General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: MSNBC : Juror 2, the oncology nurse, has been excused from duty. She had concerns about her identity becoming public [View all]moniss
(4,279 posts)"every trial" and people need to realize that someone may go to great lengths to get on the jury for purposes of voting not guilty. As it is I see the media basically ignoring this aspect and devoting their focus to whether jurors are found who can be "fair" to the Orange Ruski. Look at how much media time has been given to him nodding off for example. About the most meaningless thing to spend time discussing but it was the lead item for much of the media reporting.
I see tons of comments from many sources on the shallowest of things regarding the trial. People generally need to WTFU and realize that fretting over this or that detail of what Cohen or Stormy might say for example is far less a problem than staying laser focused on the actual task at hand with the jurors. But as usual the media will spend most of their time prattling away filling air time with endlessly repeated memes echoed by "analyst" after "analyst" through segment after segment.
They could actually take some time and educate their listeners a bit about the pitfalls and arguments against requiring unanimous verdicts in lower level felony non-violent cases. Especially involving the wealthy and famous. They could educate their listeners about the insanity of an argument the majority on the SC used in the Ramos case regarding the issue of unanimity. But that would take people with half a f'ng brain to realize the ramifications of Ramos and the stunning insanity of using the very thing the court decried as needing to be rejected while at the same time engaging in that very conduct itself to support it's decision.
But that's alright. No need for increased knowledge. Not when we can fill the air time with what the Orange Ruski is wearing, whether he smiles or frowns, whether he nods off, where are the kids, what does the retired farm couple in the diner in Des Moines think, how many former prosecutors/lawyers/judges we can round up to give us endless speculation about what testimony somebody might give and then hypothetically what impact that hypothetical testimony might hypothetically have on the prosecution/defense/jury and certainly last but not least we'll be treated to the spectacle of countless reporters chasing down Lindsey Graham and MTG for their comments about the latest "development".
Edit history
![](du4img/smicon-reply-new.gif)