Trump Jury Selection & The Not So Orangeman - Top 3 Takeaways – April 19th, 2024

Necessary information? To be clear, what’s perhaps the most absurd trial in American history came complete with what was likely the most absurd juror questionnaire in American history. As I mentioned early this week... We have the former President of the United States standing trial on 34 criminal charges for a non-disclosure agreement for $130,000 that took place in 2016, and that was violated by the recipient – without consequence for her. It would not be a stretch to say that this case is potentially the most overcharged we’ve ever seen. Just as it might not be a stretch to say that the jury questionnaire might be the most intrusive, we’ve ever seen. The 42-question jury questionnaire approved by the judge overseeing the case and issued to prospective jurors was easily the most intrusive I’ve ever seen. Among the questions in the questionnaire are these... What neighborhood do you live in? Who is your current employer? Who was your prior employer? If you’re married or living with someone else what do they do for a living? What do you like to do in your spare time? Which of the (listed) publications, programs, media, blogs and websites do you visit, read, or watch? Do you listen to or watch podcasts? Which ones? Do you listen to talk radio? Have you ever attended a rally or campaign event for Donald Trump? Are you signed up for any newsletter or email run by or on behalf of Mr. Trump or the Trump Organization? Do you follow Donald Trump on any social media? Have you ever attended a rally or campaign event for any anti-Trump group or organization. Do you have any feelings or opinions about how Mr. Trump is being treated in this case? Do you have any strong opinions or firmly held beliefs about former President Donald Trump that would interfere with your ability to be a fair and impartial juror? The only question the judge didn’t evidently allow the prosecution to ask is whether they voted for Donald Trump. Now, despite the absurdities associated with the whole of these proceedings, entering Thursday seven of the twelve needed jurors had been selected. By Thursday morning that number dropped by one. That’s because a previously selected juror went to the highly conflicted judge in this case (his daughter is a Democrat operative) and told him she could no longer be impartial because her family and friends figured out she was one of the jurors and began questioning her about it. And how was it that they figured out who she is? Because of the intrusive nature of the personally identifying information in the jury questionnaire. The jurors' names might be private by the questionnaire answers weren’t. It was known that she was an oncology nurse. Just as it was also known that the six remaining jurors included a software engineer, an information technology professional, a sales professional, an English teacher and two lawyers (along with a millionaire and his wife, a movie star, the professor and Mary Anne-err wait names are redacted). So, the judge's answer to all of this...to admonish the media for reporting on it. Wait. You approve of highly intrusive questions and then get mad at the press for reporting on the answers to them? Gee, who could have possibly seen that as a potential problem? The judge then ordered that court reporters could no longer report on the employment status of the jurors. But that didn’t help matters...by midday...
Down went number two. A second juror previously sworn in, again having attested to being fair and impartial, was brought back into the court after it was discovered that he and his wife were former criminals. And in his case, not just any kind of criminal, but one who’d been arrested for tearing down political signage with conservative messaging. So that’s fun. Not only did you have a seated juror who was a leftist political activist. You had a leftist political activist who’d been arrested for destroying political messaging that ran counter to his beliefs. That's fun. But perhaps even more fun in its own illustrative way... There was the story of potential juror Kat. The down selected, but unseated, juror Kat immediately spoke to Fox News upon leaving the New York City Courthouse. She said she wouldn’t disclose why she couldn’t be impartial (after having previously said she could be impartial) but she did provide some color from inside the juror’s room. She described her and the other prospective jurors as being “shocked and frozen” when they learned they’d been selected for Donald Trump’s case. Then she talked to MSNBC and that’s when things really got interesting...
He looked less orange than the prospective juror had expected. This is the kind of stuff you just can’t make up. For years I’ve made light of the people, in November of 2020, saying eww...mean Trump Tweets...give me Biden. You know the type that when asked how in their right minds they could possibly still be ready for vote for ‘Ole Joe again and the answer is something along the lines of Trump being the bad Orange Man. I’m actually saying that stuff for humorous effect...because yes, like any decent humor there’s at least some truth to it, but at the same time a caricature of sorts. Yesterday, with one of the down selected potential jurors, an educated Venture Capitalist in Manhattan, she actually said that Donald Trump looked less orange than she had expected...he looked more yellow in her words. This is the world with which we live in. This is what Donald Trump is up against in attempting to obtain a fair trial for charges that should never have been brought against him. Interestingly, after having only had five seated jurors by midday after four days, another seven were seated by the end of the day. Thus, at least for the moment, a full jury of 12 jurors has been assembled with six alternates to go. The overarching thought is this. The former and potentially future leader of the free world has what could be his freedom in the balance in a place in which someone who was very close to being seated on the jury is surprised he’s more yellow than orange. To her credit she said she couldn’t be impartial, so yay for integrity, but this is truly what Trump, and for that matter this country and the world’s best interests, are up against.