662
submitted 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) by kescusay@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

Those calls came after numerous media outlets reported potentially identifying biographical information about the woman, including her job and the neighborhood she called home. Fox News Jesse Watters highlighted the juror's details while reading through public pool notes about the selected members. "This nurse scares me if I'm Trump," Watters said.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] MedicPigBabySaver@lemmy.world 206 points 2 months ago

Fuck the courts for letting public have access to that info.

[-] mibo80@lemm.ee 61 points 2 months ago

Exactly, knowing ahead of time all of this should have been sealed by default. Anytime the defendant/case is this high profile the whole thing should be sealed off to contain this circus.

[-] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 11 points 2 months ago

It doesn't matter. Trump will literally call them out himself. And nothing will happen when he does.

The system is broken. It is not breaking, it is fucking BROKEN.

[-] geekworking@lemmy.world 49 points 2 months ago

It doesn't sound like it was released.

It seems like stuff from jury selection questions that some court audience members noted. The court already blocked recording.

They remove the audience, but that's a double-edged sword since no public transparency even for reporters would fuel all of the conspiracy crap and there would be no information available to debunk. This is Trumps wet dream. Being able to spout pure fantasy with nobody to rebut.

Best solution would be for the judge to clamp down to say that he will charge anyone who leaks any jury info with contempt.

[-] xantoxis@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months ago

The judge may have been anticipating this media circus. Now there's a clear reason to remove the audience, so it's safer.

Trump was going to spout lies and nonsense no matter what, and the people who believe him now will believe him no matter what. My money says the judge just wanted an excuse--and we'll see a complete lockdown with no audience from now on.

[-] NegativeInf@lemmy.world 24 points 2 months ago

Well, they have now made it where the employment and past employment questions stricken from the record and have instructed all media not to report the answers to those portions of the questionnaire. That's what she felt identified her.

But I agree in spirit.

[-] Brunbrun6766@lemmy.world 26 points 2 months ago

Why is the press even in the room or present in any way when that information is being discussed

[-] NegativeInf@lemmy.world 17 points 2 months ago

Because generally these things wouldn't be a problem. Except that trump and his followers have a history of grasping at every straw, defaming anyone they can, and getting people hurt for no good reason.

[-] melpomenesclevage@lemm.ee 2 points 2 months ago

fuck them for not crucifying these anchors before lunch.

they're not legitimate and neither are the laws they represent. its just thugs with guns and excuses to shoot.

this post was submitted on 18 Apr 2024
662 points (99.7% liked)

politics

18114 readers
4473 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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!
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS