lot of guts that’s got to be unnerving as as Huppke notes one person who was already sworn in thought about it overnight (and as we’ve learned got a barrage of “is this you?” inquiries from family, friends, co-workers and acquaintances) was fearful enough she no longer believed she could be objective. I’ll admit I’d find it damned near impossible to set aside personal anger at a defendant who would gladly sacrifice my safety and that of my loved ones to save HIS own ass!

For months we kept hearing speculation about how much of a circus, if not sh*t-show Trump’s trial would be. All of in in the glare of the national spotlight. Then, in recent weeks as it became apparent that come Monday proceedings, as in jury selection WOULD be commencing there was tons of speculation about finding a fair and impartial jury. Even about jurors anonymity for their own safety. Oh how the pundits enjoyed speculating on such matters. And then, once jurors were actually called to the courtroom to be screened what happened? Well, as Huppke bluntly puts it:

A number of media outlets covering Donald Trump’s Manhattan criminal trial are playing right into the former president’s manipulative little hands, effectively assisting him with juror intimidation.

In real-time, specific details about prospective jurors are being blasted out on social media and on news networks – neighborhood names, marital status, job titles, things they like to do in their free time.

The result, as of Thursday morning, is one seated juror saying she couldn’t proceed out of fear her identity had been compromised.

He goes on to say (and I wholeheartedly agree) journalists have no business, no justifiable “news” reason to report the kinds of details they’ve been reporting. Because if not from one specific “journalist’s” details then in combination with others it’s not Sherlock Holmes level work to deduce who these jurors are. Huppke cites Politico providing considerable specific information about a prospective juror: including her neighborhood, job, hobby and the role she plays in a community organization.  WTF? He goes on to point out that other outlets are doing their own pieces providing information. Such as ACS’s story titled “Who are the first 7 jurors of Trump’s historic criminal trial”, and NBC’s story “A lawyer, a teacher and a software engineer: Meet the first jury members of Trump’s hush money trial.” (there are plenty of others not to mention all the stuff spoken on TV)

Huppke also points out something that people have forgotten if they ever knew it.  The public has ZERO role in the jury selection process for this or any other trial! Journalists sure as hell have forgotten it (assuming many of them knew it but one assumes legal pundits do) but the fact is that selecting members for any juror is between the lawyers and the judge. The community has no Constitutional or legal right to be part of the process. Some states have laws that barring certain circumstances require the names of those selected be made public. And some jurors after a trial are willing to speak out in some manner and reveal their identity in that process. That’s not the case here.

But journalists and even legal pundits I usually respect just couldn’t help themselves. They just HAD to share tibits in a “I know something you don’t know” fashion that has endangered both the integrity of this trial (and don’t think for a second jury selection won’t figure in Trump’s appeal of any guilty verdict) but the safety and even lives of the jurors.  All for what Huppke sneeringly refers to as low brow at best, and that what’s NOT needed is media outlets “thirsty for clicks” trying to outdo each other to see who can be first to report on some juror’s favorite dinner. He expresses the belief (and again I agree) this is like the trial of a mob boss rather than a politician and that jurors should have (hell, they deserve) the anonymity to to their civic duty under enormous pressure.

And threats. What happens if just one MAGA, having been helped by irresponsible journalists and pundits shows up where some juror lives and attacks them? Or worse? This is Trump we are talking about and that’s exactly what he wants to have happen. Again, Huppke is blunt:

Anyone paying attention knows threats and intimidation go hand-in-hand with Trump and his MAGA movement, and few know that better than journalists, who were long ago labeled “the enemy of the people” by Trump himself.

So I’ll ask my fellow journalists out there: What the hell do you think is going to happen to these people if you make it easy for others to identify them?

They will be targeted. They will be threatened. And what’s the news value in any of that?

Journalists have seemed to need fainting couches over suggestions THEY were out of line by reporting the things they did. After all the “party line” went the judge didn’t SPECIFICALLY tell us NOT to report such things as neighborhoods, specific jobs  or at least places of employment, groups the belonged to etc.  Had the judge SPECIFICALLY told us not to to that then my heavens, we’d have never, ever ever ever even considered reporting those kinds of details. From where I sit the bullshit smell coming off them them is Trumpian in odor and intensity of foul stench!

Well, judge Merchan scolded them and then golly gee they were (kind of) oh so sorry. If only they had known not to provide all that information to the public as crocodile tears flowed. Bullshit, bullshit bullshit. As I said earlier these are all seasoned journalists with experience in protecting the anonymity of sources. Just like people in the intel community they have to be exceedingly careful about what they reveal for fear it might out someone that needs to be protected with anonymity. Yet after weeks of speculating on the personal pressures jurors would face, and even their safety what did these “look what I know” jerks do? Start proverbially drawing arrows on the map to the juror’s names and addresses!

I’ve lost a LOT of respect for a number of these people. They goddamned well KNEW better than to do what they did. Instead of protecting the integrity of the legal process and literally the well being and future of jurors they JUMPED at the chance to be the first to report some detail(s) before someone else did. All so the next time their contract was being negotiated they could point to big stories they’d covered and “news” they’d scooped others with.

Now with an entire weekend ahead I think it’s certain the jurors will be bombarded with opinions from not just those really close to them (kind of hard to hide the fact one’s a juror from a spouse/partner or boss at work) but people they haven’t heard from in years. Some of what they get hit will will go beyond pressure and into threats. Especially now that the talking head can (and they are already doing so) the pressure, and even danger the jurors are now in. I’m serious. Ten bucks says we will see requests from a juror(s) to be excused first thing Monday morning. And if it’s too late to replace them and we are already into alternates I’ve got another ten bucks that says enough jurors will utter the magic words “I can no longer render a fair and impartial verdict” that we will wind up with less than 12 jurors. Mistrial and the only question if is in such circumstances jeopardy is attached.

Thanks to shoddy, INCOMPETENT journalism. And journalists wonder why public perception of them and their profession ranks down there with used car salesmen and Congress Critters…