The jury foreperson: this is America...

[PCIntern]

When they say that you’ll be judged by jury of your peers, they are not referring to a group of highly educated individuals who have spent time perusing books on philosophy, justice, logic, and common law. This woman was successful in withholding specifics, but wore her emotionality on her sleeve, and in my opinion, although the strict by the book folk are I suppose rightfully upset about her giving the interviews, it is not only refreshing change to see somebody smiling when talking about screwing these people over, but a great answer to the Smarmy, self-righteous sons of bitches from the right wing who show up on TV defending any behavior which they might have Performed.

You could paraphrase her delivery as such: “Ha ha ha, I know something you don’t know about what’s gonna happen to you and all your buddies and -snicker- if you were thinking that you got away with something, well, you didn’t, ha ha ha.“

I for one found myself smiling through her entire interview, it was almost like a comedy routine… Night at the judicial improv.

[thesquanderer]

1. Who are you talking about? n/t

[PCIntern]

4. Whom am I talking about??

Check the other 88 threads in GD

[oldsoftie]

6. Or you could've just answered the question as easily as typing that response.

[BlackSkimmer]

27. I've no idea what he's on about either.

Haven't been near a tv for more than a minute the last two days.

[Jack the Greater]

77. Google is your friend

jury foreperson

[oldsoftie]

82. I wasnt the one asking. And why would it be so hard to just answer the damn question

[Fullduplexxx]

8. About whom am I talking

[thesquanderer]

12. If there are 88 threads about this already, why didn't you just post your comment in one of those?

At least then it would have had context.

(But I guess your comment was too important to just be part of some other thread? )

[PCIntern]

40. And a good day to you too....

[BWdem4life]

64. Actually

I counted, and it was 18 threads yeaterday out of a total 270 (6%). Most of which gave no context about what they were talking about either.

Not all of us spend every last minute of our free time poring through GD.

[PCIntern]

65. How many threads have the word "foreperson" in the title

over the last 18 hours or so.

I really didn’t think it was a vague reference. Sorry

[BWdem4life]

84. I just told you. 18 out of 270 were about the foreperson

And some of those 18 didn't have the word "foreperson" in the title.

[Victor_c3]

14. I'm lost too

I’ve seen a bunch of threads talking about a jury foreperson, but I have no idea what is going on or who they are talking about.

Maybe I’ve just been clicking on the wrong threads, but I see no links or actual explanation about what this jury foreperson is anywhere - just a series of reactions

[BlackSkimmer]

30. No idea.

I also have no idea why it's so hard to flesh out an OP with at least the bare minimum...who what, when where...that kind of thing.

[AllyCat]

41. Right? All talking about it, no links, no details. You ask and get

snark. Guess those of us who worked all day yesterday without a break are just behind the times.

[Sympthsical]

52. I kept seeing a name

Finally sussed it out last night.

I used to get annoyed at the odd assumption everyone is glued to cable news all day long and would know even the most cryptic reference that's generally followed by a dollop of praise or despair.

Now I kind of think they're hilarious. I just invent scenarios of what could possibly be happening. Like, "Does anyone think this guy doesn't know wtf he's talking about?!" I just assume a segment about hot air balloon maintenance is not going the way the person had hoped. The man clearly doesn't know his scoops.

It's like social media abstract art. It's whatever we want to read into it.

[Beachnutt]

37. Here is what is being referred too

https://democraticunderground.com/1017807122

[Victor_c3]

46. Thanks! n/t

[gordianot]

2. I get a feeling of foreboding watching her.

She reminds me of some people who have experienced trauma and do not know how to react. I have seen that smile before in reaction to behavior that would terrify most people. I suspect that we do not comprehend the horrors playing out in all of these Grand Juries.

[Marcus IM]

5. Hard to imagine the trauma of listening to many many tapes of the Orange Menace ...

... cajoling and threatening the arrest of officials and others who won't do his bidding.

Like listening to a mob boss or something.

[gordianot]

11. This does seem late.

Also consider the sheer volume of actors involved.

[Marcus IM]

13. Pretty sure those who have followed this closely ...

... will be familiar with dozen plus names she alluded to.

I can hardly wait for the indictments!

[paleotn]

7. What's been disclosed publicly in a bunch of Trump scandals is probably the tip of the iceberg.

This renews my hope, but I still can't help thinking why isn't this bastard indicted yet?!

[Pobeka]

45. Also possibly not comfortable being on camera, it could be nervousness. nt

[wishstar]

3. She is excited to have learned so much from her jury experience and be on the inside

I appreciate the way she explained in her CNN interview how the jury consisted of "real people" rather than political or legal experts.
She has been criticized and ridiculed by some posters, but having only seen the one interview that's posted on CNN's website, I am favorably impressed with her ability to express her thoughts and her positive attitude that was indeed refreshing and I share her hope that their Grand Jury efforts produce some kind of result and are not in vain.

[betsuni]

69. +1

[madaboutharry]

9. I don't understand the negativity towards her.

For someone who was probably never before a camera, I thought she did fine.

She seems to have followed the rules.

She also, in another interview, explained rather well why they didn’t waste their time with a subpoena for Trump. She said they didn’t need it because they got info from other people, some of whom had immunity. Now that, I find wonderfully rich.

This was my favorite part: “Indictments of over a dozen people were recommended.”

[calimary]

18. Maybe that's the key takeaway?

We won’t know til actual indictments are issued.

I can’t help but suspect trump would try to meet with her or take her out to fancy lunch at the Plaza Hotel or some such place, to try a charm offensive. I’d guess he’d see her as somebody who could be rolled.

[stopdiggin]

35. so this individual has now engaged in multiple interviews?

might that possibly be part of the answer right there?

I don't feel a great deal of 'negativity' on her part - but I don't know if I'm ever going to be a big fan of '15 minutes of fame' either. And - I'm also a little dubious that the cause of justice (this case or any other) was really well served here.

[agingdem]

10. so true!

My husband was an attorney..he never made it past the jury pool.. I was dismissed two questions into voir dire: (1) level of education (M.A.ED.)...(2) husband's profession (judge and counsels sent their regards... to my husband)...

the jury foreman was clearly enjoying herself ... if nothing else she dispelled the mystic surrounding the mechanics of a grand jury..and regardless of how she came across, she was more noble, more real than Trump and his inner circle of sewer rats...

[Buckeyeblue]

15. Why don't they like educated people on a jury?

It seems like they would have professional experience where they would have to make decisions based on facts rather than emotion. Isn't that what we want?

[dlk]

23. It depends on whether you're with the prosecution or the defense

As well as the facts of the case, and whether or not they support your side.

[wnylib]

24. Depends on the crime, the defendant, and

the way that the prosecutor and defense attorney intend to handle the case.

[agingdem]

29. "Jury of their peers" as it should be..

the 22 year old that beat up his girlfriend/the 30 year old that robbed a convenience store/the 45 year old, drunk behind the wheel, struck and killed two pedestrians...real people with real life experiences sitting in judgement does not require an M.A. or a PHD, it requires common sense...

That elitist Rudy, Lindsey, Mark, and by absentia Trump, testifying before an everyman jury( blue collar/white collar/educated/non educated/ black/white/hispanic)..an everyman jury not intimidated by wealth or position, listening and passing judgement on the people who want their vote but wouldn't have them in their homes...that was refreshing and inspiring...

[stopdiggin]

38. ah. the old, 'only the REAL people" have common sense rag

Thanks for reinforcing the anti-intellectual, anti-education prejudice that runs so deep in this country. Quick! We need some real answers! NO! Not the 'elitists!' Where's the nearest midwestern coffee shop - sporting a group of aging, overweight white guys wearing seed corn hats?

'Cause everyone knows having an education rots your brain ...

[agingdem]

42. That's ridiculous...

My family: educators/lawyers/doctors/architects/accountants…I’m saying you don’t need a college degree to make wise decisions…you don’t need a college degree to tell the difference between a good guy and a bad guy..

My parents were not educated (Holocaust survivors) nor were my in-laws but they had more common sense than educated idiots like Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham, Josh Hawley et al...and rather than balk at jury duty, they considered sitting on a jury was an honor...

[Tree Lady]

66. I agree with you I am not college educated

went to a business college for bookkeeping many years ago. I am far from knowng everything you learn in a 4 yr college but I have read a lot through my lifetime and read lots here daily.

Maybe I can't write the perfect essay or know all the big words but I think I know enough to understand what I need to.

I have two grown daughters and they both are doing well both make over 100k, one went to college and one worked her way up into management. I think both are intelligent.

I have been on two juries and found the experience interesting. We came from all walks of life and without saying our beliefs I could tell who was left leaning or right but we all wanted to follow the law and were able to get a fair answer on each jury trial.

[stopdiggin]

67. and as an intelligent individual

(from a line of intelligent individuals) - you are certainly aware that the deficits presented by Cruz, Graham, Hawley, etc. - have nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that they have an education.

So why would you keep hammering on that point? 'Common sense' (and the ability to serve both honorable, and effectively, on a jury) - has not a single thing to do with educational achievement. Period.

[inthewind21]

57. You do

realize this is EXACTLY what you are saying about people who don't have high education. Hello pot, meet kettle! Ironic screen name.

[stopdiggin]

68. there was a bit of sarcasm embedded there

some people have trouble with that.

(I'll apologize for caricaturing bubbas - the moment, some of us, stop suggesting they might be better suited to sitting on a jury - or rendering 'common sense' decisions.)
----- -----

[Buckeyeblue]

43. I'm not saying you need to be educated to be on a jury.

I'm responding to the post where the writer indicated that he/she was excused once they answered the question about their level of education.

[localroger]

31. They consider education and experince X factors

They don't want those unknown things getting in the way of the narrative they are trying to set up in their court presentation. I get called up every few years for Federal jury service, which mostly involves things like large industrial disasters, and I can tell I'm off as soon as I say I work in industry and have testified in court cases involving liability.

[inthewind21]

56. They do

And it's not that simple. That's why they ask in selection of say, a murder trial, has anyone had a family member or anyone close to them murdered? Drug trial, has anyone in the pool had anyone close killed or arrested for drugs. If so, you may not be as impartial as someone one who has not. If the case is against a nurse, anyone in here a nurse? And so on.

[Caliman73]

58. Because "educated" people aren't as easily swayed by emotional arguments...

I was on a jury panel once where the information was presented in the form of a narrative. It was about a fight that took place in a parking lot over a parking space. The scenario was laid out by the prosecutor in all of its drama. A couple of the members of the panel were asked what they would vote if they had to vote at that time and all of them said "guilty"

When it came my turn I said, "not guilty". The prosecutor asked "Why?" I said, although the scenario sounded bad, the foundation of our legal system is "innocent until proven guilty". I said that the prosecution had presented a scenario, not evidence of guilt so if I was asked to give a verdict at that very moment, I would have to vote not guilty. The judge said I was the only panelist that had voted correctly... I was removed pre-emptively by the prosecutor.

Attorneys want jurors who will help them WIN their case. Proving the facts in evidence is a tactic, not the full strategy. If they can appeal to emotion, that is a lot easier then having to prove facts, especially when all the facts are not known.

Like much of our history, our legal system has been mythologized as this completely neutral system built on adherence to logic, evidence, and law. "Justice is blind" ... remember? The reality is that if justice were blind, you wouldn't have severely overworked and underpaid public defenders who plead out cases where the person didn't actually engage in the crime, but waiting for trial, would have the suspect in custody for months, whereas you have organized crime bosses and crooked politicians like Trump who are kept out of prison by legal tactics designed to run out the clock.

Our legal system, compared to other legal systems, is at or above the others in terms of quality, but it is not based straightly on "Facts rather than emotion".

[rlegro]

34. I once was summoned to jury duty....

During voir dire, the defense attorneys asked me in open court about my profession and I said I was a journalist. Boom! The process was halted while the attorneys and a bailiff accompanied me into the federal judge's private chambers, along with a court reporter and her steno machine. The judge, formerly the state's Republican attorney general, grilled me for 5 or 10 minutes about my impartiality. Yup, I had covered trials as a newsman. Yes, I had personal opinions. But as a journalist I said I was trained to be fair-minded and, while I knew the name of a defendant in the case (a public figure), I could listen to the case and make a fair decision. No, I couldn't, because I was struck from the jury. I had been struck in numerous other court proceedings but never with the active participation of the presiding judge at any level. Oh, yes, those in the innermost legal and political systems believe educated and informed people largely are inscrutable jury prospects. They want jurists who are not so much peers as peered at.

[inthewind21]

60. I call

B/S

[quickesst]

16. When I watched the interview..

... I thought to myself, how much more powerful would this have been if they had chosen an adult to deliver the news instead of what seemed to me, a giddy 14-year-old dishing on her main rival's prospects of getting into big trouble. No matter how you spin it, she did the prosecution no favors.

[True Dough]

17. All of the legal minds

that I follow on social media have been expressing similar sentiment.

[quickesst]

21. Rarely..

.... do I ever feel lifted, a little embarrassed, with a healthy dash of cringe at the same time. This is one of those rare occasions.

[Deminpenn]

25. I saw it more as the wonderment of someone

who had never interacted with the legal system. She seems to be one of those Americans who just went about living her life, not paying attention to politics or having much civic involvement.

O'Donnell showed a clip of her explaining why she decided to talk. I found her reply heartening, that she believed for the American justice system to work, people need to say yes when asked to serve. Her eyes were opened; maybe others will be, too.

[betsuni]

70. +1

[quickesst]

79. I respect that you have an opinion..

... and I understand what you're saying, but in my opinion, there's a distinct difference between the reaction to wonderment of an adult and a teenager. If I close my eyes, and listen to the interviews, it's easier for me to imagine the voice belong to a giddy, coy 14-year-old teenager daring to put her her hand inside the cookie jar but not quite grabbing a cookie, rather than that of an actual adult. She did the prosecution no favors, and may have made their jobs harder than they needed to be.

[oldsoftie]

39. I saw a clip & thought the same thing. "Why is she smiling so much?"

Although smiling or giggling can be a response to nerves, it didnt look good at all. It looked like someone saying "We're gonna get 'em!!"

[quickesst]

80. I've heard more than one prosecutor..

... say that in their long careers, they have never had such an experience as this, and glad they haven't. I have to stand by these respected prosecutors. It wasn't a good thing.

[oldsoftie]

81. I think its a terrible thing for this case. I hope I'm wrong

[quickesst]

83. I hope you're right..

... but apparently the GOstaPo is already making plans to use it.

[TheRickles]

19. Why was she even allowed to speak on camera?

I'd never heard of a grand jury member speaking to the public before an actual trial or judicial decision.

[bpj62]

20. Subpoena

Her name was listed on one of the Subpoenas that was listed in the information that the judge released and the press tracked her down. Once she has been dismissed she is allowed to talk about certain aspects of her geand jury service.

[TheRickles]

32. Thanks! I did not know that.

[mnhtnbb]

22. I found it very distressing to see her gush

about shaking hands with Giuliani. I'd prefer to spit in his face than shake his hand.

[agingdem]

36. I get it and why not...this is her once in a lifetime lollapalooza..

Giuliani, Meadows, Graham, Kemp, Raffensperger, Ralston...good guys/bad guys but still celebrities of a sort...

[Hortensis]

54. She came into this without any notion that people might WANT to spit

in his face. She was and apparently still is extremely unsophisticated. Astonishing but informative as hell that she'd never even heard the telephone conversation between tRump and Raffensperger before it was presented to the jurors.

Her understanding was an empty slate that she still seems to feel should feature observations of character she gleaned from how he personally presented himself during interview. As professional charmers and liars Giuliani and Lindsey Graham both of course intended, she found them both charming and believable.

When she ended by earnestly explaining to America how important it is to be involved so the system can work as it should, though, it suggested she may even vote for what sounds like the first time in 2024.

My gleaning from watching her in return is that she was...sincere. Fortunately, foreperson or no, she was one of 24 on that disbanded grand jury.

[PufPuf23]

71. I am wondering who all prepped her for the interviews.

Could be as simple as kind help from the interviewer and staff.

Could be party with mal intent.

She could be an actress. She fit in the correct things well, as you noted.

Thought the excitement over meeting Guiliani weird as well as the sketches she made of Graham et al.

Caught me flat footed, so unexpected.

[Hortensis]

72. :) Me too! And all possible. I don't talk politics

with many young people these days and those I do tend to be much more...aware, if not necessarily informed.

But, who knows, perhaps "weirdly" empty-headed could be what came across from wanting to talk about him without revealing what she now knows and from sticking to describing the initial big enthusiasm she had for getting to meet with someone she only knew was famous for something.

Whatever, wow. I "stick" with being glad she was part of a group of 24 who produced a joint product, with considerable guidance.

[2naSalit]

48. It was inspring me...

To vomit! It surely was a cringe-worthy thing to watch.

The only positive I could find in the whole thing, after all the gushing was that she showed she was a fan of the magats but willing to suspend that in order to fulfill her mandate under her oath.

I watched several segments and watched her body language, she looked to the left when preparing for her more candid responses but to the right when evaluating her words for something she needed to be very cautious about.

The unvarnished giddy demeanor was, I don't have a word to describe it.

She did, at one point, say something that I thought was profound after all that, yet I laud her for saying it and it made me feel a little less horrified about her. When she explained why she participated in the special GJ, she gave a very succinct and well spoken recitation of a citizen's responsibility to participate in the legal and political processes in order for it to function. Basically the the agreement of social contract, but to have a young person, giddy and naive, seriously explain this important point, was the best and most worthy part of that whole interview.

When she said people shouldn't blow off jury duty and suggested a more appropriate way to view that responsibility, I was impressed by her recognition of that and her ability to articulate that.

But that was about it. I would rather she just made a PSA with that message!

[Paladin]

74. I'm with you. I thought she was Godawful.

Such favors she's done for trump and his attorneys.

[2naSalit]

75. Yeah...

I know. Don't get me started!

[ecstatic]

73. And she's never voted? I have no idea what to think

Everyone is saying she gave too many clues and hints. I don't think so. Her opinion of what's "not a shocker" might not match mine. I'm praying that some of it was performance art. How can you be a blank slate and also a Giuliani fan??

[oldsoftie]

87. As BIG as the '20 election was, 1/3 of eligible voters still didnt vote

I tell this to all the fools who think its IMPOSSIBLE that Biden got 81M votes when Obama never got anywhere NEAR that number. Yes, a record number. But STILL 10s of millions didnt vote

[panader0]

26. My main hope is that her interview did not damage the prosecutions' case.

Last night Lawrence O said that the judge said it was okay for jurors to give interviews. It seems so
strange. A separate Grand Jury will now have to decide whether to indict based on this jury's
recommendations. I hope her interview will not be seen as prejudicing the new Jury.

[Danascot]

49. If the defense thinks she may have prejudiced the jury

or otherwise compromised the case(s). you can bet they will be all over it.

She came off as giggly and giddy that she knows a secret that others don't. She clearly is seeking attention. She didn't vote in the last two elections, hadn't heard of Trump's perfect Georgia phone calls. She's not affiliated with any political party, she's between jobs and she seemed to be starstruck meeting Giuliani and Graham. ... and the rest of the jury thought she was the most qualified to be the jury foreperson. The term loose cannon comes to mind.

Plus, the MAGAs now know who she is and she may be in danger.

Anderson Cooper and Elie Honiq discuss her interview (brief video):

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/wincing-anderson-cooper-and-elie-honig-blast-trump-grand-jury-forewomans-media-blitz-horrible-idea/

[GGoss]

28. Thank You For That !!!

I couldn't agree more !

[spanone]

33. ...K&R...

[jalan48]

44. Why did she do the interviews in the first place? Did she give a reason?

[inthewind21]

61. As stated

upthread, her name was on a subpoena released by the judge and the media tracked her down.

[jalan48]

63. Thanks-I didn't see anyone interviewing her explain how they got her name and tracked her down.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

47. People hate to be reminded that no one is coming to save them.

[TheBlackAdder]

50. She's gonna blab, it's just a matter of time.

[delisen]

51. I saw someone quite different from what you describe

I saw a highly intelligent, with very good command of the English language. She was able to communicate effectively, conveying her emotions and reasoning about the subject at hand. She seemed to be carefully considering, before answering questions, the orders of the judge on what she could speak to, and what she could not. I thought she demonstrated integrity.

I appreciated her sharing that she thought it would be cool to swear in a former president but that she was able reject the impulse because calling him would add nothing to the proceedings.

I have spent much energy over years to try and bring my public persona more into line with my “everyday” self-to be perhaps a “truer” me. I do not denigrate the public performers but I think the practice of democracy benefits from having numbers of people being thoughtfully and transparently themselves.

[PCIntern]

55. I did not say that she was not intelligent...

She is clearly bright with certain personal quirkiness that makes her actually rather endearing. What I meant to say was that we are so used to watching these Talking Heads on TV, who either are or pretend to be steeped in the incredibly complex and arcane aspects of the law, the process, and the media, that we often lose sight of regular people. Perhaps I wasn’t as clear as I should be, but I compose that very early in the morning on my brain was not functioning 100%.

[GusBob]

53. I agree the whole thing is a joke

eom

[Autumn]

59. She's young and excited. How many of us have got to serve on a jury involving a corrupt

ex president and his famous team who attempted to overthrow the government ? She got to see a lot of what we only suspect. I thought she was delightful.

[Renew Deal]

62. She was great.

And you're right. I have no idea why she spoke to use it but I appreciate her perspective, especially about being able to see behind the curtain. I also wonder if her speaking out puts pressure on prosecutors to do something. She basically said she witnessed crimes and at minimum those should be prosecuted.

[Kennah]

76. She was positively giddy talking about Lindsey and Rudy

[Hekate]

78. Well, that puts a different spin on the chatty little woman's interview, & I rather like it.

[Meowmee]

86. Disagree

Totally. These interviews should never have happened. So to be judged by peers we need to be judged by unhinged idiots? No ty.