What was MSNBC thinking?

[imanamerican63]

I get when you get an interview like a grand jury foreperson, but to me? I would think it would completely compromise any witnesses who testified or any leverage they have those who might be indicted?

Yes, the grand jury may indict someone or more, but the defense can use this against the state in fighting for their defense?

I hope it won’t be such a huge deal, but man I hate if does come back to bit someone in the ass?

[LonePirate]

1. She gave interviews to several outlets, not just MSNBC.

[imanamerican63]

3. That more ammunition for the defense?

Call me crazy, but bad idea !

[Rebl2]

13. I agree!

[Laura PourMeADrink]

78. Agree! Plus "whataboutism" :)

[hlthe2b]

2. CNN, AJC, NYT, and several other media interviewed her as well.

[imanamerican63]

4. See #3

[edisdead]

54. Expert I heard today said no big deal

Not sure which show it was on but basically said all it gives them is MAYBE some help in a push for a venue change but that was likely to be sought anyway.

[republianmushroom]

5. View ship means money, and money is the bottom line.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

81. Yes. For profit enterprises! That simple.

[Meadowoak]

6. I think it was irresponsible for ANY media to air the interview from that dim wit.

[brush]

12. Yeah, and she was the foreman. Makes you wonder...

what the others were like since they elected her foreman?

[niyad]

25. She was the FOREPERSON.

[brush]

28. You're right. I knew I should've changed that.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

38. Lol

[NJCher]

53. being foreperson

re this: Makes you wonder...

what the others were like since they elected her foreman?

She said on an MSNBC interview on Lawrence tonight that she was the only one who wanted the job.

------

As I have mentioned a few times on this board, I am a social justice advocate working with the court system and have done this work for 3 decades. I have seen far worse jury forepersons than she. You would be appalled if you saw the reasoning skills, the prejudices, etc. It is scary as hell.

She actually isn't too bad from what I've seen in comparison.

[brush]

68. What she revealed is promising but such a loose tongue.

[NJCher]

69. yes

I very much wish she had kept her mouth shut.

She is obviously quite naive in the ways of the court system.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

75. Do you find it common for a foreperson to speak

out like she is? I know, very few cases this big, but immediately struck me as a confidentiality failure.

[NJCher]

77. I do not support this woman in any way

Except for one thing she said, and that is that citizen involvement is essential in making our jury system work.

It isn’t a confidentiality failure. Katyal said last night she committed no errors in that area.

Naïveté in the way the courts actually work is her error. Adversaries will make the most of it, probably to no avail.

She just complicated the situation for no visible gain.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

80. Interesting, thanks. Strikes me as someone who loves the limelight.

[NJCher]

82. Possibly

She struck me as someone who was genuinely enthusiastic about her participation, the work the jury did, and that she wanted it to count for something.

Other than the last item I mention, she could have accomplished all those possible objectives at a later date and with even more effectiveness because she would have the advantage of what actually happened to provide perspective.

The fact that she has caused this damage to all the hard work this careful prosecutor has put together makes me nauseous.

She indulged herself without regard for the overall good and for that I cannot forgive her.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

84. So you think ok or not. Maybe read too fast but sounds

like you are saying two opposing things?

[brooklynite]

49. Its not the job of a media outlet to ensure a conviction...

[betsuni]

7. Why would it compromise anything?

[imanamerican63]

8. Stranger things have happened in the past, but I hope don't!

[betsuni]

14. How would it compromise anything?

[LuckyCharms]

20. To a national audience, she expressed her opinion as to the

"honesty" of Rudy Giuliani after "looking into his eyes".

Giuliani is probably not going to be recommended for indictment to the upcoming grand jury. But I'm almost certain he will be a witness for the prosecution during the final trial jury.

It appears that some people don't think her calling Giuliani "honest" on national television is a big deal.

I think it's a huge deal, and I think she should have kept her fucking mouth shut. A jury for the trial has not been chosen yet.

[Justice matters.]

23. Rudy has ZERO credibility nationwide, except for the MAGA fringe.

I doubt he will be called to testify. Maybe it's him who lied to the Special Grand Jury? It would not surprise anyone
sane looking.

[LuckyCharms]

24. And how many jurors in the final trial will be on the MAGA fringe?

1? 2? 3?

[Justice matters.]

26. The selection process for criminal trials' Jurors is extremely vetted.

In the Manafort trial, there was a Trump voter who said she could not exonerate him because the evidence showed without a doubt he was guilty, when compared to what the law stipulates.

Not every Republican voter is dishonest, and dishonesty can be discovered during Jurors selection.

[LuckyCharms]

29. So I'm gathering that even though she may have danced on eggshells

and perhaps followed the judge's instructions to the letter, you believe that her words had no effect on future trials (grand jury trials or otherwise), and that her words cast a neutral light on all proceedings going forward, thus having absolutely zero effect, either positive or negative, on the due process that all involved have a right to?

[Justice matters.]

31. She followed the Judge recommendations and didn't disclose who 'may' be indicted

by the Regular Grand Jury. Actually, the only person she naively put at risk is herself (MAGAts death threats, and she probably got some already).

[LuckyCharms]

32. That doesn't answer my question.

Also. the fact that she spoke on national television and put herself at risk is indeed just one of the reasons why she should not have spoken.

[Justice matters.]

33. Of course I agree she should not have spoken (and she should have been 'warned' of consequences).

But, she did.

She said nothing to disrupt the Regular Grand Jury deliberations though. Fani Willis will bring charges based on the results of their votes (majority rule) when compared to what the Georgia State Law requires.

That will not change.

[NJCher]

58. there's also

re this: Not every Republican voter is dishonest, and dishonesty can be discovered during Jurors selection.

People say all kinds of stuff about what they will or will not do in court, but when they get into the courtroom with that judge, jurors, prosecutor, lawyers, and all these other people serious about the trial, they straighten out their attitudes real fast, in most cases. The system is intimidating.

Not in all cases, by any means, but often enough.

Another example: Did you catch the jury foreperson's comment that many people who testified negotiated immunity right there in the courtroom? That made me laugh because it said to me they showed up thinking they were going to equivocate and they found out that wasn't going to fly.

[Midwestern Democrat]

35. Giuliani has been nationally famous for at least 30 years - I really don't think the opinion of some

unknown young lady is really going to have that much impact on all that many people - I knew who Giuliani was before she was even born.

[LuckyCharms]

36. Outside of deliberations,

expressing the opinion on the honesty of a particular witness as his testimony relates to a particular case is not exactly smart when the case is still in progress, and I don't care how well known the witness is.

There is absolutely no good that can come from her statement.

[Justice matters.]

63. What IF he 'flipped' on tfg? Nobody knows what he said.

She did not tell what exactly he suddenly was 'honest' about.

hair furhair didn't pay him his twenty grand a day.

And the case could be a RICO case too. He knows what RICO means...

[calimary]

61. Sure as hell is a big deal to me!

[Meowmee]

62. agree

completely... it is a big deal and that people are arguing it isn't shows how low things have gone here... literally nothing matters anymore... everything is fodder for the press, and others making money off of, and the country can be thrown to fascism but no, no one has any responsibility for that... yes they do, they have a large part of the responsibility. And to see such things makes me feel seriously ill. To see a juror on this jury who does not qualify at all to be in any position of decision making in anything, much less on any jury, and much less a foreperson, and in addition, abusing the process is a disgrace.

[Cha]

17. Good question that's not being answered..

Link to tweet

[gab13by13]

9. She did nothing wrong,

This is a right wing talking point. Funny no one here called her a witch yet.

[LuckyCharms]

21. You're right. Your statement is the first time I've seen the possibility

of anyone even hinting she is a "witch".

[MustBeTheBooz]

34. But does she weigh the same as a duck? nt

[Skittles]

44. don't you get it, LC?

she's "delightful", not a nonsensical babbling idiot

[Paladin]

76. +1000. (nt)

[Laura PourMeADrink]

39. What????

[RockRaven]

10. If people expect MSNBC to behave any better than FUX or CNN, they have some wildly

misplaced hopes or esteem. Cable news is gonna cable news, regardless of which slice of the public they have decided is their target audience.

[imanamerican63]

11. I'm losing faith in them all!

[elleng]

15. She appears to have taken 'instruction' on what she might discuss seriously,

from the judge and prosecution team.

MSNBC was thinking she could provide interesting information,, and she did.

[malaise]

16. The first interview was with AP

The first TV interview was with NBC

[central scrutinizer]

18. See response #15 in this thread

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=17668834

For a calming opinion

[Buckeyeblue]

19. I don't think it's a big deal

When the indictments drop no one will even remember her interview. They'll be off on the next story.

[BigmanPigman]

22. I agree

and I will likely be ridiculed by DU since apparently you can't express an opinion anymore. I even got called a supporter of tRump for having an opinion of my own. That interview did more harm than good. OK, now I guess I will get more nasty replies and I do not care!!!

[Scrivener7]

27. If nothing else, when people are indicted their lawyers will use this as a delay. They'll

bring up some specious complaint, even if they know it is bullshit, to delay a trial. And a delay that takes them into the next election season is gold to them.

And yes. The day before yesterday, I saw a poster question another's mental health multiple times in a thread because the poster disagreed with him. The opinion authoritarians around here are getting really creepy.

[Justice matters.]

30. Any guilty verdict will be appealed.

Maybe not the foot-soldiers (the fake electors), but the higher ups, that's a given.

Still is a State trial, even if moved to a Federal courthouse.

Federal elections don't delay anything.

[NJCher]

59. even though federal elections

might not affect this case, the trump delay policy is by no means a wise one. Look how this and other cases have all blown up in his face all at once.

And a delay that takes them into the next election season is gold to them.

That depends on how the election goes. It could just as easily sink them.

[NJCher]

64. didn't see it, don't know who

saw a poster question another's mental health multiple times in a thread because the poster disagreed with him.

++but there are plenty of people here who vent their negative emotions as opinions. This kind of stuff has no place on a discussion board unless it's in the Mental Health forum.

I'm talking about this kind of commenting: "We're F%ked." Or one from the other day that said the country is going down the tubes. Things are going to get worse. The country can't function with this kind of attitude.

What does that contribute? I mean, really: of what value is that?

Emotions are contagious and depressive attitudes like this can spread. That's a fact.

Take it the hell out of the forum and to your psychiatrist, where a person like this should be instead of posting on a political forum.

[Scrivener7]

72. You are talking about opinions, and everyone is entitled to them. We are here because we

are looking to share opinions with others. If we want only opinions we agree with, we should go elsewhere. Expressing the opinion "we're fucked" or "the country is going down the tubes" is not a psychological condition that requires a psychiatrist's intervention.

I am talking about one poster questioning another's mental health because they disagree.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

41. Agree. All good. Hoping this cluster will settle down?

Yikes.. just trying to be a voice of reason, which I am not

[BigmanPigman]

47. I thought of creating a DU Poll last night

but thought twice and decided not to since I didn't want to instigate more cause for disagreements on this topic.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

56. My dear BP, we are fucked

[BigmanPigman]

57. Yes, I know.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

60. I know you know :)

[Scrivener7]

73. Oh, dear. Mustn't say that. Above, a poster is insisting that if one wants to say "we're fucked"

one should seek psychiatric intervention.

One must be careful of the sensibilities.

[allegorical oracle]

37. Alternet is quoting CBS: Attorneys moving to quash indictments due to public statements by the

the foreperson:

After the forewoman heading the Fulton County, Georgia special grand jury investigating Donald Trump and his allies gave multiple interviews this week about the group’s recommendation to indict more than a dozen people, attorneys for some who might be facing possible indictment are moving to kill any legal or law enforcement action against them.

"CBS News has learned that lawyers close to several GOP witnesses in Fulton County are preparing to move to quash any possible indictments by DA based on the public statements by the forewoman of the special grand jury, per two people familiar with the discussions," CBS News' Robert Costa reports.

Forgot the link, but my 'graphs above pretty well say it. Still, here's the link:

https://www.alternet.org/attorneys-georgia-legal-action/

[LuckyCharms]

40. And there you have it.

Certainly an unintended consequence, but a consequence nonetheless.

And there will be more unintended consequences coming.

This won't go anywhere in my opinion, but it will cause some amount of delay, which is the intent.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

43. Think we have to be prepared for a total down. trump is evil to the core.

There has been SO much time since the GA case started. Plenty of time for him to bribe. We are fucked.

[Captain Zero]

74. Oh, I've always thought witness and jury tampering

Was next for trump. He will still be committing crimes in jail if he ever gets there.

[allegorical oracle]

46. Prolly be an inconvenient delay and hopefully little more. Wonder if the attys can/will shop for

a right-wing judge.

[brooklynite]

48. "working to quash"

IOW: they're preparing a contingency plan for a new situation. That's what they're paid for. I see no indication that this new strategy will be successful.

[brooklynite]

45. "I would think it would completely compromise any witnesses"

Why?

What did the Foreperson say that compromised any evidence?

[allegorical oracle]

51. She did little more than add a spot of daylight to sprout the attorneys' interest. Katyal is on

right now saying the foreperson didn't do anything wrong because she was on a special grand jury, not one that will make the actual decisions about indictments. (Georgia has a special law.)

[NJCher]

66. saw that

and he's right. Katyal is one of the sharpest attorneys on television.

[wiggs]

50. listened to right of center talk host, Dan Abrams, who was appalled that this

juror would act like an attention grabbing 30 something in a reality show with little sense of decorum.

All I could think about was how this guy, and his like minded ilk, tolerated and supported the most infantile, toddler-esque, self-serving, reality show host as president...setting an example and tone for countless gop wannabees like MTG, Santos, and more. No problem major problem there, for a much, much more important position.

No sense of irony...or loss of memory.

[betsuni]

55. +1

[Laura PourMeADrink]

83. +1. * Love "toddler-esque" nt

[Generic Brad]

52. It's not her fault the media sought her out

It’s Trump’s fault. He claimed he was totally exonerated which prompted reporters to hone in on the jurors. He made her an interview target. And his stupid machinations failed.

[Meowmee]

65. They and the others were thinking

we can make money off of this idiot and get attention etc. Because bottom line that is what matters. They already sold out the country to fascists in the 2016 nazi campaign and in many other things they did. Even if there are not serious repercussions it is still a big deal.

[Calista241]

67. Apparently the grand jury members went to social gatherings at the prosecutor's office.

With the fucking prosecutors. Jurors and prosecutors at the same party, while the jury is still sitting. That just reeks of bias and improper influence.

I can't think of anything dumber they could have done, maybe aside from trying to sit on the jury themselves. We'll never get Trump as long as we have idiots running things.

[MFM008]

70. Stuff like this

Is how the maggot keeps getting off the hook.

[Paladin]

79. Exactly. When will we tire of doing him favors? (nt)

[betsuni]

71. It's news, that's the business.